Commons Chamber

Thursday 4th September 2025

(began 1 day, 11 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
09:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We We start We start with We start with questions We start with questions to We start with questions to the
09:35
None Portrait Q1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of climate change on food security. (905424)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Question number one.
09:35
09:36
09:36
09:37
09:38
09:38
09:38
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:40
09:41
09:41
09:42
09:43
09:43
09:44
09:44
09:45
09:46
09:46
09:47
09:48
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:51
09:51
09:52
09:53
09:53
09:54
09:55
09:56
None Portrait Q6. What progress he has made on reducing pollution in bathing waters. (905429)
-

tier.
09:56
09:57
09:58
09:59
09:59
10:00
10:00
10:01
None Portrait Q7. What steps he is taking to increase access to the Sustainable Farming Incentive for small and medium sized farms. (905430)
-

I welcome the... Sorry number seven.
10:01
10:01
10:02
10:02
10:03
10:03
10:04
10:04
None Portrait Topical questions: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-

Tropicals.
10:04
10:05
10:06
10:06
10:07
10:08
10:08
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:11
10:11
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:14
10:15
None Portrait Oral questions: Attorney General’s Office
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Solicitor General. Question number one. Minister.
10:15
10:15
10:16
10:17
10:17
10:18
10:18
10:18
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:29
10:29
10:30
10:31
10:32
10:32
10:32
None Portrait Q5. What steps her Department is taking with the Serious Fraud Office to tackle economic crime. (905454)
-

Question number five.
10:32
10:33
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:38
10:38
None Portrait Q8. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to introduce a duty of candour. (905457)
-

Questionable eight.
10:38
10:39
10:39
10:40
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:42
10:43
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.. I hope you had, and everyone in this chamber had a very good summer break. And with just the right proportions of son, sleep, and family. Let me start with a double round of congratulations, first to the prime minister and his 63rd birthday this week putting him squarely in the prime of life. And to my brilliant colleague the MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk who has just been appointed to the giddy height of deputy shadow Leader of the House.

That is the reshuffle that really matters. As befits a former lawyer of Freshfields, he will be bringing his forensic intellect to scrutinising the government. I was planning to talk about the government's performance over the summer in Business Questions today, but taking into account the escalating union demands for pay, the rise in inflation employment and build yields, the record number of small boat crossings in the first half of this year, I think it is fair to say the past few weeks have been a total shambles for the government.

Little wonder the Prime Minister has undertaken yet another of his performative government resets in order to distract the media and the general public. He insists everything is fine, which establishes why it is all being changed round yet again. They can't blame these things on the previous government, though doubtless the Leader of the House will try in her response. No, today they can only be one topic, and that is tax. In the real world, it seems that those of us poor souls who actually do pay tax are about to be confronted with a massive tax-raising budget, perhaps with a particular focus it has been rumoured in the media on property taxes.

Last year, the Chancellor increased spending by £70 billion funding half of that through taxes in half to increased borrowing. Of course the only person who won't be paying more tax it seems celebrity prime minister. I like and rather admire the Deputy Prime Minister. Uniquely amongst the government at least she has a policy government at least she has a policy We have heard in this House the Solicitor-General talk about government taking a strict line on fraud but I did not hear so much about a strict line on tax fraud.

We now have a situation in which the Deputy Prime Minister has tried to dodge paying £40,000 in tax on her third home after a demanding previous ministers resign over tax. It appears she did not look at HMRC guidance on the internet as to further the higher rate tax was applicable and it seems unlikely any individual questioning their own tax rate would have a look at it. The Deputy Prime Minister signed a deed for what appears to be an off-the- shelf trust scheme from her solicitor.

Was this crafty to avoid tax? We need to do more about what disclosure she made to the civil service about her three homes, what reviews they did, and the advice she was offered. I hope the Prime Minister's advisors will look at these in addition to the other issues he is looking at. Does the Leader of the House believe cabinet ministers, let alone the Deputy Prime Minister of the country, should be using schemes to dodge tax? Should the Secretary of State responsible for housing be flipping her main residence to avoid paying the tax due on it? Does she agree there is the appearance of serious impropriety about the proceedings? Does she see how difficult we have made the situation for her colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is planning to put a Budget in front of the House which will include tax-raising measures, many of which are likely to be focused on body.

Above all, Labour and -- on property. Above all, Labour promised to meet the highest standards in office on record. That was in their manifesto. Does the Leader of the House accept this conduct massively falls short of that and the spreaders the Prime Minister and the government as a whole? -- It discredits whole? -- It discredits
10:48
Lucy Powell Portrait Rt Hon Lucy Powell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Manchester Central, Labour )
-
-
Welcome back to you and all the House staff, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I joined you in wishing the Prime Minister happy birthday for earlier in the month. There have been some happy events in the House and I'm not talking about the engagement of Taylor Swift to Travis Kelce, although I am sure we will wish them a happy engagement, but we have our own power couples with the honourable members for Derbyshire and Loughborough he could manage to each other and the honourable member who married her long-term partner and the honourable member for Cardiff South who married Christian this recess.

The happy news does not stop there because the member for Southampton test had her beautiful baby daughter and I'm thrilled for her and the member for Leicester her and the member for Leicester East and the new arrival, too. We are very much a family friendly Parliament these days and I'm determined that the modernisation will continue in this trend. I joined the Shadow Leader in welcoming the new Shadow Deputy Leader to his place but I hope on occasion he will ask me some questions and talk about his constituency and invite me from the backbenches, as he often does.

I'm also pleased to announce that this first one per session of Parliament of this Labour government will last until spring 2036. By any measure, our legislative program is highly ambitious and delivers on the promises we made in our manifesto and shifting power and opportunity to working people. There are a few highlights which I'm sure the shadow leader will be happy to hear but with the biggest boost to workers' rights in a generation, stopping false evictions, said Great British Energy to get bills down, bringing back rail into public ownership, saving jobs at British Steel and seizing and crushing dangerous off- road vehicles and finally re- criminalising shoplifting and assuring buses are affordable and serve communities and protecting much loved football club.

We are taking on the vested interests holding the country back and we have more to do in the rest of the session. In contrast, the party opposite have showed whose side they stand on, landlords against the Renters' Rights Bill, on the side of criminal gangs, voting against the Borders bill, and for the few, the many, with education and, as ever, dying in the ditch to save hereditary peers in the other place because we know whose side they are on. He chose to have another go at the issue of tax and property to be.

