House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

I do not object to the hereditary principle. I believe that hereditary peers play a vital part in the overall mix of the British Parliament. Indeed, the hereditary principle is enshrined in our constitution via the monarchy itself. In fact, our Parliament is made up of the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Those who argue to discard the hereditary principle should beware that the Crown itself is in peril if we continue to go down this road—[Interruption.] If I may continue, Madam Deputy Speaker, the removal of hereditary peers would be a grave loss to our Parliament and our country. It would be a purge of many substantial, independent voices that are immune to political patronage and work solely in the public interest for King and country. They do not seek to be popular or to win re-election; they exist to serve our nation.

It has been said that a fence should not be removed before we know why it was put up in the first place. Labour would have done well to heed this lesson from its last period of governance. Rushing to change our tried and tested system without considering the full consequences of its actions would be to commit an act of constitutional vandalism.

Why are the Government embarking on this action? What in God’s name motivates them? Is it simply to eradicate dissent in the other place? If so, this can be described only as self-serving political radicalism. Not content with a simple majority of 157 in the House of Commons—although I think that figure has gone down now as the number of independents has risen—this Government seemingly aim to eradicate dissent in the upper House through this damaging legislation.

The Bill entails the removal of Conservatives, Cross Benchers, Liberal Democrats and non-affiliated peers—but only a small number of Labour peers—who often provide the most substantial dissent to and constructive criticism of the Government’s legislative proposals. Worse still, I fear that the removal of the 92 hereditary peers is only the beginning. The next step would be the introduction of an age cap for membership, provoking an even more numerically significant second cull of dissent, enabling Labour to pack the other place with political appointments and abolishing any form of effective Opposition in the upper House.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be operating on the premise that all hereditary peers are Conservatives. Why does he think that people with entrenched privilege are naturally Conservative?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions are made by colleagues who have been contributing and spending time in the Chamber and not just wandering in; the hon. Member got very lucky just then. Mr Rosindell, please go ahead.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Like many Members, I have constituents who have been affected. Indeed, I grew up without a grandmother, due to infected blood. Not only did my constituents in Barnard Castle lose a child, but their other son experienced severe mental health challenges, which are lasting throughout his adult life, as a consequence of the strain that has been placed on the family because of their long struggle for justice. I am grateful for questions about the duty of candour, but will the Minister agree to regularly update the House on the other measures that will bring about culture change? Culture change is difficult, and it is difficult to know if and when it has been achieved. I would be interested to see a regular update on that.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am sure the whole House extends its sympathies to my hon. Friend on the loss of his grandmother as a consequence of this scandal. He is entirely right to highlight the impact that it has had on others: the people we call the affected people as a consequence of this scandal. With regard to the culture of institutional defensiveness, the critical thing is that people do not put protecting individual reputations or the reputation of institutions above what is in the public interest or above the duty of public service. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is an easy thing to lead on, but it is certainly something that this Government are determined to lead on, and of course I undertake to update the House regularly on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sam Rushworth Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

T8. In recent years, rural parts of my constituency were left without power for a week following storm Arwen, and, during covid, children in upland areas were unable to access school due to poor connectivity. Does the Minister agree that resilience requires taking into account the energy and connectivity needs of areas such as Teesdale and Weardale?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

First, let me thank my hon. Friend and his family for walking across the country to raise awareness of child poverty during the pandemic.

The Government recognise the disruption to education caused by the pandemic and the different access to online learning and IT equipment. We are committed to learning lessons from the past and making improvements for the future. In the immediate term, the Government have invested in delivering nationwide gigabyte connectivity as soon as possible. We are investing £5 billion as part of this project to ensure that the hardest-to-reach areas across the UK, such as my hon. Friend’s constituency, receive coverage.