House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I will try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman because he is a new Member. We all learn something every day here, and when a Member has been here for 27 years, unless we are entirely stupid we learn a great deal, so I have picked up one or two things. The critical frailty in his argument is the difference between authority and influence. Of course it is true that the King grants Royal Assent to the Bills that we pass and so they become Acts, but the very business of him granting Royal Assent reinforces his authority, and the fact that he has a personal audience with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis, which is more than the hon. Gentleman ever will and more than I do, suggests that his influence over our affairs is considerably greater than that of most of the people elected here. It is quite wrong to suggest that the monarch does not exercise political influence and thereby political authority.

I also spoke about continuity. The importance in our constitutional settlement of the continuation of the role of the House of Lords is that it provides a degree of continuity. Members have talked about what is time-honoured and cast that aside as though it does not matter. What is time-honoured counts because it has been honed by generations of people, not merely decided upon by one group of people at one point in time.

I heard another speech which criticised birthright. If I stood here and said it was the birthright of every Briton that habeas corpus prevails, or if I said it was the birthright of every subject of this kingdom that they can speak and think and act freely, everyone would feel that it was entirely right and proper for me to make those pronouncements, yet birthright has been criticised in this Chamber as if it was nothing.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

The point is that the birthrights the right hon. Gentleman describes are available to all of us, whereas the birthrights we are talking about are restricted to very few people, some of whom have inherited them from a point that is literally in the history books and is so far back, and the contribution is so archaic now, that it really means nothing. We have to be realistic about this, and that is why we are looking at the hereditary peers first.

[Sir John Hayes]

Some of the things which we inherit by birth are indeed universal—universal in the sense that all Britons enjoy them. They are not of course universal in the sense that those across the world enjoy them; they would love to enjoy many of the freedoms that we had earned over time due to those who came before us. As the hon. Lady said, these things go right back. The evolution of our constitutional settlement is rooted in history and shaped over time—it evolves.

And it is right that the House of Lords evolves too, so I am not against Lords reforms per se. There is a case, for example, for saying that attendance matters in the House of Lords. We do not have an amendment to this effect, but it would be perfectly reasonable to agree that those appointed to the House of Lords as life peers who never attend or attend very rarely give up their right to do so. That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable and measured reform of the House of Lords, and it would cut the numbers dramatically, because although we are frequently told the House of Lords has many hundreds of Members, those who regularly vote in Divisions tend to be drawn from the same group on both sides of that Chamber.

There are sensible reforms that could be made to the House of Lords, but this reform delivers neither in terms of legitimacy, for it makes the House of Lords no more democratic, nor in terms of efficacy, because it makes the House of Lords no more effective. One is tempted therefore to assume that it is prejudice dressed with spite that lies behind this proposal, and I find that hard to believe given the high opinion that I have of the two Ministers sitting on the Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

Neither do I believe in an elected second Chamber, as I have made clear. I take the straightforward view that the system at the moment, for the most part, works pretty well. We could make reforms—it would seem perfectly reasonable to look at how peers are appointed and we could look at the number of peers in the upper House, as I mentioned—but I do not really buy those reforms. As far as mandates are concerned, the Government certainly have a mandate to bring that package forward, but the official Opposition have a role in both countering that and ultimately opposing it. That is the nature of our parliamentary system. My goodness, if we voted for everything that the Labour Government brought forward from their manifesto, there would be no point in having an official Opposition of any kind.

[Patricia Ferguson]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Lady and give her a second bite of the cherry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for taking the intervention. I struggle to understand what the Conservative party’s line is on the Bill. It would appear that he disagrees with a number of his colleagues. At the end of the day, how will Conservative Members vote?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a matter for those on the Front Bench. I see members of the Conservative Whips Office in their place and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) sitting behind the Dispatch Box. These days, I am merely a highly regarded, distinguished and senior Back Bencher. [Laughter.] The days when I had any say in how the Conservative Opposition—or in previous times the Conservative Government—chose to vote in Divisions are gone, but they are not gone forever; this is only a sojourn on the Back Benches. I want to make that perfectly clear.

Let me return to my principal theme, which is that of authority. The authority of this House is partly born of its relationship with the other House. Were the other House to become elected, its authority would by definition grow and our authority by comparison diminish, so I am strongly opposed to an elected second Chamber. While I accept the principled argument of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and others, it is not for me. There is also the matter of the authority of our constitution. Our constitutional settlement, which we have rehearsed briefly in the debate, is dependent on that relationship, but also—I think it is fair to say—on reforms of this kind being measured.

It might surprise Members to hear that last night, I was looking at a short book written by Hilaire Belloc and Chesterton. That book, which is available from the Library of the House, rehearsed the arguments that prevailed at the time of the debate on the Parliament Act—it was then the Parliament Bill—in the House of Commons. It might surprise right hon. and hon. Members to learn, as I learned last night, that when Asquith introduced those changes—when the House of Lords rejected Lloyd George’s Budget and it became necessary to curb the powers of that House—rather than rushing to legislate, he set up a conference between both sides of the House to determine a compromise. Belloc, as Members will remember, was elected as a Liberal MP. He parodied that process and said that what came out of it was no better than what went into it. None the less, it was an attempt, at least, to reach a settlement in a dignified way on how we might reform the second Chamber. [Interruption.] It did take two elections. It took the 1906 election, as the Paymaster General will know, when the Liberals triumphed. I wonder whether he wants to intervene on me to sharpen up the history.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member read out some powerful words, which will have been heard across the House. Yes, de-escalation is absolutely needed at the moment as the region stands on the brink.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and those of the Prime Minister in opening his statement? In any time of conflict, our focus must be on two things: de-escalation and peace; and the plight of the civilian population, whether they be those hostages kidnapped on 7 October, those in Lebanon now sheltering in the street or those in Gaza who seek to find health facilities to treat their loved ones and themselves when they suffer from attacks by Israel. What more can we do to support the health service in Lebanon, which is now on its knees and really needs our support if it is to help the people of Lebanon?

[The Prime Minister]

We do need to help and assist with the health services in Lebanon—along with the other humanitarian support and the support for training and other matters that we are putting in, it is so important that we do that. We are in constant contact with the Lebanese authorities in relation to that.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive tone of that contribution and her recognition of the importance of meeting that deadline. She is entirely right to raise the issue of trust and I am very conscious of that in all the work I carry out in this area. She is also entirely correct to raise the issue of timetabling because it is hugely important to the victims and there are three things I would say. On the estates of deceased infected people, there will be the opening next month, in October, of interim payments of £100,000. The final payments to infected people that go down the core route of this scheme will start by the end of this year. And payments to affected people will start next year. The timetabling of appropriate regulations is done with that timetable in mind, to ensure we get those payments to people as quickly as possible.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but will he outline the categories of loss that victims can claim against the scheme, and how will this inform the size of the compensation award that they can claim?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The report sets out the five different areas of loss: those from injury and the social impact, then the autonomy award for the real effect on people’s freedom and family life, and also the loss from the care people have received, and financial loss as well. Those are the major heads of loss under the scheme and it is important to reflect the very different ways in which people were affected. It is also important to accept, as Sir Brian Langstaff set out, that a tariff-based scheme is crucial as well. That is to try to make this process as simple as the Government possibly can and to ensure people receive the justice they deserve.