I noticed it was the subject of the opposition day debate yesterday but they could not muster enough speakers in the debate for it to go for the full three hours and so he is having another go at that today. I will repeat, the deputy Prime Minister has given a full account of her family circumstances and living arrangements and made clear she is now rectifying the mistakes she has made and has referred herself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards whose looking into it and I will not say any more on that because he is looking into it but, suffice to say, the Deputy Prime Minister is a huge asset to the government.

She is an incredibly effective minister and she has been delivering, whether that is record investment in social housing, the flagship employment rights, the biggest settlement for local government in many years, major planning reforms to get more homes built, and delivering devolution and community empowerment, and much more. They have a go at her because she is so good at her job. And yet again, he comes here and wants to talk about the economy, about the talk about the economy, about the Budget.

Yet another year has gone by and we still have had no apology from him or his colleagues on the front bench about the state be left the country's finances. Let us remind ourselves about that. A huge black hole in public spending, high levels of debt and borrowing, and living standards that fell over the last Parliament for the first time in history. He is always selective with his statistics but he did not want to mention that the British economy has grown faster than all other G7 countries in the first half of the year.

He did not mention that of the year. He did not mention that mortgages are at a five-year low and after 1.5 decades of poor productivity after a lack of investment, we are empowering the company and investigating the jobs of the future with jobs coming every day. The Chancellor will set out the budget as she does in the usual B and has made clear that most of the speculation is rubbish and is damaging. You know, let's not forget, shall be, because it is coming up to the 3-year anniversary of the disastrous Liz Truss mini budget.

I think I remember he was the financial secretary to the Treasury for the Liz Truss mini budget. That is what happens when you lose confidence and take irresponsible decisions. It is the purest in society who pay the heaviest price. -- poorest. That is when the economy crashes. We will take no lectures from them. He wanted to talk about the government performance over the summer. He did not do that. Let's be honest, his leader does not need so much of a reset at a full-blown -- but a full-blown resuscitation, doesn't full-blown resuscitation, doesn't she? Her party spent most of the summer checking for her pulse.

The truth is that her leadership of the party opposite is quite frankly at death's door.
10:55
10:56
10:56
10:58
Lucy Powell Portrait Rt Hon Lucy Powell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Manchester Central, Labour )
-
-
I welcome her back from recess and I look forward to working with her and I thank her for raising this important issue this morning. Let's be under no illusion, the situation in Gaza is truly horrific, unimaginable. The horrifying images and the counts we are seeing every day I think has seared on all of our minds as we go about our business and after so many civilian deaths and so much destruction, we are saying I man-made and wholly avoidable famine and widespread starvation.

The government is leading international efforts for peace plan. That involves the release of hostages, as she says, a ceasefire, and a massive thank you Ethereum response which we -- and a massive humanitarian response that we have to see. The creation of a Palestinian state is an important step towards this and that is why the Prime Minister said pays plans the Prime Minister said pays plans ahead of the UNRWA conference and I have backed the creation of a state of Palestine including lifetime I was asked for my opinion.

On Monday, in a statement that lasted two hours, the Foreign Secretary updated us on steps we are taking to recognise the state of Palestine and made clear that unless the Israeli government takes urgent steps to end the urgent situation in Gaza and commits to long-term peace, we will make that assessment before you leaders meet in New York. -- The leaders. We will make sure the House has the opportunity to discuss these important matters. important matters.
11:00
11:01
11:01
Bob Blackman Portrait Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for next week. She will know that 50 Back Benchers were frustrated on Monday that they were not able to debate transport inequalities. Obviously there were important statements. I would ask to consider giving protected time next week to all those who wish to contribute can do so rather than being confined to 30 seconds in the debate if it is squeezed next week. In addition to the business in the chamber, next week on Tuesday, Westminster Hall there will be debate on hydrogen supply chain.

On Thursday, 11 September, there will be two debates, one on improving regulation for nonsurgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments. In the second debate on consumer affairs. I would ask on behalf of the committee for early notice on business that we will be allocated in the week when we come back after the conference season, so we can allocate debates. Next week, London Underground network is likely to grind to an absolute hold, as the trade unions are calling out individual sections along that week which will literally ring the underground network to a halt.

The last time the unions went on strike, Labour Mayor of London had to find £30 million to buy the unions. The Transport Secretary here has long experience having been the deputy mayor for transport in London but she has not uttered a single word as far as I am aware about what will happen next week. Could we ask the leader to encourage the Transport Secretary to come to the house, let us know what will happen in London next week, if this strike actually goes ahead? I know we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transport questions next Thursday but frankly that is too late. First of all can I welcome the
11:03
11:04
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:25
11:25
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:30
Stephen Morgan Portrait Stephen Morgan MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Portsmouth South, Labour)
-
-
With permission, Madame Deputy Speaker, I will now make a statement to update this House on the government's vital work to give every child the best start in life within months of taking office, we published our plan for change, and a promise to improve the lives of working people and breakdown the barriers to opportunity for the people in this country. Lapland set a target that a record proportion of children. School ready to learn. -- Will start school ready to learn.

Why? Because the foundations of the strongest society we want to build must be laid down from the very beginning for children's lives. In July, we published our giving every child the best start in life strategy, setting out how we will achieve this target and the government's vision for the future of early education and the childcare sector, we have heard the call for families and providers, education begins long before primary school. This step change will give our children at the focus and priorities they deserve during critical early We will increase the availability of childcare, improving early education education and boosting support for families.

Building on the best of sure start by rolling out starch family hubs in every local authority area in England. Taken together, these three approaches will make a difference to families and setup children for success in education and in life. It is yet another example of this government working with promises made, promises kept. We promised to parents to make childcare more affordable for parents, and more accessible across the country. And today, we are delivering on that promise with hundreds of thousands of parents now getting 30 hours of funded childcare each week from when their child turns nine months, right until they start school.

For too long, families have struggled to get childcare places that match their individual needs and provision has been either unavailable or unaffordable. The least well off parts of our country often have far fewer childcare places per person than the most affluent, the provision of high quality childcare makes a huge difference to many lives. It helps parents give them the flexibility to balance work and family life, and helps businesses and the economy, helping parents return to work and growing the childcare sector and employment.

This marks a fundamental shift in how we support families right from the start, reducing costs, increasing choice, and helping parents balance work with family. Now, those marking full use of the offer will save on average £7500 a year. Victoria in Gloucester, the 30 hours is helping Allinson a single mother and an educator. Working five days a week, the extended childcare hours will save her around £600 a month, but they also mean she can continue her career, and as Victoria says, this rollout is a significant step forward in women's rights and workplace participation.

