Public Sector Pay Policy

Luke Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing the debate. I am sure that he will agree with much of what I say.

Public sector pay has been a hot topic for parties across the political divide over the past few years. The 1% public sector pay cap, which was introduced in 2010 by the coalition Government, was seen at the time as a reasonable approach to help to reduce the deficit while keeping pay increases in line with the very low rate of inflation. The cap, which formed part of the Government’s long-term economic plan, helped to get this country’s public finances back under control and ensure that the finances that keep the public sector running got back on to a more sustainable footing.

In recent months and years, with some of the deficit costs having come down and the Government having met some of their targets, we have seen some of that effort and sacrifice bear fruit. That necessary process allowed the UK Government to protect public sector jobs and services, which I believe is why the Scottish National party Administration in Scotland and the Labour Administration in Wales also implemented the 1% pay cap policy.

However, as I am sure hon. Members across the Chamber would agree, that was never intended to be a permanent or even a long-term solution. That is why I am pleased that the UK Government are moving away from the 1% public sector pay policy in favour of a more flexible approach. It is more than fair that that shift in pay policy comes now. However, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned, the policy helped to address some of the issues that were emerging between private and public sector pay. As a result of the great recession, we saw a decrease in private sector pay that was not reflected as severely in public sector pay. We have since seen a divergence, and then a convergence.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Is the situation he describes not exacerbated by pensions differences? The fact is that the pensions of public sector workers are far more valuable than those in the private sector.

[Luke Graham]

That is right. We need to look at pay, but we need to look at overall packages as well, including pensions and other rights and responsibilities that both public and private sector employees benefit from. I am really clear that the public sector should always be as competitive and attractive as the private sector in both pay and packages, and I certainly do not argue that there should be any decrease in that.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman appears to be outlining a case for the end of public sector pay restraint. Will he advise us what he feels the Government could do to ensure that Departments are able to fund the pay rises that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) talked about? Might that include the Treasury investing in those Departments?

[Luke Graham]

Yes, that is the point I am making. Recommendations will be forthcoming as part of the delegated pay reviews. I will come to the NHS shortly, but some of the NHS pay increases that were put forward have been funded. I am sure that the Minister will talk about funding in further detail.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am sympathetic to the points my hon. Friend raises, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing the debate. The pay review bodies historically have had their hands tied by the Government’s 1% pay cap. Is it time that the Government listened to those independent pay review bodies and implemented the meaningful increases they recommend, given that they have regard to recruitment and retention issues throughout the public sector and particularly in the sectors in which they recommend increases?

[Luke Graham]

I am a Back Bencher, not a Minister, so I am wary of committing the Government, but yes. My point is that where pay increases are recommended, the Government should fund them. Given that inflation is now increasing after a period in which people had to make sacrifices and we had to have more financial control, it is only fair that we ensure that there are sustainable pay increases across Departments and the different sectors of public life to reflect the increases in the private sector.

As real wages grow across the United Kingdom—much like the economy as a whole—I am glad that some hard-working public sector staff are reaping the benefits of the UK Government’s new, more flexible approach. For example, the pay rises of between 6.5% and 29% over the next three years in the NHS in England represent great progress. I welcome the fact that pay increases will be larger for lower-paid staff and smaller for those on the highest salaries. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned that those increases compare with increases of 3% plus 1% in Scotland.

We should be really clear, because sometimes we do not get the full story on Scottish issues. We speak in favour of some of the pay increases, but it is clear that the increases have been between 6.5% and 29% in the NHS in England, and 3% plus 1% in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman said. We all face challenges—I just wish the Scottish National party would be more honest about those challenges.

[Neil Gray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Graham]

I will, but let me complete this point.

It is right that pay increases have been directed more at people who are just about managing and at those on lower incomes. They should benefit those who really need a pay rise. I note that the devolved Administration in Scotland mirrored the UK Government’s 1% pay policy when it was in place, and I am glad that public sector workers in Scotland will now also receive increases. I hope they are as generous as the ones afforded by the UK Government.

[Neil Gray]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the pay differential between the NHS in England and the NHS in Scotland is 1% in favour of employees in Scotland?

[Luke Graham]

We have to be very careful about making generalisations. On a case-by-case basis, especially for some lower-income workers, that 1% differential does not apply. I would be more than happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman elsewhere and go into that level of detail.

We are talking about pay, but the other side of the equation is tax. I am disappointed that the SNP Administration in Edinburgh have decided to increase income tax in Scotland. Anyone who earns more than £26,000—slightly below the average wage in the United Kingdom—is now a so-called high earner and has to pay more income tax than their English and Welsh counterparts. That includes teachers, nurses and doctors. Importantly, it also includes armed forces personnel stationed in Scotland, who now pay more tax than any other British armed forces personnel stationed around the world.

[Neil Gray]

That is not true.

[Luke Graham]

It is.

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Luke Graham]

I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene, but I will come back on that point.

[Neil Gray]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands and appreciates that the terms and conditions of armed forces personnel ensure that there is an even playing field between different areas of deployment. That means that if there are spikes or drops in taxation or any other cost of their employment, they do not have to suffer those themselves. They will get the pay rise, but they will not have to suffer the tax rise.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Gray will respond to the debate from the Front Bench, so he will have protected time. I ask him to be a bit more disciplined and allow Back Benchers to have their time, too.

[Luke Graham]

Thank you, Mr Owen. I always welcome a lively debate.

To be clear, that pay rise will not come from the devolved Administration that imposed the tax; it will come from the UK Government, who will have to cough up to bridge the gap. It was not me who said that Scotland has the highest rate of tax for armed forces personnel; it was Lieutenant General Nugee at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee just yesterday. That is fact. It is clear that it will be left to Her Majesty’s Treasury to try to bridge the gap and ensure that people are not disadvantaged.

Scotland was already the most taxed part of the United Kingdom, and nurses, teachers and other public sector staff have been forced to pay, at least in part, for the pay rises they have been given. Money that they have been given through pay rises has been taken away through more tax. That is happening at a time when Scotland badly needs to attract more public sector workers to deal with the horrendous staffing shortages that have developed in the NHS and schools in the past 10 years. The UK Government and the devolved Administration should do as much as possible about that.

Let me make one more point about tax, which is a topic that generates lively conversation across the Chamber and will—and should—continue to be debated during this Parliament. The tax increases in Scotland, which were meant to be a progressive move, deliver only 38p more per week for those on the lowest incomes. That is not progressive; it is pathetic. It shows the contrast between the UK Administration and the SNP Administration in Edinburgh: the SNP does not have a grip on our public services in this day and age, and plenty of people in Scotland are being disadvantaged as a result. The UK Government have shown that it is possible, through a strong economy, to give public sector workers a sustainable pay rise without them having to pay for it through increased taxes.

[Chris Stephens]

Can I bring the hon. Gentleman back to reality? Each and every UK Government Department has budgeted for a civil service pay rise of 1%. The Scottish Government have taken a different approach. Does he not acknowledge that in reality the public sector pay cap is still in place for employees who work for the UK Government?

[Luke Graham]

I will not speak for the Minister, who I am sure will cover this, but the pay rises of 6.5%-plus in the NHS are being fully funded. I am sure that as recommendations from other pay review bodies come through, they will be funded, too.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

I am sorry; I am finishing. I am sure the Minister will come back on that. The simple point is that the public sector does deserve a pay rise. It should be one that is sustainable but one that we constantly review. I 100% agree with the Government’s more flexible approach. We should maintain those public sector pay rises and always ensure that, especially as the Government go into more challenging circumstances and we try to be truly global Britain, public sector pay and the packages that surround it are just as attractive and rewarding as every private sector role, no matter where in the United Kingdom.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. I hope the Minister reflects on that and applies resources appropriately so that we can recover for the Treasury the maximum revenue from those who are avoiding paying their fair share of tax.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame Morris]

I will. I cannot refuse the hon. Gentleman as he gave way so many times.

[Luke Graham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge that there is still work to be done on our tax code, but does he recognise that since 2010 a number of measures have been brought in to close tax loopholes, which have yielded some £5 billion in extra tax returns and tax revenue?

[Grahame Morris]

I recognise that efforts have been made to close the tax gap, but the publication of the Panama papers and various revelations indicate that it is much larger than had been previously estimated. In my humble opinion, it is counterproductive to get rid of skilled and experienced tax collectors employed at offices such as Peterlee in my constituency who have expertise in this field. We would be better off retaining that expertise and allowing those collectors to get on with the job we have trained them to do.

