House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then Government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of measures that could change the relationship between the two Houses, because it risks unintended consequences, does not reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform and does not provide for full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which would give the opportunity to consider the case for overall reform, seek cross-party engagement on proposals, and review the implications of all proposals.”

The British constitution is not codified. One might not choose to craft such a system if one were establishing a new country from scratch, but we are proud to be an old country. The checks and balances of the House of Lords—its tried and tested conventions—work. The House of Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber. That is the key point: this elected House has primacy. Of course, the British constitution does—and should—continue to evolve, but we should fix only what is broken and be cautious about rushing into change. Our evolution should start with questions of efficacy, not optics. We should be guided by the wisdom of past generations, and the continuity of history and tradition. As Edmund Burke wrote:

“We have an inheritable crown, an inheritable peerage, and a House of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties from a long line of ancestors.”

The Paymaster General has described the excepted peers as “out of step” with modern Britain. Like the Blair and Brown Governments, this Government seem obsessed with change for change’s sake. We have seen it all before. We have seen this rebranding spun to give the impression of progress: the Law Lords replaced with the Supreme Court; the Lord Chancellor’s Department aping the US-style Justice Department; even Her Majesty’s Stationery Office recast as the Office of Public Sector Information. At best, it is cosmetic; at worst, it risks irreversible damage. As we saw with the changes to the House of Lords’ judicial role, rushed constitutional change leads to unintended consequences. We should, therefore, proceed with caution.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The role of hereditary peers in our democratic system is a bygone relic of a less democratic age. May I ask whether that is why the shadow Minister feels such an affinity for it?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I join the Government in paying tribute to the hereditary peers. The argument that I will elucidate in my speech, as set out in the amendment, is that if this Government are committed to reform of the upper House, they should consider all the consequences of that reform, and this House, and the other place, should have ample opportunity to consider it properly.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It was very good to be in the hon. Member’s constituency, at Blenheim Palace. I cannot tell him how many European leaders said to me that they had previously visited, usually while they were studying in the UK, but had only paid the £5 to get into the grounds, because they had not had the money to get into the building that they were then entering. That was a common theme.

As for the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s question, we are not returning to freedom of movement. I understand the desire of people to work in other countries, but I need to make it clear that there is no rejoining the European Union, no rejoining the single market or the customs union, and no returning to freedom of movement. However, I do believe there is a better deal that we can work on, and I think that the more we can work across the House on that, the better, because then it will be the more enduring.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As the proud home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, my constituency knows the vital importance of our armed forces in keeping Britain safe, so I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to setting out a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. Can the Prime Minister update the House on conversations that he has had with our NATO friends and allies to encourage others to match that target?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of the commitment that we already make to NATO on 2%. As would be expected, we did have a discussion at the NATO council on the need for all NATO members to make that contribution and to increase their contribution, and there was a commitment to do so. Our commitment to 2.5% will be set out, and the path will be set out, by the Chancellor at a future fiscal event.