We are on track to deliver and reach over half a million children benefiting from this scheme this term, all exceeding this scheme this term, all exceeding initial estimates for delivery, and a rollout is a major step forward in our ambition to give every child the best start in life. And we know that this ambition is shared by our brilliant and dedicated childminder staff who work hard day in day out to make it possible for families. Private voluntary and independent nurseries as well as childminders have helped reach this important milestone.

They have grown capacity for childcare places and while providers are delivering entitlements, up by different providers. The provider supports families and nurtures young children, so we must make sure it's provision is available where it is most needed. That is why we are also delivering tens of thousands more childcare places in nurseries. School severity reported the 110 nurseries from phase 1 of the programme have opened this week at the start of term, providing 2500 places for families in parts of the countries where provision is needed.

These join a market which offers families choices to meet their needs. Nurseries can strengthen ties and ease transition into reception. Families with children of different ages offer easier drop-offs and pick-ups. School-based nurses also pay a key role in inclusion. We have already funded around 300 new and expanded school-based nurseries, and thanks to the schools hard work, they have attracted over 6000 new nursery places. We are laying the foundations of successful tens of thousands of children and today, and proud to tell the house that we are launching phase 2 of the school- based nurseries program backed a £45 million and will deliver expanded nurseries and focus on disadvantaged areas where police are needed and areas where police are needed and can make a big impact.

We will build on success of the first stage of the programme, and as before, schools can establish nurseries with voluntary and independent providers and childminders. Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Church of England primary school in Warrington who had collaborated with an existing private nursery to establish a mobile unit creating a new nursery on the school society. I was so pleased by the partnership in place between everyone involved. It is a great example of how schools can work with establish nurseries to increase child provision and breakdown barriers to opportunities.

This program is already making a difference to families in 66 local authorities and we are also looking ahead to further grow provision for future generations. Phase 3 of the programme will launch in early 2026 and will focus on meeting the long- and will focus on meeting the long- term needs of local communities. Backed by over £400 million, the program will deliver on manifesto commitments to parents in school- based nurseries and affordable childcare for parents. Families know that childcare needs don't stop when children start school.

That is why we recently extended the holiday activities and food programme, investing over £600 in young people's futures. This program provides nutritious meals and helps to close the development gap, and eases financial pressures of parents in the holidays. It is so families over £300 each. It is another part of our mission so that every child can get the best start in life. Our best start in life strategy sets out how we will support children to thrive as they grow up, alongside the £9 billion we will be investing in early years.

We are spending 1.5 children to thrive as they grow up, alongside the £9 billion we will be investing in early years. We are spending £1.5 over the next three years to strengthen the childcare sector and revitalise family services. In growing provision, more children will arrive in reception ready to learn and succeed in education. The measures I've setup today reflect this government's commitment for early education that all children can reach a good level of development and start school ready to learn. This will help families save money, and more and give children the best possible start in life.

I commend this statement to the house. statement to the house.
12:39
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)
-
-
It is a pleasure to be at the despatch boxes the very first time. Education really is the greatest enabler of success and opportunity in this community. All of us regularly visit schools, colleges and universities, and we see first hand the power of a good education. Written has some exceptionally talented young people and I look forward to working with the Minister to help drive up educational standards across the country so that these young people can get the very best start in life.

When we were in government, we were ranked fourth for reading and topping the Western world for maths. It is fantastic news that parents will now benefit of funded childcare a week for children aged nine months to 4 years, and this conservative plan, our policy is having its final rollout for working parents about what they need and deserve. The Conservative policy which will save people per child. I also welcome the food programme for its long-term future has remained unclear for many months, and it's fantastic to see how enthusiastic he feels about this plan for was only two years ago when we announced our policies around childcare being announced in the final rollout.

We were labelled broken and a total mess. Over one year ago, the secretary rolled out our childcare plan altogether, so I am grateful for the change of heart and that we have put party politics aside to deliver support that working parents need. Our children should always come first. While we welcome the expansion of this childcare, this means very little when crumbling, most notably the job tax. Earlier this week, 27 leading organisations representing children, parents and childcare provisions rate to the secretary calling for urgent action following the hike in national insurance.

Without it, the sector has warned that they will not be able to provide this final rollout with one in 10 childcare rollout with one in 10 childcare providers saying that they will face closure within the next two years without help, leaving the sector at risk of collapse. The early education coalition said that the hike in national insurance has created the perfect storm, leaving many providers in a position in offering childcare which is simply unviable. And instead of listening to experts of the organisations tasked with looking after children, the department is shameful response was to label these claims as lies and at nonsense.

How disrespectful to those parents, those children, and the childcare sector. What is at nonsense is the fact the Minister expects childcare providers to absorb increases without the financial support needed and keeping fees the same. It is not just the sector the Minister's lack of coherent planning but hard-working parents and their children who will suffer across the country. Will the Minister outline what engagement he has had with the sector to ensure that providers are not forced to shut their doors and reduce the powers they provide.

He admit how damaging the job tax has been to the sector and the impact on what the cost will be and will he update the house on the impact of the job tax on childcare provision and how he will monitor its impact? On the detail of the announcement, will the Minister clarify how we are identifying the areas and how plans to make the biggest impact? The Chancellor but not the filling in the black hole with the education budget because while we welcome the expansion childcare lob labours decision making childcare less accessible and more expensive.

The education sector so she is standing up for hard-working parents but they are the ones who will suffer as a result of this Labour government and our children will suffer. It is time for the secretary to stop making broken promises and make sure that early years provision is the number one priority.
12:43
Stephen Morgan Portrait Stephen Morgan MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Portsmouth South, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. May I start by welcoming the shadow minister to his place in the opposition frontbench. It is shocking that conservatives can't bring themselves to sue the significance of expansion or lack school-based nurseries making more affordable childcare places across the country, despite scaremongering. Nine in 10 parents have one of their first choice childcare places, and this Labour government inherited a pledge that once again we are delivering for families giving parents more choices and setting children up.

The people of this country are well aware of what happens when members opposite make pledges ahead of elections. 40 new hospitals levelling up and the reality, Liz Truss crashed pensions and mortgages and members opposite, what they do? They cheered her on. Let me spit it out for members opposite. Let me tell them truth that the British public were keen to make sure they heard at the election last year when they won't even take the blame for the things they actually did, they certainly aren't going to get the credit for the things that they didn't.

Over 14 years, they dismantled support for families. Over a thousand short start sentence which boosted early learning, provided healthcare, ripped away from communities across our countries. It is no wonder they don't want to admit that what we are rebuilding, they destroyed, and this government is living on our promise of change. Thousands of new nursery places expanded childcare hours, best start breakfast clubs in every primary school across the country, support throughout the school holidays on the side of the house.