The imposition of pay restraint has compounded issues raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) such as the generational pay gap and equal pay. The system includes discriminatory practices nearly 50 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and any Government should be ashamed that such problems are still evident.

It is clear from independent research undertaken by the Centre for Labour and Social Studies on behalf of the PCS that any increases in public sector pay would have to come from the resource departmental expenditure limits—the departmental budgets for current spending. It is disingenuous of Government to suggest that pay claims—even those recommended by independent pay review bodies—will be funded when the departmental expenditure limits do not reflect those awards. Departments as a whole will therefore suffer real-terms cuts to their resource departmental expenditure limits up to 2020. That falls way short of what is needed for a 5% nominal pay rise in the current year, and it fails to accommodate annual pay rises of 1%.

Given current projections of departmental expenditure, the research concludes clearly that any pay rise for public sector workers across listed Departments would have to come from cuts to jobs or to public services. It is a great deception. We must be careful with our language in terms of deliberately misleading anybody, but we should be straight about this. It is a cause of instability to promise constantly that the public sector pay cap is temporary when it is applied year on year. Eight years down the line, we still have effectively a public sector pay cap. In that time, prices have risen by 22%, but public sector pay has risen by just 4.4%. Wage freezes and the Government’s pay cap have lasted throughout that time, bringing financial misery to public service workers and their families and causing huge damage to services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I am in awe at my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), for enabling us to have more protected time for the Front-Bench speeches, given what you said earlier, Mr Owen. It is a pleasure to take part in the debate with you in the Chair, and I must add my congratulations to those given by others to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this debate, and on his detailed and passionate speech. My hon. Friend’s advocacy in this place and his previous trade union role, as has been acknowledged in the House already, make him ideally suited to lead such a debate. My wife is a local authority primary school teacher and is therefore impacted by public sector pay policy, although, thankfully, not that of the UK Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West made a valid point regarding the ability of the UK Government to adhere to the Equal Pay Act 1970 when they are engaged in 200 pay negotiations, and the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) expressed his alarm at such a notion. My hon. Friend also highlighted the incredible statistics on low pay in the Department for Work and Pensions—the irony is not lost, I am sure—and the proportion of staff receiving tax credits. The fact that those workers will now be under additional universal credit conditionality from their own employers represents an incredible state of affairs.

A public sector pay rise, as outlined by my hon. Friend, is helpful for the economy and the private sector, as well as providing workers with the ability to enjoy a fruitful existence. When we add the fact that we are living through the worst decade for pay growth in 210 years, that is a major concern. My hon. Friend also touched on low pay and the situation in Scotland, and the more generous Scottish Government pay offer. He made a good, detailed and passionate speech, and I commend him for that.

I was reprimanded by you, Mr Owen, for jousting during the speech of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham). He made a point about the need to end pay restraint. Of course the Scottish Government were the first in these isles to lift the pay cap and fund the pay offer to the workers for whom they are responsible, and the hon. Gentleman appeared to support my call for the Treasury to fund Departments to bring about an end to the 1% cap. I look forward to his next appearance at Treasury questions when he will make that strong point to the Chancellor. He also spoke about the 6.5% pay offer to the NHS in England. That, of course, is spread over three years—a point that has already been made from the Labour Benches. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not trying to suggest that that offer is comparable to the 3% being offered on an annual basis in Scotland. My point about the 1% pay differential between England and Scotland is that it includes those in band 1—the lowest paid as well as those in higher brackets.

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) made a good speech, advocating for the Treasury to fund an end to 1%. He also talked about the apparent temporary nature of the pay cap. He was right to say that where the UK Government, not the Scottish Government, have responsibility, the pay cap is in effect still in place.

The hon. Member for Solihull also made a good speech. He was right to say that civil servants in Whitehall and across these isles are incredibly talented and do a fantastic job. He also appeared to acknowledge that pay restraint should have been temporary—and should have ended. I challenge him, as I did the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, to challenge their Treasury colleagues to fund UK Departments to end the 1% cap.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) spoke from experience, as a former teacher and also given the impact of public sector pay restraint in her area. What she said was absolutely right. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, made a typically impassioned, if pithy, speech, and we were grateful for his contribution.

As has been alluded to, we have made a far more generous offer in Scotland to our fantastic public servants. We look to reward them for the work that they do for us all. To tackle low pay, the Scottish Government have committed to paying the real living wage of £8.75 an hour, as opposed to the UK Government’s minimum wage premium of £7.83 for over-25s and their minimum wage of £7.38 for those between 21 and 24, £5.90 for those between 18 and 20, and £4.20 for under-18s. This year they have also offered a graduated pay rise starting at 3% for workers earning up to £65,500. That rise will benefit three quarters of all public sector employees in Scotland.

[Luke Graham]

I praise some of the devolved Administration’s moves to make sure that there is correct funding for people on lower incomes, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the national living wage was brought in by a Conservative Government and it would not exist otherwise? As well as criticising, he should give a little praise, too.

[Neil Gray]

My problem with the so-called national living wage is the fact that it is not national, because it is not available to under-25s, and it is not a living wage, because it does not get near the real living wage. Its branding was clearly an attempt to make it look as though it were the real living wage; that is massively problematic. I acknowledge that it is a large pay increase for some, but not all, of those on the minimum wage. It is important for the UK Government to acknowledge the fact that under-25s in particular are still being penalised.

[Luke Graham]

rose—

[Julian Knight]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I offer my congratulations to my good friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who has been a consistent advocate against this disastrous policy. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who have all given clear real-world examples of the effect of the public sector pay freeze.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and my good friend and, dare I say it, fellow Cestrian, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) talked about the genesis of the public sector pay freeze policy, which dates back to the financial crash. I will simply make the point that it was not public sector workers who created the financial crash, but they are the ones who still have to live with the detriment of it, seven to 10 years afterward, while it took Wall Street and the City of London only a couple of years to get back on the big bonus trail. But we are where we are.

The slogan is, “A country that works for everyone”, although that slogan has not aged particularly well. The country is on its knees, facing the largest inequality and division since the 1980s and early 1990s. As we have seen with failures such as Capita, G4S and Carillion, commercial failure is rewarded with more public funding, while our public sector services at the sharp end are being taken for granted.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Christian Matheson]

Just the once. The hon. Gentleman was very generous with his time, which is why I cannot be too generous with mine.

[Luke Graham]

Understood. I have a quick question: the hon. Gentleman said that inequality had increased and was the worst since the 1980s. Can he quote the source of that data, please? I would dispute it.

[Christian Matheson]

First, I do not necessarily trust the figures from the current Government, because they are well known for cooking the books, but I genuinely suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes down to any food bank—

[Luke Graham]

That is not answering the question.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have committed to ensure that 70,000 more children and young people have access to high-quality NHS mental health care by 2020-21. We recognise the importance of young people’s mental health because something like half of mental health problems later in life started before the age of 14. That is why one of the initiatives the Government have taken is to ensure that staff in schools are trained to better identify mental health problems and are better able to ensure that young people with mental health problems get the treatment and support that they need.

It is important, as the hon. Lady says, that mental health has risen up the scale of people’s concerns. I would like to think that that is partly because we have ensured that there is greater awareness of the issue of mental health. Everybody in the House has a job to ensure that we remove the stigma attached to mental health so that people feel able to come forward when they have mental health problems.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share the surprise that I felt, as a former Marks & Spencer employee, at the news that the Scottish National party Administration have bullied Marks & Spencer over the use of the word “British” and the Union flag on British produce? Will she stand with me against that petty bullying and support companies that are proud of Scottish and British produce?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We should all be proud of Scottish and British produce and of produce from any part of our United Kingdom. It is frankly appalling that the Scottish Government did not want to see the Union flag and the word “British” on produce. It is not only appalling; it fails to reflect the vote that took place in Scotland, which showed that people in Scotland want to stay part of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As a matter of fact, I took up this office on 8 January 2018. I do not think the picture the hon. Gentleman paints is an accurate one. It was only in January that we were presented with details—full details—of what Carillion proposed. It would have been wrong for the Government to bail it out for private sector failures of judgment.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

T4. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that the civil service in the devolved Administrations receives as much support as the central civil service, and how is he maintaining standards and objectivity across the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lidington]

