Debates between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Gavin Williamson during the 2024 Parliament

Tue 12th Nov 2024

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Gavin Williamson
Gavin Williamson Portrait Sir Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you for your firm chairmanship of this debate, Madam Chairman. The hon. Member made a strong and powerful intervention, which I hope is noted down. I can see him being the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the junior Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs very soon. I am not sure if my commendation and support helps him in his endeavours, but I hope that it does. Of course, the hon. Member makes a thoughtful and interesting point. The Government do have time to introduce further legislation, but the reality is that pressure on time in this place is one of the greatest pressures—time is the most precious thing. I certainly would not engage in any form of political betting—I hope that can be recorded in Hansard—but if, perhaps in a previous age, I were a betting man, I might have offered this wager to the Paymaster General. I would wager a whole £5 that the Paymaster General will not be in a situation of getting any more legislation on Lords reform. I will give way to the Paymaster General, who is going to refute that.

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
- Hansard - -

I certainly would not enter into a wager. I would have hoped that the Conservative party would have learned its lesson on that.

Gavin Williamson Portrait Sir Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I had hoped that the Paymaster General would have given a categorical assurance that there would be further legislation and that in the next King’s Speech a retirement age in the House of Lords will be introduced as part of that legislation, along with a minimum participation level, but he stayed silent. He made a little quip. I will give him another opportunity to do so, although he will probably stay in his place, which is of course his right.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Gavin Williamson
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

I am certainly in favour of the representation of different faiths in the upper House, but the Government set out a step-by-step process in our manifesto.

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman after making some progress.

Our manifesto sets out a series of steps, which is the key point. This Government have a mandate to reform the House of Lords.

Gavin Williamson Portrait Sir Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

One moment. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

Our manifesto sets out that there should be an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We have been elected on a manifesto to get there on a step-by-step basis.

Gavin Williamson Portrait Sir Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

As this is his third attempt, I will show sympathy.

Gavin Williamson Portrait Sir Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the Minister for being so generous. He makes a very interesting argument, and I think many Members were excited about the change he proposed. I have read his manifesto, which makes a number of interesting points about hereditary peers, a retirement age of 80, strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed and an alternative second Chamber. All of this is missing from the Bill, but it was in his manifesto. Is he open to accepting amendments to include these proposals that were in his manifesto?

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the other steps in our manifesto, which he should have communicated to Conservative Front Benchers when they were drafting their reasoned amendment—[Interruption.] It looks like it too. If the right hon. Gentleman reads our manifesto with his usual diligence, he will see that it states that this Bill is the immediate first step. That is the mandate we bring before the House today.

--- Later in debate ---
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

It is great to have my hon. Friend’s support. As the Leader of the House of Lords said when this matter was debated a few weeks ago in the other place, for the last 25 years, one of the arguments has been that nothing should be done until everything can be done. We see that same, tired, stale old argument once again at the heart of the official Opposition’s amendment. That approach means that in 2024 we still have hereditary elements in our legislature.

Gavin Williamson Portrait Sir Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On that point, will the Minister give way?

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman once.

--- Later in debate ---
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start at the debate, he would have heard exactly the same point made to me in the first intervention. I will repeat the two points I made in response. First, that is a completely different part of our constitution, and no monarch has withheld Royal Assent from a Bill since the reign of Queen Anne. Secondly, we have a constitutional monarchy that enjoys popular support. I gave the same answer to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) at the start of the debate.

Let me summarise this short five-clause Bill. Clause 1 removes the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords and puts an end to the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in that House. Clause 2 removes the current role of the House of Lords in considering peerage claims, reflecting the removal of the link between hereditary peerage and the House of Lords. Complex or disputed claims will now be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, instead of the House of Lords. Clause 3 makes consequential amendments, and clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence. The Bill will remove the remaining hereditary peers at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. Finally, clause 5 establishes the short title of the Bill.

To conclude, the Bill fulfils an explicit manifesto commitment to deliver this reform to the House of Lords.

Gavin Williamson Portrait Sir Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

In my generosity, as the right hon. Member has asked so many times, I will, for the last time, give way to him.

Gavin Williamson Portrait Sir Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The right hon. Gentleman has been truly generous. We know that he is a radical at heart, and that he has been suppressed by No. 10 Downing Street and the Whips’ Office, but we want to see the radical come out of him. His manifesto has four paragraphs on constitutional reform. The first is a little waffly, but the second is very important, as it mentions the abolition of hereditary peers and the 80-year retirement age. Surely a retirement age provision could be a key element of the Bill. It could be added on to it, to help the right hon. Gentleman deliver more of his promised reforms. I say to the House that I am willing to defy my Whips to deliver the reform that many of us want to see.

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - -

Together, the right hon. Gentleman and I could form the new radicals. When we move on to the next stage of reform, I look forward to a similar amount of independent, enthusiastic support—support that he will no doubt demonstrate when we get a new Leader of the Opposition.