We are delivering our promises to parents. We are saving families thousands of pounds. That is what country expects and I am proud this Labour government is delivering this.
12:45
12:47
12:48
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
High quality early years education is the best possible investment we can make in our future, whether we are serious about tackling the crisis, the attainment gap, or giving every child the best start in life. Investment in early years is one of the strongest levers we have. And we all know for too long, the previous Conservative government neglected the earlier sector, leaving a legacy of skyhigh fees, and childcare deserts in their wake. Particularly in disadvantaged areas. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the government announcement of Moscow-based nurseries, alongside the extension of funded childcare hours.

But, let's not forget the deep problems facing the private and voluntary sector. Without addressing the massive financial strain on these nurseries and childcare providers, we can never hope to deliver for families, their survival is absolutely central to supporting families up and down the country to thrive. The government's job tax, I am afraid, has only added fuel to the fire. The financial pressures of underfunded hours, the National Insurance Contributions Bill is, and inflation, have left many providers on the brink, Madame Deputy Speaker.

Some nurseries are already telling parents they will be unable to sign a new contract, due to financial pressures. And just earlier this week, in a letter published by the early years alliance, a survey of more than 800 providers for found that 44% could not meet the month of September, and more than six have already cut funded places. Couple that with the crisis in recruitment and training for staff in the sector. If the providers and staff are not there, how can the Minister expect his expansion to deliver for parents and down the country.

Will he commit to urgently reviewing the funding rates, so they reflect the real cost of delivering high quality early education. And at the same time, will he work with his colleagues in the Department for, to ensure we are extending and fully funding parental rights so that families up and down the country have a real choice as to whether they want to stay at home for a longer period in the early months or go out to work full-time.
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:24
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:30
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:34
Simon Hoare Portrait Privilege Motion Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)
-
-
two reasons, which I will explain briefly but are explained in the motion. The Parliamentary Minister for Administration and Parliamentary And Health Service Ombudsman is appointed by resolution of the House. They have the duty to respond to complaints from all of our constituents where there is validity to do so. The compile reports, make observations and suggestions, and submit the report to Parliament. This case as mentioned in the motion of Miss A and Mr U and I have no idea what the complaints were, as set out before the Charity Commission but the Charity Commission has clearly taken offence at what they PHSO has chosen to do and are bringing proceedings to deliberately delay the reports appearing before this House.

That is a complete undermining of the linkage between the ombudsman and this place and, as I said at the start, our opportunity and decisions are to have all the information that deem important to allow us to inform matters of policy. It is a simple matter, if approved, we must compel matter, if approved, we must compel the Commissioner to labour for the House -- to put before the House the report they have undertaken in terms of Miss A and Mr U and my responsibility, they bring that in my capacity with the PHSO is to give my judgement and we have not seen the reports and so we do not know yet but it is a fundamental undermining of the rights and privileges of this place and all of us as members to see reports which have been produced following due diligence and investigation and inquiry by a statutory body and the ombudsman, who is a servant of the House.

Because there is concern, and I share concern, that the Charity Commission Has Acted, I Would Say, perversely in bringing the proceedings that would delay the report, the second part of emotion is to refer that action to the Committee of Privileges for them to look at as well. In the general scheme of life, this may seem a small element of parliamentary life but the courts hitherto have always ruled and taken the standard that what Parliament wants and needs to see, Parliament should, and that the courts take no role in interfering or obstructing that channel of communication.

We are all familiar when Mr Speaker gives advice from the chair about the role and it does not mean he cannot do so, knowing that the privilege has rights and responsibilities and I hope you House is with us on this matter because it is important and I think because it is important and I think it is time to robust Lee -- to reassert our rights in a robust way on this issue. I remain to be convinced if the Charity Commission have acted advisedly in bringing the motion and, even if yes, the commission was trying to bring some pressure on me to possibly withdraw the motion and they were believing still that they were indeed right.

I decided not to do so and I think it was incorrect of the commission to ask us to do that. My commission will introduce an inquiry on arms- length bodies and members from across the House have raised with me privately, concerns about decisions they commission are taking and they are appealing to do so in a slightly abstract or perverse way, without any degree of responsibility. That is a separate matter to this motion but I think it's important for all of the bodies and in particularly the charity to understand that this House will not be bullied by arm's- length bodies trying to prevent us from doing our jobs properly and professionally on behalf of our constituents.

I beg to move.
13:39
13:41
13:42
13:42
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move that this House disagrees with Lords this House disagrees with Lords amendment one. The house sent the second chamber a bill that had a simple and direct objective, outlined in the manifesto of this government. I have to say that something very strange has happened since the report to the House. People said they Conservative Party was in hibernation after the general election but it would appear that they have found an issue that has awakened them from their slumber and on the order of their whips, some 500 -- some of them finally finding something they believed in and coming to Parliament.

They have found the Crusades. What is it? Keeping hereditary votes in their jobs, access by right of. I had to say that it is a tale as old as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time, the Tories blocking progress, who do it? It is an opportunity to talk

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an opportunity to talk about my summer reading list of the first Labour Government in 1924 and first Labour Government in 1924 and even then they were talks about reform of the House of Lords and so reform of the House of Lords and so it is very much a tale as old as time and looking at historical hindsight, it goes back further than hindsight, it goes back further than 1924. -- Hansard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

1924. -- Hansard. My honourable friend is right and even if you go back before 1924, and even if you go back before 1924, and I will, in the course of my speech, Conservatives in this House, protecting friends born into positions of power. Like the member positions of power. Like the member of Clacton who I understand it overseas at the moment and just like he wants to send people in Wales he wants to send people in Wales back down the coal mines, the Leader back down the coal mines, the Leader of the Opposition is stuck in the politics of the past.

Before I turned specifically to the amendments sent back from the other place, I want to draw attention to comments made by Lord Strathclyde who said of this bill, "Inevitable, there will be repercussions. They are storing up huge problems for themselves because not only has it been a complaint that the government is removing the military peers fast offering nothing in return, more sinister than that, they have threatened using delaying tactics on the government agenda." You only have to look at the debates and behaviour of the party opposite in the upper house.

Trying to hold the government hostage on the football governance bill, the Employment Rights Bill, the renters' rights Bill, all to protect the hereditary More we know that the Conservative party is in no fit state to take action on very much. But at present, where is the energy being directed? It is in the action of self- preservation of Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords. It is unacceptable and frankly deserves to be highlighted. I say Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill has returned to the House amended by the other place.