My Department supports consistent standards of devolution awareness across the civil service. The Cabinet Office runs a cross-Government learning campaign, in partnership with the devolved Administrations, to ensure that there is good practice throughout the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The question of intergenerational fairness is one that we recognise and one I think the whole of society needs to recognise. We need to ensure, through Help to Buy and abolishing stamp duty for many first-time buyers, that we help young people to get their foot on the housing ladder and buy more homes. It is important that we make sure we have jobs for people, and that young people are skilled, trained and educated to take on the jobs of the future. That is what our modern industrial strategy is doing and that is the best thing we can do: ensure, as we are doing, that we have the policies, through our balanced approach to the economy, that provide the jobs and homes for those young people for the future.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Yesterday, the Scottish Affairs Committee heard from Royal Bank of Scotland executives. Given this publicly funded bank’s blatant disregard for the local communities it serves, will my right hon. Friend strengthen the access to banking standards to give local people more of a say when banks remove vital local services?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we put those access to banking standards in place and that there are alternative arrangements in place, which we have encouraged people to take up, to ensure that they are able to access the banking facilities they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to strengthen ties between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The United Kingdom is the vital Union for Scotland, and this Government will always work to strengthen the integrity of the UK. That includes working closely and constructively with the Scottish Government. But I was disappointed that, unlike the Welsh Government, Nicola Sturgeon has been unwilling to agree our proposed amendments to clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Welsh Government have said that this is a deal that respects devolution. They have said:

“This is a deal we can work with which has required compromise on both sides.”

I absolutely agree, and I continue to hope that the Scottish Government will join us.

[Luke Graham]

I share my right hon. Friend’s disappointment and surprise that the SNP Administration in Edinburgh have been unable to reach agreement with the Government. I ask him to work with those people in the devolved Government in Edinburgh who are willing to reach agreement to ensure that we put the politics of division behind us and work together so that we can move the conversation on for our constituents.

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree. I was certainly very disappointed that the Scottish Government, despite sharing the same concerns as the Welsh Government, decided not to agree with this approach. We will of course continue to have a constructive dialogue with the Scottish Government, and I want to put it on the record that Mike Russell, the Scottish Minister, has put a lot of personal effort and commitment into getting this over the line, and I still hope that his Government will join him in reaching that agreement in the coming weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

4. What progress the Government have made on their deal for every city in Scotland.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

7. What progress the Government have made on their plans to deliver a city deal for every city in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

The UK Government are either negotiating or implementing a city region deal for all of Scotland’s seven great cities and the regions around them. So far we have committed over £1 billion to this landmark programme, and there is more to come. We are currently negotiating with local partners for both the Stirling and Clackmannanshire and Tay cities deals, and we hope to conclude the heads of agreements in the coming months.

[David Mundell]

I do agree with my hon. Friend about raising those issues with the Glasgow city deal. It is not enough just to sign these deals and to promote them; what we need is delivery, and I will look at the specific issues he has raised.

[Luke Graham]

Will my right hon. Friend help to break the deadlock with the devolved Administration and commit to the amount of money that Westminster is willing to put forward in the Stirling and Clackmannanshire deal, so that Clackmannanshire can realise its true ambition?

[David Mundell]

My hon. Friend has certainly been a strong advocate for Clackmannanshire in this process. I hope to meet the Scottish Government shortly to discuss both this deal and the Tay cities deal, in the hope that the Scottish Government and the UK Government can go forward with local partners in a collaborative way.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Now is the time for the European Union negotiators to get on with the job of discussing that trade and economic partnership for the future. I am pleased that we will also be able to discuss with the Irish Government and the Commission the practical details of delivering the solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, so that the free flow of trade can continue not just between Northern Ireland and Ireland but between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Last month it was announced that the proposed merger between the British Transport police and Police Scotland was being put on hold in the wake of widespread criticism from a number of different parties. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with devolved Ministers, and what next steps can be taken? Will she join in me in calling on the SNP to scrap this ill-fated proposed merger?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the concerns that have been expressed. Of course, we were committed to delivering on the Smith commission proposals, and as part of that we are devolving powers over the British Transport police in Scotland to the Scottish Government. As this is being looked at, the priority must remain the safety of the public, and we are committed to working with the Scottish Government to ensure a smooth transfer of the functions, should that be their decision. It is for the Scottish Government to decide, but I urge them to ensure that, as they take those decisions, they put the safety and security of the public first.

National Democracy Week

Luke Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a helpful point in reminding us that, even as we celebrate the flourishing nature of our democracy, we must also ensure that it has integrity and security. He highlights an issue that I know has been in the minds of many people, not only since last year’s general election but as a general point about the process of making it easier to register to vote. Some people ask, “Well, is it easier not only to register to vote but to use one’s vote in an unlawful way?”, which is what he is driving at. It is not unlawful to register to vote in local elections in multiple places, but it is unlawful to vote twice in the same election. As the Minister with responsibility for electoral registration, I am looking for evidence of any such unlawfulness—my door is always open to any hon. Member who believes they have such evidence. If I received such, I would discuss it with the Electoral Commission and the relevant parts of our police authorities.

It is extremely important that we are vigilant about electoral fraud wherever we find it. In fact, to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, electoral fraud is not a victimless crime—it is a crime against a person whose right to speak has been robbed from them. That is very important to note in this context and this year, when we are looking to celebrate our democracy. In the context of the record highs that we are seeing in our democracy at the moment, it is important to be reassured. There are very high levels of completeness and accuracy in the electoral registers, which should give us confidence that we continue to live in a very secure democracy. We all want to keep it that way.

I am working this year with a range of organisations to build on the momentum of getting more people registered to vote. The first example of that work was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood: improving how people register anonymously. Working with Women’s Aid, the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators, we have developed reforms to improve access to that scheme for survivors of domestic abuse. Today marks the next phase in the parliamentary passage of the regulations dealing with that work. They will be debated first in the House of Lords and, alongside other registration changes including anti-fraud measures, taken through Parliament, but implementing them is our core aim.

I am considering measures to improve student electoral registration. That will be done not only by listening to parliamentarians and engaging again with the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, but by requiring for the first time that higher education providers co-operate with electoral registration officers to facilitate electoral registration among their student population.

As a final example of that work, we can improve access for those with disabilities. A call for evidence has been launched by the Government, which I am delighted to say has returned many very helpful points. I want to understand and act on them.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I apologise for my late arrival for this debate—I was participating in the business in the main Chamber.

The Minister makes a very valuable point about vulnerable people, especially those who will be addressed in National Democracy Week and those who can now vote anonymously if they are survivors of domestic abuse. I led a debate in Westminster Hall on the Disability Confident scheme to engage more disabled people in the workforce. I hope she can continue that work in relation to democratic participation, and ensure that disabled people are as active in our democratic process as they are in our workforce.

[Chloe Smith]

I am absolutely delighted to find a fellow passionate advocate in my hon. Friend, and I thank him for reminding us that there is a place for everybody in our democracy, just as there is in our economy and society. That is what we are engaged in. There is more to do on exactly that. The Government’s democratic engagement plan made the commitment to launch the first ever National Democracy Week to encourage greater understanding and recognition of the UK’s electoral system and of how it gives all our citizens the voice they deserve.

The week will be held between 2 and 8 July this year, coinciding with both the year-long suffrage centenary celebrations and, on 2 July, the 90th anniversary of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which gave equal voting rights to men and women. National Democracy Week will be a moment for engaging people from under-registered groups by uniting stakeholders in a shared ambition and in the message that, regardless of who we are or where we have come from, we must together ensure that every person in our society who is entitled to do so has a voice and an equal chance to participate in our democracy. Organisations with an interest in democratic participation will be brought together for a week of unified national action.

The week is supported by a National Democracy Week Council, which has been established as a way for organisations to support and develop the week’s activities. Its members will be incredibly helpful in delivering the activities and in encouraging others to take part, and I put on record my thanks to them. The council is composed of senior figures from across the electoral community and the civil society sector, and will help us to put potential electors at the heart of the democratic process and ensure that we reach as far and wide as possible. The council’s role involves advising on the events and activities, taking an active role in communicating them across the United Kingdom and in mobilising organisations, and measuring success and reporting back on the week.

