Debates between Oliver Dowden and Gareth Snell during the 2024 Parliament

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Oliver Dowden and Gareth Snell
Oliver Dowden Portrait Sir Oliver Dowden
- Hansard - -

I am strongly of the view that we should consider all these things in the round. There is merit here—that is why we are proposing a reasoned amendment—but the risk of proceeding in a rushed fashion is that we come to regret it, as we have on many previous occasions.

Oliver Dowden Portrait Sir Oliver Dowden
- Hansard - -

I will make some progress and then I will give way.

In 1999, Baroness Jay, the then Leader of the House of Lords, said that a partly reformed Lords with only excepted hereditaries remaining would be

“more legitimate, because its members have earned their places”

and would have more authority. That was termed the Jay doctrine at the time. If the excepted peers go, what other conventions are at risk of change—the Salisbury convention, or the restraint against vetoing secondary legislation? The lack of consultation and scrutiny, and the Government’s piecemeal approach to reform, has meant such questions have the potential to be reopened.

Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Dowden Portrait Sir Oliver Dowden
- Hansard - -

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) and then to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell).

Oliver Dowden Portrait Sir Oliver Dowden
- Hansard - -

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the reforms were introduced in 1999. By my calculation, the Labour party was in power for another 11 years and did precisely nothing further. I will come to this point in a moment, but the reason the hereditaries remained in the House of Lords in 1999 was to ensure that all these things were considered at the same time. The Government are breaking a principle that they agreed to previously.

Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the Salisbury convention. Is that his way of telling us that, as the Bill was a manifesto commitment— as pointed out by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson)—Conservative peers will be voting for it to comply with the convention that he has said is so important?