The majority of the amendment serve to undermine the core purpose of the bill, or go well beyond the build intended remit. Let me start with amendment one. It has to be read with its consequential amendment eight. It seeks to end the system of Hereditary Peers by- elections whilst retaining the current cohort of Hereditary Peers. The government cannot endorse those amendments. They fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the bill. The government has a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the rights of Hereditary Peers to sit rights of Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

This amendment would allow existing Hereditary Peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That's therefore blocks an immediate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reform, I will give way. I'm grateful to the Minister. He will be aware that the reasons that hereditaries still sit in the House of Lords is a deal done in 1999. And a promise made by the Labour a promise made by the Labour government was that hereditaries assurance as to when full reform of the House of Lords is going to take place. What assurance can you give this chamber as to when the government will give proper

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposals to reform the upper chamber? Immediately that this bill is on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Immediately that this bill is on the statute book, as Leader of the House of Lords has said in the other place. There will be created a place. There will be created a select committee to look at the issues of retirement and participation. I say to the participation. I say to the honourable gentleman, he is talking about politics as they stood in about politics as they stood in 1999. This government was elected on 1999. This government was elected on a manifesto delivered 411 MPs in 2024.

It is that Manifesto that this 2024. It is that Manifesto that this government is following. I have to say, I will give way the moment, I will come to both opposite. Across both this House and the other place, there has been a broad consensus that the hereditary route to the House of Lords should end. I have to say as well, and I do make clear, we at this Dispatch Box this government, and indeed Labour peers and the other place have made clear, it is not a judgement on individuals.

It is not a judgement on the work and contribution of individual Hereditary Peers. It is a judgement on the principle. Let me say to the House as well, if there is no barrier, if there are Hereditary Peers, whether it is, in the case of the party opposite, through a party list, there is no barrier to them being nominated as Life Peers. If for example the Leader of the Opposition wished to do so. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. His honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. His honourable Friend earlier mentioned a very long period of time that his party has period of time that his party has been anxious for and agitating about reform of the House of Lords. Is the creation of a future select committee really the sum of all of that anger and agitation? We could that anger and agitation? We could have seen, as my honourable friend from Bridgwater has mentioned, a from Bridgwater has mentioned, a full picture here, of a modernised, reformed, accountable House of Lords that works to deliver by cabinet that works to deliver by cabinet scrutiny.

We have not got that. The scrutiny. We have not got that. The Minister is asking us to invest hope in the creation of a select committee with no timeframe attached to ending the report and no promise to ending the report and no promise of future legislation. He surely must be as disappointed and unhappy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the situation as I am? It is great to see that your gentleman is disappointed that House gentleman is disappointed that House of Lords reforms not going far enough. If he glossed over the 20th enough. If he glossed over the 20th century and the length of time that his party had been in power during that century, every opportunity to that century, every opportunity to bring about full reform of the House of Lords, and not only do they bring about minimum reform, but they blocked every single attempt at major reform.

So it is quite difficult to take their 2025 position seriously at all. The point about the select committee mentioned by the honourable gentleman is, we have had, on the one hand, accusations that the government is acting in a party political way, and on the other, asking the government to do things cross-party. That is precisely what that Select Committee will do. It will give the opportunity to look at issues like retirement age and participation, and the debate in the other house, is covering those matters.

And following the Royal assent of the bill, and I say that the committee will issue its findings by next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

summer. I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. I am perplexed. We have heard members of the opposition wish for members of the opposition wish for us to go faster and further in reforming the House of Lords. We have heard members of the House of Lords chuntering about the divine Lords chuntering about the divine right of whoever and whatever in the House of Lords. Does the Minister not agree that we seem to have a rather confused position from the opposition on this? Perhaps that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposition on this? Perhaps that stands as testament to the Leader of the Opposition's ability to lead her own party. I think the word confused just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the word confused just about sums up the opposition, whether it is on this particular

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill or any other. I will give way. I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I'm not Minister for giving way. I'm not purporting to speak on behalf of my party but rather as an individual party but rather as an individual who has long had an interest in the positive role that the Lords play in positive role that the Lords play in revising legislation which any elected and strongly whipped house would not be able to do. He partly would not be able to do.

He partly anticipated the point I want to make when he said about the ability to when he said about the ability to appoint some of what would otherwise be outgoing Hereditary Peers to life peerages. This may be a way forward for people of goodwill to pursue. Given that quite high number of people who find themselves in quite responsible positions in the Lords, what sort of numbers does he have in mind allowing the parties that are going to lose a large number of Hereditary Peers to be appointed as Life Peers?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman always gives an individual contribution to gives an individual contribution to his great credit, not just in this debate but in a number of others as debate but in a number of others as well. I will not be drawn on numbers which are always a matter for the Prime Minister and the usual Prime Minister and the usual channels. But as in every parliament, the Leader of the Opposition, of whatever party, will have the opportunity to nominate, have the opportunity to nominate, and I am sure, I'm sure he would make a persuasive case to her about some members of the upper house.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

some members of the upper house. Can you at least tell the house when he accepts the principle that there would need to be a there would need to be a considerably larger one off tranche to cater for this unique situation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to cater for this unique situation? There will be the usual period to this parliament where there will be opportunity. There is no barrier to opportunity. There is no barrier to someone who has been Hereditary Peers serving as a life peer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Members on the opposite side of the house seem to want lots of reassurances for the people who feel they are born to rule. The Minister please tell me what reassurances this government is giving my constituents, by young people, that they will have equal rights to be part of this legislative house?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is absolutely right. I want my absolutely right. I want my constituents to be able to say they can aspire to be members of can aspire to be members of Parliament. As indeed members of the upper house. Are not reserved for upper house. Are not reserved for people placed by accident of birth. The shadow Chancellor of the chunters. If he is in favour of the chunters. If he is in favour of the hereditary principle, let him tell us instead of hiding behind a us instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of pretending he is in favour of full reform.

Let him get favour of full reform. Let him get to the Dispatch Box and say that he believes in the hereditary principle if that is what he does. We have if that is what he does. We have stated from the outset that we wanted this bill on the statute book before turning to the next phase of before turning to the next phase of reform. Delaying this legislation means delaying the establishment of the Select Committee. It means delaying further reforms. The delaying further reforms. The reality is, as my honourable friend mentioned in the first intervention, mentioned in the first intervention, since we last reformed House of Lords, the outside world has changed.