The work in hand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood asked me to report on includes developing the creative elements of the campaign, such as the brand identity and the communications materials, which I will bring to the House as soon as I can. There will be a campaign website, and an awards ceremony to recognise outstanding achievement and innovation in democratic engagement, for which nominations will open in March 2018. There will be a great amount to do to include parliamentarians in the work and myriad ways to ensure that we reach out to under-registered groups, including young people, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. I stress that we are strongly encouraging all parts of the United Kingdom to run events so that people everywhere have a chance to take part. I am delighted to see in this very Chamber representation from across the United Kingdom, which is very important. A programme of events will be published on a public calendar on the National Democracy Week website from later in March when the website is launched, and nominations for the awards will open in parallel.

I want to put a few points on the record about the link with the suffrage centenary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a £5 million fund for projects to commemorate the 2018 milestone and the significance of the suffrage movement. The centenary is momentous in its own right—hon. Members know that there will be a range of activities across Parliament. Although the centenary is distinct from National Democracy Week, the two come together in a shared objective and remind us that the rights were often hard-fought-for and therefore should be celebrated all the more.

The resources for National Democracy Week will help us to ensure that we engage everyone in the task. Civil society organisations, central and local government, schools, colleges, universities, young people and Members all have their part to play. A series of resources will be tailored for specific audiences. For example, there will be a free National Democracy Week pack to help plan and publicise activities and the website will provide further support. Hon. Members will be able to download materials as part of the celebrations. There will be a parliamentarian pack to help MPs to connect with, and inspire, young people, and a schools resource pack with a specific focus on the suffrage movement at secondary school level. There will be a programme of democracy ambassadors—young advocates recruited to inspire their peers to champion democratic participation—and a youth digital campaign to support the promotion and recruitment of democracy ambassadors among young people aged between 13 and 16.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for calling this debate on a very important issue.

Carillion and Public Sector Outsourcing

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I will start by talking about all those affected by the collapse of Carillion, not just those directly employed by it but those who have pensions, having previously been employed by it, those who are subcontractors or are employed by subcontractors and those who are receiving services provided by Carillion that have been stopped overnight and now are being provided by somebody else or by some other vehicle.

I want to talk a bit about what the Scottish Government have done to ensure that in Scotland our constituents and those living around the country receive a continuing service in the aftermath of the collapse of these contracts. The Scottish Government have set up helplines for employees of Carillion and its subcontractors. In addition, Skills Development Scotland is speaking to apprentices concerned about the future of their apprenticeships. The biggest Carillion project in Scotland that we know about, and which the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, is the Aberdeen bypass, on which project Balfour Beatty and Galliford Try are subcontractors. Because of how the contract was written, they are jointly and severally reliable for the delivery of the project, which means that there is no risk to the project and there will be no additional cost to the taxpayer from its continuation. I say that just to reassure my constituents, in particular, who are desperate to see this bypass, which, as many have said many times, is already 40 years too late—but at least we are getting there. We are pleased to hear that that contract will continue, and hopefully those who are working on it in Aberdeen and the surrounding areas will be reassured. It is estimated that the project will generate more than £6 billion of additional income for the north-east: it is a major infrastructure project.

We do, however, feel that serious questions must be asked of the UK Government about the decision to continue awarding contracts to Carillion. The Scottish Government have not awarded it any contracts since the first profit warning was given in July last year. Since the warnings, both the UK and Welsh Governments have agreed contracts with the company. In the days after the first warning, the UK Government awarded contracts worth £2 billion, including the huge High Speed 2 and Ministry of Defence contracts. At the time, the then Transport Secretary said that he hoped Carillion would overcome its problems. He said:

“My wish is that Carillion get through their current problems but we’ve made sure that it’s not an issue for these contracts.”

I hope that that is the case. I hope that people will continue to be paid, and continue to be able to deliver the work.

After the third profit warning, the UK Government’s Education and Skills Funding Agency awarded a £12 million school building contract to Carillion, and the Welsh Government went ahead with a contract for work on two junctions on the A55. The questions that we must ask are these: if rigorous processes were in place, why did Carillion continue to be awarded contracts, and what other firm has continued to be awarded contracts despite not being in a position to deliver on them?

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I am pleased about some of the measures that the devolved Administrations have taken. If Carillion had been of such concern, however, would not Scottish National party Members have mentioned it more than twice in the last six months of 2017? Moreover, the Scottish Government have put £5.7 billion into 82 projects through Carillion. This should not be a criticism only of the UK Government. The problem exists in all the devolved Administrations, and we must all work together to fix it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

As I have said, the Scottish Government have not awarded any contracts to Carillion since the first profit warning. Yes, the SNP has raised the matter twice in the House. Given that the contracts that have been awarded since the profit warning have not been awarded in Scotland, it is amazing that the SNP is standing up for Members’ constituents throughout the United Kingdom.

Let me say some more about what the Scottish Government are doing and the direction that they have taken, particularly in relation to private sector contracts. They have said that they will use private sector partners only when that is the best way in which to support public services, which is why fewer Carillion contracts have been awarded in Scotland than elsewhere. In 2008, the Scottish Government stated their intention to phase out private contracts relating to, for example, those providing services in hospitals. As a result, all cleaning in NHS hospitals is now carried out by in-house workers. We in Scotland have also announced our intention to build a publicly owned competitor to bid for the ScotRail franchise.

We support the continued use of procurement processes to ensure that the Scottish Government can continue to seek the living wage. We have made it as clear as possible that those who are contracted to provide public services for private companies must pay the living wage, and, wherever possible, the Scottish Government have taken action to ensure that that happens. I hope that the UK Government will follow suit. They talk about what they describe as the national living wage, which people cannot actually live on, but I am talking about the real living wage. To provide that for all public sector workers and all those who are contracted to provide public services would be an incredibly important move, which would help to deal with the wage stagnation that we have seen in recent years.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned blacklisting. We have argued against it on a number of occasions, both in the House and elsewhere. We have made it clear that it is completely unacceptable. Companies should not engage in the practice, and the Government and other organisations should make that plain to them. They should treat companies that apply for contracts differently if they are proved to have engaged in it.

As I have said, the UK Government need to look at all their contracts. They need to assess the financial stability of all the organisations that provide vital public services, especially those in the private sector.

I cannot believe that the directors of Carillion sat in board meetings looking at the accounts and believed for so long that the company was solvent. I do not understand how the directors could genuinely have believed that, because it is so clear to everyone—now that the profit warnings have been issued, the accounts are being discussed and the company is in liquidation—that the position was totally unsustainable for quite a long time. I do not understand how the position was reached where the directors were not taking their responsibilities seriously, taking decisions and making changes—actually saying to the Government, “Sorry, but we can’t bid for these contracts, because we don’t think we are in a position to deliver.”

The Minister talked about the processes whereby services are outsourced and contracts granted to private sector companies. Whatever the process gone through, it was clearly not rigorous enough. In future, a more rigorous process must be applied. Carillion employs 19,000 people; we think about 1,000 of them are in Scotland. That is a significant employer to collapse. We do not want smaller employers that may not have so many public sector contracts but are in financial difficulties to fall too, in a domino effect. It is incumbent on the Government to check that the private sector companies that have public sector contracts can deliver those contracts, so we do not end up again in a situation where people are scrambling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I am conscious of time, so I will keep my points as succinct as I can.

I echo the words of other hon. Members: obviously, the collapse of Carillion has impacted many small companies and individuals, and I ask Ministers to focus their efforts on supporting smaller companies throughout the supply chain, and please to put the full weight of Her Majesty’s Government behind the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and UK Finance to ensure that support is provided to those most in need.

I was disappointed that the debate was led off by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) with “WTF”. I have been in the House for only seven months, but I am pretty sure that, on an issue as important as the collapse of a major company, our constituents expect a little better—especially when there were only five mentions of Carillion by Labour Members in the last six months of 2017, so they were not exactly ringing the bell.

Taking issue with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), I do not think it is time for gloating by the SNP either, when just last year 7,000 students across 17 schools in Edinburgh could not return to school as a result of the failure of contracts overseen by the devolved Administration.

