House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I want to lay my cards on the table straight away and say that I support the motion and I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I have been here for nearly 25 years, and in that time I have voted on every available occasion to abolish the House of Lords. If I have not been able to abolish the House of Lords—self-evidently, I have not—I have voted for change in the House of Lords.

I will propose some changes that the Government could deliver, should they so wish, to improve democracy without achieving my ultimate objective of massive reorganisation of the formulation of the House of Lords. It is not tenable in the 21st century to have an unelected House deciding on policy. It is not tenable to have hereditary peers deciding on policy. It is not tenable to have hereditary peers who are elected by other hereditary peers, with very small mandates—sometimes as few as three votes—deciding policies that affect the lives of my constituents. At a time when the Government are seeking to reduce the membership of this House from 650 to 600 and to remove completely Euro Members of Parliament, whose powers and responsibilities will be transferred back to this House, it is not tenable for us to allow the House of Lords to continue unchanged.

The recently appointed Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, is a former Conservative MP whom I remember being a member of the Cabinets of Mrs Thatcher and John Major when I first came here. He has said that there is no way the Lords can defend its current size of 820 peers and that

“we’ve been faffing around on this for some time now. And my fear would be that unless we take the initiative here someone else will”.

Let me suggest some simple initiatives. I will set the bar very low, because the Government’s position appears to be that they cannot make massive change, so they will make no change. A proposal to bring some things back into kilter is something that we in this House should support, and I suggest these three simple changes. First, let us remove from the House of Lords the 92 hereditary peers, 91 of whom, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), happen to be men and only one of whom is a woman. Those 92 hereditary peers are elected by as few as three votes.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, those hereditary peers are elected. The motion states that the Government should

“put in place plans to significantly reduce the number of unelected Lords”.

Is he proposing that the number of hereditary peers should stay the same, if he supports the motion?

[Mr Hanson]

If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am saying, he will hear that I have three small points to make—three very low bars. The first low bar is the removal of the hereditary peers. The second low bar is not to fill any more vacancies with unelected peers until the House of Lords gets down to a reasonable size, below that of the House of Commons.

On hereditary peers, let me just say that one of those recently elected is the Lord Fairfax of Cameron, whose great-great-great-great-great-great-something grandfather got his peerage because he was the first Englishman to travel to Scotland to swear allegiance to the new King James I. I happen to think that in the 21st century, we should pick our legislators on more than the fact that one of their ancestors knew how to get to Scotland quite quickly. That is no way to run a modern House of Lords.

Lord Thurso, the last Member to be elected as an hereditary peer, was an hereditary peer but he renounced his peerage, came to this place and sat on the Liberal Democrat Benches until he lost his seat, when he suddenly rediscovered his blue blood. That is no way to run a modern democracy. In April this year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to abolish hereditary peers. A Bill in another place in the name of my noble Friend Lord Grocott is designed to do something very similar to what the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) has suggested: not to fill the position of hereditary peers who retire or die. Those are both simple steps that could be taken now to remove the hereditary peers. Those things would be part of a wider package in due course, but the Government could certainly do them now. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member of this House would object to a small Bill to meet those objectives.

My second suggestion is not to fill vacancies until the size of the House of Lords gets down to that of the House of Commons. What is wrong with that? I want massive change—I have voted to abolish the Lords—but in the absence of consensus, let us look at how we can reduce the number of Members over time. That is perfectly reasonable.

The third suggestion may be revolutionary, but it is an attempt to find a compromise. I agree with the Government that Members of Parliament should represent equal numbers of constituents. Let us do that, but let us keep 650 MPs and have a boundary review on that basis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said. In my part of the world, Wales, we would lose seats under such a review—we have 55,000 to 60,000 electors in each constituency—but we would have the same number of constituents and reasonable representation. But, no, this Government are seeking to reduce the representation from 650 to 600 Members, while in previous 18 months the former Prime Minister appointed 132 peers to the House of Lords.

I am sorry, but I happen to think we need radical surgery and radical change. I have three simple suggestions to get the ball rolling: remove the hereditaries, freeze appointments and consider keeping 650 Members of Parliament with equal numbers of voters, including—dare I say it?—in the Western Isles and the Isle of Wight, which are slightly different. Let us look at those things and make sure we make some radical changes on the road to democratising this Parliament and giving a lead to the rest of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It has been an honour to listen to this well-attended and, at times, feisty and passionate debate. I must admit that I am somewhat surprised at the SNP’s obsession with this particular issue and that they would choose this subject for their Opposition day debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) noted, we could have discussed other issues. I lost count of the number of times that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about ermine.

Let us look at the public mood on this matter. A YouGov poll of June 2012 asked a simple question on the proposition:

“Reform of the House of Lords is vital: it should be a priority to change the system”.

Only 18% agreed, with 20% saying the House of Lords should be left alone. The overwhelming majority—52%—said that it was not and should not be a priority. The 2015 Conservative manifesto agreed with this principle by saying that it was “not a priority” in the next—meaning this—Parliament.

As the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons said at the beginning of the debate, the House of Lords has begun reform in the last few years. Important reforms have been introduced and they have been successful because they have been driven by the Lords themselves. Since the introduction of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, for instance, peers have been able to retire simply by giving written notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments.

[Jeremy Quin]

The Minister has referred to reforms that have taken place over the past few years. Does he share my concern about the possibility that the motion, as drafted, could reduce the number of appointed peers to less than the number of hereditary peers?

[Chris Skidmore]

That is an interesting point, which I do not think has been made before in the debate. The motion could, in fact, suggest that the number of elected peers remain at 93, which would cause something of a constitutional abnormality.

Since the introduction of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, peers have been able to retire. Such retirement is permanent, and cannot be rescinded. More than 50 peers have chosen to retire, including 16 so far in 2016. That important reform has had an impact not just on the numbers in the House of Lords, but on the way in which it operates. The Act also provided for peers to be expelled for non-attendance, and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 gave the Lords new powers to expel its members for serious misconduct. The cost of the Lords has also been reduced by 14% in real terms since 2010.

Let me now deal with some of the excellent speeches that have been made today. I welcome the return of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) to the Front Bench. We once engaged in a debate together in Westminster Hall, but I am glad to see him back in the Chamber, and I am glad to see the rest of the shadow ministerial team as well.

When speaking of the number of peers who had been created, the hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot to mention that it was a Labour Government who created 408 of the current number. More recently, Labour used a peerage to appoint Baroness Chakrabarti to the shadow Cabinet. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman decided to undermine her position here today.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath made a fiery speech highlighting the essential fact of the British constitution—what matters is what works—and the vital role of the institutions that make up our Union. He also cited a key fact about boundary reform, pointing out that the call for equally sized constituencies had been a clarion call since the Chartists and the People’s Charter of 1838.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), my excellent predecessor, said that he was even willing to put his own marital relations at risk for the sake of his belief in reform of the House of Lords. He also said that boundary reform to bring about equally sized constituencies was an essential priority.