Our Parliament should always be a place where talents are recognised and where it counts. It should never be a gallery of old boys network. It should never be a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold veto power over the will of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people. With the Minister not recognise the irony of the fact that when his the irony of the fact that when his issues were discussed in 1924, we issues were discussed in 1924, we are probably discussing the Hereditary Peers of grandchildren, and Hereditary Peers we were talking about 100 years ago?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about 100 years ago? My honourable friend is absolutely right. You would think absolutely right. You would think that the 1924 debate about bloodlines and pedigree as a basis bloodlines and pedigree as a basis for participation would no longer have any advocates. But it appears there are a number of advocates that are left here a century later. From are left here a century later. From the Parliament Act, and today the Parliament Act of 1911, to the House of Lords act of 1999, the history of Lords reform is littered with Lords reform is littered with examples of individual members straining every sin you, using every straining every sin you, using every different argument to try to resist reform.

The late noble Lord Lord reform. The late noble Lord Lord Curzon in 1911 coined a term which Curzon in 1911 coined a term which meant Unionist peers who would fight meant Unionist peers who would fight to the last ditch over then Parliament Bill, whose efforts have voice acted as an effective block on further change. They all sit there further change. They all sit there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the benches opposite. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I guarantee to him as a council estate boy from Lewisham I'm not some of that ever thought I bloodlines are going to the House of bloodlines are going to the House of Lords. Can I challenge him on some Lords. Can I challenge him on some of the points that he has made about his provisions going forward? He has his provisions going forward? He has a majority of 170. We know his party won the election. Why therefore is won the election.

Why therefore is he coming here and saying that we are trying to block reform and not want reform which is completely want reform which is completely untrue, but his government are such lacking in ambition that he does not have the courage or the political have the courage or the political will to bring a full package of reform to this house which this side of that House might will support of that House might will support what we are saying to him, and what we are saying to him is, I see we are saying to him is, I see coming here and tinkering at the edges and attacking us to not be in edges and attacking us to not be in favour of reform when he has refused to bring reform in the first place?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to bring reform in the first place? In respect of his bloodline to get to the House of Lords I'm sure it is only a matter of time before it is only a matter of time before we see that. In terms of the antics of the party opposite, I don't know whether the Conservative Parliamentary party here in the Commons even speaks to Conservative peers. But you should speak to them about their behaviour on the Hereditary Peers bill but also the other bills where they have been blocking blocking blocking.

It is exactly what has been happening. And I have to say, I understand the Leader of the Opposition is apparently spending time coming up with credible policies. Nobody is going to believe the Conservative party is in favour of wholesale reform of the House of Lords. It has been more than 25 years since Parliament agreed to end the hereditary route. It was a temporary arrangement to retain 92 Hereditary Peers. You can go back to say it is more than 200 years since the 1832 great reform Bill.

It took away the hold of the great aristocratic families, opening up the franchise and taking their presence in electoral politics from monopoly to anomaly. Nonetheless the hereditary principle remains in our Parliament. Sometimes it can be a symbol of tradition. Sometimes, as the Conservative peers have been demonstrating, obstacles to real reform. There is I have to say a real opportunity for the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today who has been protesting several times about his newly found passion for wholesale Lords reform.

I'm glad to see it. There is the real voice of the Conservative party. And I am also therefore hearing a lot of protestations that there is no attempt in the party to block this. So we will see in the voting lobbies, in due course, whether they actually seek to block further progress again. I have to say when we discussed this, we talk about history and nostalgia, but this on a real sense has been used this on a real sense has been used in the upper house to block bills in the upper house to block bills

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the completeness of history, it has been 150 years since the it has been 150 years since the Labour Party promised to abolish the House of Lords and I think it will House of Lords and I think it will take another 100. He is right, the public cannot stand the hereditary public cannot stand the hereditary peers but they are also opposed to prime ministerial patronage and 57 prime ministerial patronage and 57 peers have put into the hands of Lord Soames Labour came into power and it has been reported global and it has been reported global follow.

-- Interview House of Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

since Labour came into power. The Premier throughout the UK is a member of Parliament who enjoys a member of Parliament who enjoys the confidence of the House and that is different to having Lords in place because of the accident of place because of the accident of birth. I don't want to criticise the Conservative party today but I Conservative party today but I appreciate that, should the hereditary Lords finally be given hereditary Lords finally be given leave, the title of the most ancient and outdated relic is awarded to the modern day conservative Party, isn't it? I guess self-preservation is the motive and we will not allow them to block the change.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the hereditary principle is so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the hereditary principle is so wrong, where does that leave the principal of hereditary monarchy principal of hereditary monarchy which has more influence than which has more influence than hereditary peer? We have a modern hereditary peer? We have a modern constitutional monarchy which enjoys popular support and it is different and I don't think I look has blocked an active Parliament since Queen Anne and I would say it plays a different role to the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

As a peers in the House of Lords. As a government, we are determined to deliver reform and rectify the historic wrong and move closer to a historic wrong and move closer to a more fair and equitable Parliament. I have to deal with amendment two, I have to deal with amendment two, which would prohibit future on paid which would prohibit future on paid ministers from being eligible to be members of the House of Lords. I understand the strength of feeling understand the strength of feeling expressed in the debate on this amendment in the other place.

I am proud of the work that all ministers across government do and I know that ministerial colleagues in the other place work hard and while we are able to focus on departmental portfolios, with the honourable exception of the Duchy of Lancaster, who seems to be carrying out various roles with great dedication, but the situation of the Shadow Chancellor is finding himself and is regular in the House of Lords with ministers covering a number of portfolios and doing so with skill and dedication.

I have to say I understand the motive behind the amendment but it will do little to address the problem it seeks to resolve and it was not result in all Lords ministers receiving a salary but in fact the number of ministers would be reduced and that is because the ministerial salaries are determined by the Salaries Act of 1975 which sets a maximum of 175 posts across both houses and the numbers of ministers, paid or unpaid, is limited to 95.

The reality is any meaningful change to the number of ministers or salaries would have to adhere to that legislation. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to avoid sovereign on the withdrawal of acceptance of ministers in line with legislative limits and so the amendment would have the effect of placing further restriction on this prerogative of power and reducing the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the best people to serve in government and so therefore I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Turning to amendment three, it affects a new form of statutory life peerage and seeks to create a system that distinguishes between peerage and membership of the House of Lords and under the system individuals can receive a title but not be entitled to sit in the House of Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if my honourable friend could help me out because I feel like it might be a strange, like it might be a strange, alternative reality dream where the hill the Conservatives are looking hill the Conservatives are looking to die on is around the title - can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to die on is around the title - can anyone help me? Am I awake? I can assure Kim he is most definitely awake and this is most definitely awake and this is most definitely reality. -- Assure him. definitely reality. -- Assure him. He is right to draw attention to it and... I will give way once more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is a courteous and gentlemanly man for giving way. What is the difference to the problems he is discussing to what his bill would discussing to what his bill would enact which is hereditary peer not enact which is hereditary peer not being given membership but still hitting the title? Three what this hitting the title? Three what this amendment is doing is trying to create the title as an honour that the membership and that if the difference.