Carillion’s demise was the failure of a company, but there were other actors, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) mentioned, one of the key issues was the failure to axe the auditors. The auditors had been the same since 1999, and in 2016 they gave Carillion a clean bill of health. Auditors’ accounts are needed by the market, by Ministers and by individual investors throughout the United Kingdom and internationally. We need to look at the fact that not only had the auditors been sole incumbents since 1999, but that that was so in the face of Financial Reporting Council guidance issued in 2013 that auditors should be rotated by major companies, and a 2016 EU law, which I hope we will be keeping, making the rotation of auditors mandatory to ensure that companies are properly scrutinised and that objectivity is kept.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. We will be discussing the collapse of Carillion and carefully considering our next steps. Government papers provide insight, but it is my view that, actually, an independent National Audit Office report would be far more illuminating. Perhaps, rather than using acronyms such as “WTF” and trying to score party political points, we could use this opportunity to walk across the House, get central and devolved Administrations working together, make sure we address the audit issue, make sure we do the proper inquiries to address the concerns of our constituents and make sure this kind of failure does not happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The ugly side of privatisation and outsourcing has been laid bare by the collapse of Carillion. While fat cat executives have taken action to protect their pensions and pay, the workers have been shafted. With a day’s notice, workers were told to not bother to turn up to work. These are workers with mortgages and families to feed, and the platitudes from this Government will not comfort them.

Make no mistake: this is an ideological obsession of this Government. We have got to the farcical point where Oxfordshire County Council is forced to put firefighters on standby to deliver food in our schools. Private capital has seen all the benefits, and the state has taken the burden of the collapse again. It is estimated that subcontractors will receive only 1p of every pound owed to them. They also have families to feed and bills to pay. What do the Government have to offer them? Nothing. They are obsessed and determined to push ahead with the privatisation and outsourcing of the £1.2 billion HS2 contract. There has been more privatisation and outsourcing in Ministry of Defence contracts, and in school projects. When will they ever learn? We privatised the reward and we nationalised failure. It is the absolute reverse of socialism.

This is a crisis of capitalism. Workers are treated with utter disdain in the pursuit of capital accumulation. This is an ideological issue. Outsourcing, not just by Carillion, has brought our state to its knees. Southern Rail, schools: it is time that this experiment was brought to an end. The smoke and mirrors of PFI and outsourcing are no longer there.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

In his criticism of capitalism and PFI, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Labour, between 1997 and 2015, put in a capital value of £49.4 billion, compared with the Conservatives’ £7.9 billion. Labour is more responsible for this problem than the Conservatives have ever been.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is right. The public will not fail to notice that the Labour party is under new management. We will build on the positives of the past, and discard the negatives. PFI, I am afraid, was a bad mistake that the Conservatives began under Major, and which we failed to stop. We will stop it this time, because when Jeremy Corbyn gets in and we have a socialist Government what will end is this—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Luke Graham Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna McMorrin]

Absolutely. I completely agree. That just shows that what we have here in a number of policy areas is a constitutional crisis emerging and the UK Government acting as the Government of England, not the Government of the UK, leading to a number of possible conflicts of interest when it comes to imposing pan-UK structures.

Secondly, it is crucial that Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Parliament are responsible for correcting and amending all areas of EU law that are devolved. Restricting involvement means taking away powers that have been devolved for 20 years and creates an inequality between the nations of the UK, as has just been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). That endangers the proper functioning of any UK single market—one of the main aims of this Bill.

We have seen the mess the Prime Minister is making of these negotiations, and we have seen the mess today. She is held to account by a small minority party—the DUP—and we have seen that this afternoon in the negotiations. A hard Brexit or no deal would seriously challenge devolution, as well as risking the Union. As a devolutionist who wants the UK to stay together, I think these issues are likely to cause the UK to begin to unravel. The UK Government must take responsibility.

Finally, the UK Government know they cannot win this. They may be able to whip their Members here in the House of Commons, but they cannot whip their Members in the Lords. Those Members are determined to expose what this Government are doing and will not let them off lightly.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Like the hon. Lady, I represent a constituency in a devolved part of the United Kingdom. Many in the House believe that clause 11 should be amended and have put their point to the Government, but will she work constructively with the Government and be specific—not fan the flames of nationalism, which we all know are at play and could undermine our United Kingdom?

[Anna McMorrin]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not fanning any flames of nationalism; I am talking about democracy in this place and the democracy of the UK. The Welsh Government have tried on many occasions to negotiate with the UK Government. That has not been possible, so we have the opportunity to vote with our Front Bench on these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ross Thomson]

I have literally just answered a point, so I will finish making this one. We will ensure that no barriers are created to trade within the UK. Even the SNP Scottish Government—including the Brexit Minister, Mike Russell—accept that there will have to be common UK-wide frameworks, because they are needed. That is reflected in the Scottish Affairs Committee report, as other colleagues have highlighted in the debate. We need common frameworks, because a UK single market or unitary market—whatever we want to call it—is our greatest asset and we need to maintain it. Where frameworks are needed to underpin the work of companies and individuals across all parts of our United Kingdom, we will make the case for such frameworks.

[Luke Graham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the SNP always talks down Westminster, this is a great opportunity to talk up Holyrood and Westminster and use the common frameworks to find areas on which we can pull together and act as one great country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I am encouraging those Conservatives to listen to the experts who have given evidence to the various House of Commons Committees,whether orally or in writing. I have mentioned several of them. May I mention what Dr Jo Hunt, from the University of Cardiff, said to the Exiting the European Union Committee? She said:

“This should be a profound constitutional moment, where the nature of the UK is properly addressed, and a debate and discussion is had about what the United Kingdom is for and what the roles of the various parties in the United Kingdom are. We have had any number of Select Committee reports from the Commons and the House of Lords dealing with interinstitutional relations, intergovernmental relations, and devolution”.

Now is the moment, when we are allegedly taking back control, to look carefully at how we distribute those powers within the nations of the United Kingdom. We should not simply bring them back in one box from Brussels, rest them at London and leave it to London to decide when and if Edinburgh and Cardiff ever get sight of that power.

There is a terrible irony here. Many Brexiteers went on at great length about how Brussels imposes its will on the United Kingdom, but that is actually a fundamental misunderstanding of how the European Union works. As has been explained, it works by a number of sovereign nations pooling their sovereignty and participating in a process of decisions. If anyone on the Conservative Benches really is a Brexiteer who believes in taking back control and does not like the way, in their opinion, Brussels has imposed on the UK, surely that should make them even more motivated to ensure that the centre—Westminster—does not impose on the constituent nations of the UK.

[Luke Graham]

We have all raised concerns about clause 11, and we are trying to constructively address them. The hon. and learned Lady makes her position about devolution clear, but she also talks about a chance to refresh the whole constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom. Will she work constructively with Members on the Government Benches to address issues such as air quality, which is devolved? It would be better if we had a joined-up UK approach and if that were reserved with climate issues and other such issues, so that we look effectively to get the best outcome for our constituents and not just go on to political dogma.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Scottish National party has always worked constructively with all parties to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is respected within these islands. However, what we are not in the business of doing is simply lying supine while all these powers are brought back from Brussels and left here at Westminster, with absolutely no time limit—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) may not like it, but this is the weight of the evidence that we have heard about the effect of clause 11. It is not my view; it is the view of many others.

House of Lords Reform: Lord Speaker’s Committee

Luke Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about this issue.

In my opinion, House of Lords reform is simple: I believe that it should be reformed, but the exact nature of how that reform should be enacted is up for debate. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House of Lords should be abolished. It has proven itself to be effective in its capacity to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account, and for that reason alone we should maintain a second Chamber.

The House of Lords also contains many experts in their fields, from Lord Winston in the sciences, and Lord Coe, who delivered the fantastic Olympic games in 2012, to Baroness Lane-Fox in business, technology and education. Those peers bring a wide range of backgrounds and expertise to these Houses of Parliament, and it would be remiss to do away with such expertise by simply abolishing the House of Lords.

The House of Lords Act 1999 retained many hereditary peers but restricted their numbers to 92, in order to ensure that any loss of knowledge and expertise caused by the removal of hundreds of experienced Members was limited. After 18 years, however, I am confident that the knowledge gap has been adequately bridged by subsequent appointments and, of course, the intervening years, and that we now have sufficient knowledge in the House of Lords.

[David Hanson]

If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that half of this Parliament should be made up of experts, why not the House of Commons? Why not just appoint experts to this House, rather than have elections every five years?

[Luke Graham]

I will be addressing that point shortly in my speech.

There are, therefore, reasons why a second Chamber should be retained. To have experts as part of the parliamentary process, able to sit outside some of the pressure of regular elections and to stay constant and think of the country’s good rather than the next election, is a benefit and a strength to the nation that should be retained. However, that does not mean the House of Lords is above reform, as I have said. All in, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, there are about 825 Members in the House of Lords, with a working number of 800. That is far too large a number to be practical in terms of work, or democratically justifiable for an unelected second Chamber. The Lords must therefore be reduced in size.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman address the lack of clarity about appointments that are made? There was much concern following appointments made by the previous Prime Minister, when he left office. How would the hon. Gentleman want that to be dealt with in future?