The difference in the exchange I was having earlier about the barriers to life peerage and that is not saying goodbye to the title because the life peerage gives the title and the life peerage and that is the difference between the two. In terms of the amendment being unnecessary, as my honourable friend stated in the other place, I mean... Family connections exist on this Family connections exist on this side as well. The UK already has extensive and long-standing or a system which recognises and promotes the outstanding contributions made by individuals around the country and all sections of society.

To the point raised by the honourable gentleman 1-2 months ago, of course to be elected as a peer is a privilege but it brings responsibility to contribute to the work of the second chamber and there should also be a participation agreement to ensure that all peers participate in the work of the other place and I has the support of peers and I do not agree with a layer tax system and do not think it is in keeping with the standards of either House.

I will turn to the final issue, the issue of where the government, and I hope there will be cross-party consensus, but this is around resignation by power of attorney and amendments four, five, six, seven, nine, which allow the House of Lords to set up arrangements for resignation from the other place when there is a lack of capacity, including someone being under lasting power of attorney. During the passage of the bill in the other place, it became clear there was considerable support to address the long-standing concern that members who lack capacity were not able to resign from the House of Lords.

The government listened and it was enacted and following discussions from across the House of Lords, amendments were brought Lords, amendments were brought forward by the leader of the House of Lords to address this matter and it makes clear that the notice may be given or put forward by a person acting on behalf of someone who lacks capacity prevailing is done in accordance with the standards of the House. The amendments relating to this would come into Royal assent, assuring families that wish to make use of the new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of the term to do so.

It has support in the other place and I hope the Shadow Chancellor can confirm support for the amendment when he makes remarks in a moment but this is a short focus of the bill. It delivers on the manifesto and to deal with the rate of hereditary peers to sit in rate of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords and it is not a personal opinion on the contribution they have made. We are grateful for the service and I stress there are no bars to them returning to life peers if party leaders wish to dominate them but the time has come to deliver immediate reform so we can move on to further reform of the other place, as set out in the manifesto, delivering on the promises of July of last year.

I arch you House to support the decision.
14:11
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the House disagrees with the Lords on amendment one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to be talking about this historic piece of legislation on historic B and my legislation on historic B and my honourable friend Robinson reminds honourable friend Robinson reminds me it is the 101st anniversary of the training of the King at Kingston. The monarchy lives on, Kingston. The monarchy lives on, even if the government of His Majesty are making changes to the Majesty are making changes to the ancient Parliament. The Paymaster General accused the opposition of being in hibernation but I believe it must be the Paymaster General who it must be the Paymaster General who has been in hibernation because he seems to have forgotten we are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the disastrous decisions has government has made and the enormous damage has party has made to the country in the short months since coming into power and the worst Budget we have seen in a the worst Budget we have seen in a very long time, that has caused the 30-year borrowing to be at a higher rate than it ever was under the last government or indeed the one before.

I truly terrible state of affairs where economic experts say we are heading towards an economic crash. It is already costing jobs in our constituencies every month and it is a serious issue and one that the opposition called out and will continue to and I hope the government will see sense before disaster strikes. Before we move on to the specifics of the bill, I want to pay tribute to the quality of debate in this chamber from the outset of the legislation but the sheer quality of debate in the Lords, which reflects how significant the upper house is to the constitution in terms of its ability to add strength to legislation through scrutiny and to pay tribute to Lord True, who has done so much to hold the government to account as it pushes these measures through.

The Paymaster General talked about the Opposition seeking to block legislation in the Lords and I'm delighted we have been trying to block the terrible legislation. I'm pleased the Lions have said they will back the number of improving amendments. -- Of the Lords. It speaks of the decent scrutiny being done at that end and I agree from the outset that we accept the government concession on power of attorney and sensible change and I hope we can find mutual agreement.

We are also pleased that, during the course of this tidbit, the Labour Party itself has made significant clarifications to its position. -- This debate. It seems they have finally agreed that an elected upper house would be a bad idea and I welcome that and I think it would totally disrupt the balance of the constitution and take away from the privacy of this House and would often lead to constitutional deadlock and it has taken the Labour Party about a hundred years to reach that conclusion and I'm very pleased that the disastrous plans of Gordon Brown for constitution reform which were published during the last Parliament have been done away with because they would have caused a mayhem if they had been put through by this moment and I commend the Frontbench joint on kicking the terrible ideas into touch.

I'm also pleased the government has reneged on the manifesto commitment to kick out the peers that are over 80 and it was a terrible idea because there are many of them including, by the end of this Parliament, Lord Blunkett, Lord Clark, Lord Heseltine, people who bring experience to the House and should not be barred on the grounds of age. Again, I congratulate the government Again, I congratulate the government High turnout to Lords Amendment one the House of Lords introduced an amendment which would try to keep the existing Hereditary Peers in place.

We have heard from my honourable friend how labour renege on the deal it struck in the late 1990s, it was going to keep a small number of Hereditary Peers in place until such time as it brought forward a competitive constitutional reform package which this clearly is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. It is a fascinating for giving way. It is a fascinating return to the 90s, much like the Conservative party. But he has missed that there was an election last year in which the Labour Party last year in which the Labour Party clearly stood and won a mandate to deliver the removal of Hereditary deliver the removal of Hereditary Peers. What may or may not be discussed in the 1990s is for the birds.

There was an election, we won

**** Possible New Speaker ****

birds. There was an election, we won that election, said we were going to do this, let's get on with it. I fully accept the Labour Party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I fully accept the Labour Party has changed its mind. In doing so it has renege on the deal it struck in has renege on the deal it struck in the late 90s. What it is now trying to do, let's be clear about what has to do, let's be clear about what has happened, what the Labour government is trying to do is to seek to remove is trying to do is to seek to remove a whole group of public servants who have done nothing wrong.