[Luke Graham]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point. My favourite Prime Minister is David Lloyd George, a strong Welshman who was responsible for the “People’s Budget” in 1909, and who in 1911 pushed through reforms. However, he came unstuck on the issue of Lords and patronage in the 1920s, with similar issues to those that came a century or so later. There is a need for more clarity about the appointments process. I will come on to some of the suggestions in the report, but I think the process should be strengthened and there should be greater transparency. We should make sure that there is fair and transparent way to appoint Members in all parties, as well as independents and Cross Benchers.

I welcome the report produced by the Lord Speaker’s Committee, which proposes to reduce the number of peers to 600. It advocates that any new peers should have to sign an undertaking to serve a 15-year term before retiring from the House, requiring real commitment from them. It recommends a two out, one in system for life peers to get the number down from 800 to 600. After that, there would be a one out, one in system. Finally, it proposes a democratic link through the allocation of new peers to each party according to the average between their vote share and Commons seat share at the most recent election; it also proposes keeping 134 independent Cross Benchers, reflecting the current proportion of Cross Benchers who sit in the House of Lords. Those people are not bound by party loyalty, but are there to serve their country, and provide a valuable, independent voice.

Those are all sensible suggestions. The report proposes the implementation of meaningful reform without the loss of the beneficial aspects currently supplied by the Lords. It is important that any reforms should also respect the Parliament Act 1911 and ensure that the reformed House of Lords does not undermine the supremacy of the House of Commons, which I fear a fully elected upper House just might do. It is important to respect that principle, which has underpinned our parliamentary democracy for the past century; it is just as relevant now as it was in 1911 that those who have been directly elected and who have constituency links can have the final say on laws, and make sure that they are pushed through to reflect their constituents’ views.

I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on one point: hereditary peers and Lords Spiritual. I am all for tradition, but as a democrat I cannot justifiably defend the continuation of such peers in the Lords, should any reforms be enacted. I would therefore push for the reforms to go further, with current hereditary peers allowed to complete their term, but an eventual phasing out of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman wants to push things further, but that can be done only through legislation—not the mechanisms suggested in the report. Would he support petitioning the Government for such legislation?

[Luke Graham]

Yes, I would. I am coming to my point about that. House of Lords reform is always another decade away, but when we complete our current constitutional obligations through Brexit—which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is challenge enough—I hope we can turn our attention to the House of Lords. Then people will not have to wait another decade before reform is allowed in that most respected other place.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I shall start with what is probably obvious: I have always voted for the abolition of the House of Lords, and given the opportunity I would vote to do so again. That, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) has said, is not because there are not good people in the House of Lords. There are; but I take the view that some element of democratic input is needed when legislation is passed on behalf of my constituents. I wake up every morning knowing that I have been sent to this House because crosses were put by my name. At the next election, those crosses can be put by another candidate’s name. That keeps me on my toes and tells me that I am held to account by those at home for what I say here. Those people can support me for what I say when I speak, or remove me from my seat in the future.

I would always vote to abolish the House of Lords; and self-evidently if that happened, we would need to consider how to do it, or seek a mechanism for replacing it. In view of the time, I do not want to put a detailed focus on the full report. There was little in the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that I disagreed with. We can speed up the process and increase the number of people who are removed; we can do all sorts of things. I want to focus on something about which, as the Minister knows, I have a bee in my bonnet. I will continue to chew Government legs for the foreseeable future, until the goal is achieved. The issue is hereditary peers—raised by the noble Lords themselves in the report.

As hon. Members will know, there are 92 hereditary peers. I voted for the House of Lords Act 1999, which was brought in under the Labour Government and which rightly removed hundreds of hereditary peers from the House of Lords. As part of the deal to get the reform through with Lords approval, 92 hereditary peers were kept. It was intended to remove them in the future. Now, 18 years after that Act was passed, 92 hereditary peers still sit in the House of Lords. The report says:

“In the absence of legislation, the hereditary peers will make up a larger proportion of a smaller House, with a particularly significant impact on the Conservatives and Crossbenchers. The House, and perhaps more pertinently the Government, will need to consider whether such a situation is sustainable. Any change would require legislation, which could only realistically reach the statute book if it had Government support.”

Irrespective of the wide-ranging changes that are being proposed, the House of Lords, as part of its wish to reduce its number, has said, effectively, that the hereditary peers are unsustainable and that the Government need to consider a legislative solution to bring those matters forward.

It so happens that, as I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, I have a legislative solution. The House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill was printed on 7 September and is due for Second Reading on 27 April 2018 and would abolish hereditary peers with effect from 2020, to give time for the transition to take place. I should like to know from the Minister whether, in the light of the House of Lords proposals, he would support that Bill. I recognise that parliamentary time is tight, but it does not take a great deal of effort to support such a Bill if the Minister has the political will.

The Minister will know that my noble Friend Lord Grocott has come top—No. 1—in the private Member’s Bill ballot in another place. I might say that he is good cop to my bad cop in the matter of hereditary peers. He wants simply to end the election of hereditary peers, and let them disappear slowly over time when election vacancies become available. I should like to know whether the Minister would support that Bill. There is parliamentary time available in the Lords to take it through in this long Session and end the election of hereditary peers. If the Minister cannot support the principle of my Bill, he could, potentially, support Lord Grocott’s. He will at some point have to vote against that Bill from the other place, because—it is not a secret—it has had a Second Reading and Lord Grocott will take it to Committee. He wants it to come to this place, so that on his behalf I can take it through this place in parliamentary time. Today the Minister needs to focus—if on nothing else—on what he will do about hereditary peers.

Why does that matter? I happen to take the view that the great great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild of someone who did something 400, 500 or 600 years ago should not be making legislation on my constituents’ behalf today. Lord Mostyn, who lives in Mostyn Hall in my constituency, recently applied again to be a hereditary peer when the vacancy came up. His great-grandparents got their peerage because his great-great-great-great-relative fought on the King’s side in the English civil war. It does not seem to me that which side someone fought on in the English civil war is a basis to make legislation in the 21st century.

I am sure that my Scottish colleagues here today will appreciate the fact that Lord Fairfax of Cameron is currently in the House of Lords. His ancestor got his peerage because he was the first person to go to Edinburgh to meet the new James I of Scotland, or James VI of England. I am sorry, that should be the other way around—I am not very good at my royals, but the point is made. He got his peerage for being the first person to travel from London to Edinburgh to meet the new King. That does not seem to me to be the modern way of making democratic decisions. Lord Attlee sits in the House of Lords now. He has his peerage because Clement Attlee was given a hereditary peerage when he retired from the House of Commons. Lord Attlee is now a Conservative Member. I do not think there is a basis for having the grandchild of the architect of the national health service making laws and voting with the Conservative Whip when his grandfather was given his peerage for being a staunch Labour party member.

The election system that we have now for hereditary peers is absolute nonsense on sticks. I will give an example: Lord Thurso, God bless his cotton socks. He was thrown out of the House of Lords by the Labour Government’s House of Lords Act 1999. He stood for the House of Commons and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross in the 2001 election, transferring his blue blood to his ordinary blood. He was thrown out by the electorate in 2015, losing his seat to a member of the Scottish National party. By chance, a Liberal hereditary peer died and there was a by-election in the House of Lords. Three Liberal Democrats put their names forward for that by-election. Lord Thurso got 100% of the vote and is now back in the House of Lords, having had a blood transfusion to blue blood again.

I ask the Minister: is that tenable? That is the simple question he needs to ask. Is it tenable for three people to vote 100% for somebody who has a peerage because of what their relative did in ancient history, who has been thrown out of the House of Commons and who is now back legislating in the Chamber? If this Parliament were an African country, the Minister’s colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be calling for sanctions because of the families that had ruled the Parliament for generations and the lack of democracy.

[Luke Graham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Hanson]

Hold on a moment. If this were China and Chairman Mao’s grandson had a seat in the Chinese Parliament simply because he was Chairman Mao’s grandson, I bet the Minister would be calling for sanctions against China.

[Luke Graham]

Having lived and worked in China, that is not the case, but on the right hon. Gentleman’s point about supremacy and democracy, does he not accept that under the Parliament Act 1911, the people of the United Kingdom are still sovereign and the Commons can still overrule the Lords? Although I agree that there should be reform in the Lords, let us not take the argument to the extreme. Democracy still rules in this country and it lies with the Commons.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I believe the right hon. Gentleman was about to conclude his speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to add my voice to over 100 years of debate on the subject of reforming the House of Lords. The unresolved discussion on Lords reform has been going on for so long that an annual debate on the subject must surely now be considered a parliamentary tradition. In 1908, the Queen’s great-grandfather was the reigning monarch, while New Zealand had just become an independent country. It was also the year in which the Rosebery report made recommendations on how peers should be selected for the Lords. Such is the pace of change at Westminster that here we are, 110 years later, still tinkering around the edges of our bloated and unelected upper Chamber. After all that time, the proposed reforms before us today hardly seem worth the wait.

That is especially the case when we consider that it could take up to 15 years to reduce the size of the Lords to 600 Members. Why 600? I have read the report and nowhere does it explain why the Committee decided on 600. Did they consider how many Lords contribute to debates, Committees or groups? Some do. As was eloquently explained in the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), some make very valuable contributions, but do 600? When the Lords debated the issue, 61 Members took part—that is 61 out of the 799 currently eligible peers. When the Lord Speaker’s Committee launched a consultation, 62 Members contributed.

The reduction from 826 peers is undoubtedly progress, but we are merely reducing the size of the problem, not solving it. To underscore the timid nature of these proposals, new Members of the Lords would still have a guaranteed position for 15 years. We would retain 92 hereditary peers. We would retain the Lords Spiritual, 26 archbishops and bishops. We would retain the royal office-holders, Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. Of course, reducing the peers to 600 but protecting the hereditary and spiritual peers would also mean they made up a greater proportion of the unelected House.

I ask hon. Members whether they are happy to go out into their constituencies and argue in favour of an upper House of unelected appointees with 15-year terms—a House that has no mechanism for the public to hold its Members to account, in which the ability or suitability of its Members is completely outwith the control of the electorate. Would they be happy to speak with constituents face to face and tell them that our modern Parliament should include unelected bishops and hereditary peers, the heirs of long-forgotten generals, admirals and landowning aristocracy? Where is the progress towards a balanced House, by gender, geography or religion? How do we know that minorities are represented? We do not, and we will not, because the Committee’s remit was to address only the size of the House. I acknowledge the good work done by the Committee, but its hands were tied before it even started to write.

Here we are, skirting around the issue and ignoring the core question of whether we should even have an unelected Chamber. What does that say about the nature of Westminster? The “mother of Parliaments” has spawned many legislatures around the world, many of which have long overtaken us in their ability to reform and adapt to the changed needs of their political systems. Westminster, on the other hand, limply staggers on without any of the energy or imagination that characterises other Parliaments.

[Luke Graham]

We have heard comments from my side of the House in favour of reform, but the hon. Gentleman is characterising Westminster as something that limply goes on with no energy. This is the Parliament that brought in the NHS. It has introduced hundreds of technological innovations, spawned justice systems around the world and led the world in many innovations. To say that our Parliament is without energy and “limply staggers on” is unfair.

[Ronnie Cowan]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point perfectly. When did we introduce the NHS? It was in the 1950s. The last time I checked, this was 2017.

The buildings that make up this Parliament are themselves reflective of what is happening here. They are rotten and crumbling. According to a headline in The Guardian:

“Parliament’s buildings risk ‘catastrophic failure’ without urgent repairs”.

It is estimated that the final repair bill may be more than £3.5 billion. We know, however, that the problems facing this place are deeper than crumbling masonry and decaying stonework. The institutions themselves are in need of urgent repair but, with another opportunity to genuinely reform the House of Lords, we have decided instead to paper over the cracks. We have had a century of debates like this one on deciding what colour and pattern that paper will be, yet the cracks remain underneath.

Limiting the length of terms, reducing the size of the Chamber and minimising the number of appointments the Prime Minister can make represents progress, but they are the smallest possible first steps towards reforming the Lords into a Chamber fit for 21st-century democracy. Lord Burns said that these proposals are a

“radical yet achievable solution to the excessive size of the House of Lords”.

With respect to Lord Burns and the Lord Speaker’s Committee, these proposals are not radical and will only reinforce public anger at and scepticism of Westminster politics. Most people will simply look at this situation and see a Committee of Lords concluding that the privileged position of other peers should be more or less protected.

I know that Members from all parts of the House want genuine reform, but let us be realistic: the UK Government have no authority and are barely surviving. As the country moves steadily closer to a Brexit cliff edge, Parliament has neither the time nor the political energy to tackle Lords reform when so much else is happening. Meanwhile, people in my constituency of Inverclyde and across Scotland will look at Lords reform as just another example of this Parliament’s inability to change. They may soon decide that powers resting here may be better placed in a unicameral Parliament—and that Parliament is in Edinburgh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Howarth. What a very interesting debate this has been. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for securing it. There have been many debates on the House of Lords over many years. Indeed, some would say that many Scots have been arguing over its very existence since at least 1707. We should recall, too, that England has been far less timid about this in the past. Under Cromwell, the English House of Lords was abolished by an Act of Parliament that stated:

“The Commons of England assembled in Parliament, finding by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England”.

My hon. Friend raised the issue of the House of Lords’ credibility being in crisis, which, by extension, may affect the credibility of the House of Commons. He pointed out the shameful fact that the House of Lords has had to take action to address that because, as has been made clear in both the 2015 and 2017 Conservative manifestos, the UK Government consider electoral reform “not a priority”.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) in a characteristically passionate contribution made it clear that he supported reform, although he feels a fully elected second Chamber would be unworkable. I appreciate the fact that he wants reform, but, on his concerns about such a second Chamber being unworkable, I point out that such arrangements exist in many other countries around the world, including my country of birth: Australia.

[Luke Graham]

It would be great to have some clarity on the SNP position, because we have heard a couple of different opinions this morning. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) talked about having a unicameral legislature such as China’s. Other Members have talked about a fully elected second Chamber. It would be great to understand from the party’s Front-Bench spokesperson what the position is: is the SNP for a unicameral legislature such as China, or a fully elected second Chamber?

[Deidre Brock]

In Scotland, happily, there is a long tradition of considerable consultation on these issues. I expect the people of Scotland to decide these matters after considerable consultation.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) spoke of his long-standing support for the abolition of the House of Lords and the need to decide on a good replacement. He also decried very much the presence of hereditary peers, which I will address.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who as always made a very passionate contribution, described the report’s recommendations as timid and highlighted the House of Lords’ many democratic shortcomings. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) spoke of the SNP’s principled opposition to House of Lords membership for its representatives. I am certainly proud to be a member of a party supporting that position. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), in ebullient form, called for significant and rapid reform.

I rather admire the boldness of that statement in the Act from the English Parliament calling for the abolition of the House of Lords. I join in that sentiment and call for its abolition. I call for it to be scrapped. Many consider it to be nothing more than a retirement home for decaying politicians and people with nothing better to do than take a handout from the public purse. Some say it is a knacker’s yard for knackered politicians who refuse to accept that their time has passed. As an Australian, I have a special dislike for the idea that unelected people have a major role in governing a country. I am clearly far too young to remember Gough Whitlam’s Government, but his dismissal by an unelected Governor-General still haunts the politics of that nation.

With the help of the Library and the blog of the London School of Economics, I discovered a few things. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, there appear to be only two Parliaments in recognised democracies that have a Chamber of wholly unelected Members appointed for life: this one and Canada’s, though thankfully the one in Canada is soon to be reformed. Even Zimbabwe’s Senate is elected, and even Bahrain’s National Assembly has a four-year term instead of lifelong sinecure.

It is time to modernise properly and, if abolition is not on the cards, to introduce much greater term limits and elections. As has been mentioned, the report seems to see some difficulty in cutting the numbers quickly, but I, too, have a few suggestions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East asked, why do bishops sit in the legislature? We should remove them and the remaining hereditaries; if they think they have something to contribute, they can always stand for election. Then we could institute one of the report’s recommendations, but in a far more direct form—get rid of everyone who has served more than 15 years. That would extract a couple of hundred Members. If we got rid of former MPs, we would be down to about 350. If we removed people who had served in other Parliaments or on councils, lobbyists and those rewarded for internal party work, we would be down to about 250. We could cut the ones who have not turned up or not spoken in the past three years and the number would be down further. It is easy to cut the number if people are interested in a functioning parliamentary Chamber.

As has already been mentioned, there is great concern about the criteria used to decide who is eligible for such appointments. Many argue that the second Chamber is riddled with people rewarded for blind loyalty, people who are there doing party work rather than parliamentary work, and people ennobled so that they could become Ministers because the party of government got incompetents elected instead of people who could do the job. It is considered by many to be a rotten borough and a cesspit of self-interest and entitlement. Any Government who believed in democracy would get rid of it.

The recommendation should not be one new appointment for every two Members who leave. We should ramp that ratio up—to three or four out for every one in—or hold all appointments until the number is down to below 400 at least. Alternatively, we could have it that two must leave for every one appointed and then let the appointments clean the stables. We could get rid of all the incumbents and think again about who we actually want in that Chamber—a revising Chamber, as some would have it. We could abolish it or make people stand for election. We could do practically anything to breathe new life into a museum, but what would be unsustainable would be tinkering at the edges to reduce numbers slightly over many, many years and keeping the same broken system.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. First, I convey apologies from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). Because of ill health, I, as the shadow Parliamentary Private Secretary, have been asked to stand in at the last minute.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing this debate to discuss the report by the Lord Speaker’s Committee. The hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate for reforming the other place, and I welcome any discussion on extending our democracy. Excellent points have been made by many hon. Members, and I agree with many of the arguments, especially those advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson).

Before dealing with the issue of the Lords in detail, let me just say that this is a crucial moment at which to consider Britain’s many constitutional arrangements. Our great nation is preparing to leave the EU, and that will bring many changes to the way the UK constitution functions. There was and is much appetite for extending our democracy, as we saw throughout and subsequent to the EU referendum debate. However, the Government have not responded well to the public’s concerns about our democratic deficit, whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. Their European Union (Withdrawal) Bill would put huge and unaccountable power out of the hands of Members of either House and into the hands of Ministers, sideline Parliament on key decisions and put crucial rights and protections at risk. Far from bringing control back to Parliament, it would result in a power grab for the Government.

In this context, Labour welcomes any discussion of how to increase the scale and reach of our democracy. However, it is somewhat peculiar that we in this House are discussing an internal report, proposed by the Lord Speaker, before any debate has taken place in that House. I have always tried to be a fast worker, but we have been so quick off the mark that the Lords themselves have yet to consider their approach to its recommendations. It is entirely possible that they will have views and opinions that we have yet to think of, so I hope that this discussion leads to meaningful debate and is not a waste of critical parliamentary time. Will the Minister please tell me whether he knows when the other place will have an opportunity to consider the report?

The report focuses on the subject of reducing the number of Members of the House of Lords. Notably, it considers doing so without any legislation, although that is actually unsurprising, as this Government have no appetite for bringing in any reforms. There is widespread agreement on all sides of the Lords that that House has become too large. It is one of the biggest legislative Chambers in the world. That is in part a consequence of former Prime Minister David Cameron’s years of packing the Government Benches there. In fact, Cameron appointed more peers per year and at a faster rate than any other Prime Minister since 1958, when life peerages were introduced, and more were from the Government parties and fewer from the Opposition. As he left office he appointed 13 new peers, becoming the first Prime Minister in a generation to have a controversial “resignation honours list”. This report illuminates how that Administration increased the number of Government peers at a much faster rate than previous ones. Do this Government have a prediction for how many Members the other place will have five or 10 years from now if reforms are not undertaken?

It is disappointing that comprehensive reform of the second Chamber is not a priority for the Government. That was something that the Conservative party outlined in its 2017 manifesto. The Government’s position on the matter is somewhat troubling.

Before calling the snap election, the Prime Minister attacked the other place, describing peers as “opponents” of the Government who have

“vowed to fight us every step of the way.”

She highlighted how they are not democratically elected. That was an astute and correct observation even if the rest of her statement that day was partisan rhetoric. If the Prime Minister was at that point so concerned about the undemocratic process by which Members of that House take their seats, why are the Government refusing to implement any necessary reform?

The Government’s lack of appetite to reduce the number of peers in the upper Chamber is especially peculiar given their determination to cut the number of MPs in this House. That is a cynical move that they claim will cut the cost of politics, yet they are still appointing so many Lords and doing nothing to reduce the size of that Chamber. There are costs associated with those Members, too. If the Government were really serious about cutting the amount that we spend on administering our democratic apparatus, they would be doing more to reform the upper Chamber. Will the Minister tell us what the Government will be doing to cut the cost of politics in the House of Lords?

While the Government are doing little to reduce the size of the House of Lords but trying to have fewer Members in the Commons, the casual observer might perceive on the part of the Government an 18th-century attitude, in which the principles of patronage or hereditary privilege, as seen in the Lords, are regarded as more important than the democratic mandates of the Members who sit in the Commons. With that in mind, can the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to safeguard our democracy in both Houses of Parliament?

Labour Members recognise that the other place has played an integral role in the UK’s constitution, complementing the work of the House of Commons while respecting its primacy as the elected Chamber. None of our criticisms of the lack of democratic accountability detracts from the hard work and expertise of the House of Lords. That body can be an excellent Chamber for reviewing legislation and complementing our work in the Commons.

There have been a number of significant wins and concessions as a direct result of the hard work of the Labour Lords Front-Bench teams, staff and Back Benchers, in collaboration with peers from across the other place. It was because of the efforts of Labour peers that higher education providers are now required to give eligible students the option to register to vote at the same time as enrolling with a provider. Labour Lords were able to gain concessions in relation to the then Pension Schemes Bill to make sure that a scheme funder of last resort is in place to ensure that funds are protected in the event of a pension scheme collapse.

Those are just a few examples. There is certainly a large amount of expertise in the current membership of the House of Lords. However, comprehensive reform is vital to address the growing democratic deficit in our country. We cannot defend one House of our legislature not being democratically elected or accountable.

This is a serious and thoughtful report, with some interesting recommendations on 15-year terms for new Members, plans to ensure the continuing flow of new blood into the Chamber, and the removal of the Prime Minister’s absolute power of appointment. We all look forward to discussing the recommendations with colleagues from across both Houses, but in the absence of upcoming legislation on Lords reform, we also hope for a constructive response from the Government. What is the Government’s position on the various recommendations put forward?

In Labour’s 2017 general election manifesto, we committed to establish a constitutional convention to examine and advise on reforming the way Britain works at a fundamental level. We must have a debate on what any reformed upper Chamber would look like and the principles upon which it would be built. The convention will include vital questions about our citizens’ relationships with Government and will look at extending democracy locally, regionally and nationally, considering the option of a more federalised country. Together we must consider where power and sovereignty lie, in politics, the economy, the justice system and our communities.

Labour’s fundamental belief is that the second Chamber should be democratically elected. That is the standard we must work towards. In the interim period, we will seek to end the hereditary principle, abolishing the opportunity for some to become lawmakers by virtue of birth.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Lady talks about democracy in the UK and elsewhere, yet in the last Parliament the party leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), advocated reasserting direct control of overseas territories because he did not feel that they could manage their own affairs. Is it democracy or direct control, or is it just at the fiat of the good leader?

[Laura Smith]

I want to point out that the last Labour Government massively reduced the number of hereditary peers who sat in the House of Lords, overthrowing the system of inherited political power that had previously dominated in the Lords. I will move on from that point if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

As I have said, it is important that the democratic deficit in this country is tackled. A root and branch system of reform must be undertaken, and quickly. We cannot allow the Government to continue their years of inaction on this matter. We must see some action on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

The Minister rightly said that any reform should be a cross-party process. Bearing in mind that the Scottish National party does not take its seats in the House of Lords, would he find it useful for the SNP to clarify its position on Lords reform and say whether it is in favour of abolition, a unicameral system, or a fully elected second Chamber to be incorporated as part of the deliberations?

[Chris Skidmore]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point. As this debate has shown, there is a wide variety of views across all parties, which goes to show how important it is that we have careful consideration of reform of the other place. Some people here are absolute abolitionists. Some are in favour of an elected Chamber. Some are obviously not in favour of a UK Parliament—a position that has been taken by the Scottish Nationalists. It is regrettable that they do not take their seats in the House of Lords, as that would enable them to influence the debate. I hope that going forward, all parties can clearly set out their views on the report in detail.

We look forward to the debate in the House of Lords before Christmas and to seeing whether a consensus on the proposals can emerge. I thank all Members who have participated today, and I hope that we can move forward on measures to ensure that we are ultimately able to reduce the size of the House of Lords.