Those public servants are in the Lords because the last Labour government because the last Labour government put them there. The last Labour government put them there as part of the deal that it struck on long-term constitutional change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you and I declare my interest, my wife is a member of the House of Lords. And a salaried Minister for good fortune. Can I say that when he says about recognising that the Labour Party won an election but deals go back further. Does he not realise he risks undermining the Salisbury Addison convention, says manifesto commitments should pass through this place without hindrance? I know they aspire to be back in government one day. Does he not recognise that by doing down the convention today, he risks his own future program should the Conservatives ever get back into power in the future?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He will understand that this legislation is not being blocked, it is being improved. That is how the process of scrutiny works. You will process of scrutiny works. You will process of scrutiny works. You will see very clearly, as I'm sure he looks at these amendments, they make sniffing at improvements to the faulty legislation his party brought forward. As Honourable members will forward. As Honourable members will have heard in the debates, I will write.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for his indulgence. He said new clause 1 makes a significant improvement to the bill. Why when it was brought forward and Why when it was brought forward and the other place by Lord Grocott as a Private Members' Bill and in this Private Members' Bill and in this place by Lord Hanson, to the Conservatives blockage and say it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was a terrible idea? I don't recall saying it was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't recall saying it was a terrible idea. I remember Conservative peers speaking in favour of it. That is part of the favour of it. That is part of the joy the independence of the upper house. It risks being undermined by house. It risks being undermined by this legislation. What the government is now trying to do is to remove a group of public servants who have done nothing wrong, they have simply served their country and continue to do so.

The reason they are being removed is very clear. It is because the government can't rely on their votes, and is attempting to take a group of opponents out of Parliament by act of Parliament. This is very simply Cromwellian. I'm not suggesting the Prime Minister is a second Cromwell. Cromwell was a great man, whereas the prime minister is just a man. The truth is that this is not, and I don't believe the government actually has these tendencies, I think it is doing something clumsy and foolish but what it is going to do, and I mean this seriously, what he is going to do is set a precedent.

And I don't believe it is one he would follow. The people that come after him will be much more like Cromwell. The honourable gentleman laughs but I wanted to think very seriously about what future parliaments might look like. If the precedent is set that political opponents can be removed by act of Parliament, someone in the future, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in two is or 10 years, but someone in the future will come back to this. It does not need to happen this way.

Because we have a group of people who are already in the House of Lords. They are already doing a job. Viscount Stansgate, excellent member of the House of Lords, Deputy Speaker, there are, as I'm sure honourable members no, 65 Hereditary Peers who sit on Parliamentary committees. This change will be enormously disruptive, unnecessarily disruptive to the working of the house. It would be much better to leave them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in place and let them do their job. I thank my right honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right honourable friend for giving way. And in terms friend for giving way. And in terms of the hereditaries, I think the opposition deputy Chief Whip who served in this House since 1975 in a number of ministerial capacities. number of ministerial capacities. This is because of where he was born This is because of where he was born and Harry was born for top but there is a risk in this debate when we see members laugh about the rich and members laugh about the rich and privileged Hereditary Peers.

This is not Downton Abbey. Many of these people have given their life to this Parliament. My honourable friend Parliament. My honourable friend agreed with me there does need to be an urgent conversation should the an urgent conversation should the government get its way this afternoon, for the Hereditary Peers who may actually suffer after losing their position in this place for support going forward? The Minister raises his eyebrows but many peers in the House that we are talking in the House that we are talking about are not stately homeowners.

They are people that have given their life in position to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their life in position to this Parliament and they need support going forward. I am very interested by what my noble friend has said and I hope the noble friend has said and I hope the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks. What we are going closing remarks. What we are going to see is the removal of a group of public servants in order for them to make way for Labour stooges, for a huge act of patronage. And I don't thing anybody here believes this is going to improve scrutiny.

It is just a numbers game. It is simply an attempt to give this government a more compliant majority in the House of Lords which it does not need. This government will be able to get its business through the House of Lords anyway. So this is an unnecessary change, one which does, despite the comments of the Paymaster General, it does belittle the contribution of the peers who sit. It does belittle their service and it does not need to be done. I move on now to amendment to on pay.

I was interested by the Paymaster General response. I listened closely to the details add up. There is an important principle here. The principle is this, we ask people to serve as Ministers of the Crown. I think most of our constituents would agree that those ministers should be paid. If you are a member of the House of Lords, you are on a low salary, you can collect your £361 a day if you turn up. Let's assume you are an unpaid minister at the Home Office.

You will find that many working days, you will be expected to travel. You might have to travel to Northern Ireland, Scotland, you might have to go to the north of England. You won't be able to collect your allowance. On top of that you will take on this very important job of being a minister in the Home Office unpaid. You will also understand the reasons have to give up your outside interests. This will mean, and it means very simply that a lot of people in the House of Lords can only afford to take ministerial jobs if they are already of considerable means.

And I just don't think that is something in his heart of hearts that he wants to see the perpetuation. So if he does not agree with this amendment, I ask whether the government intends to bring forward compared to plans to allow that to happen? I correct him on once more point which is that, if ministers in the House of Lords were paid, we would need to reduce the number of ministers, and there are only a certain number of ministers who can be paid to have reduced the number ministers and House of Lords.

I will let him intervene if you want to clarify.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a consequence of the interaction between existing statute interaction between existing statute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and this statute. Is it will stop The government could reduce the number of paid ministers in the Commons and more in the Lords, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commons and more in the Lords, that will be possible. I just heard what the Minister said. Does the honours you think I said. Does the honours you think I can go back to my constituents and say that, by supporting an amendment say that, by supporting an amendment adding is encouraging me to do it would mean that more ministers would come from the other place and less come from the other place and less from the Commons? How do you think that would go down on the doorstep because I have been punched in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

face and is not great. I'm not sure his voters would be that impressed by ministers in the Commons at the moment. The point of Commons at the moment. The point of principle still stands. The point of principle is that ifs if someone is a Minister of the Crown it is perfectly reasonable that they are perfectly reasonable that they are paid for doing that job and I'd be interested to hear what the government plans are to right this government plans are to right this wrong.

Finally, on amendment three which covers a new status of peers, I think it was rather unfortunate to hear some members of the House hear some members of the House belittle this idea including the sleepy dreamy member of the Liberal Democrats. I appreciate how that came out Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't wish to...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the Shadow Minister wants to correct the record. I don't know looks like he has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't know looks like he has made an effort today. And he is looking at me in a particular way. This suggestion that everyone is This suggestion that everyone is busting a gut in order to create a new status and peerage, I think a new status and peerage, I think a lot of people in our country recognise that getting a peerage is one of the highest recognition for service the country you can get. service the country you can get.

There are also a good many people, I came across them and I was in came across them and I was in government, who are either late in age, in their 80s and 90s, they would not want to commit to serving would not want to commit to serving on the front bench because of advanced years. Because they are infirm, they would not want benches. But it seems silly we should deny them the opportunity of being them the opportunity of being recognised in this way for such a small change which costs no one anything but would enable us to reward good people who have done the right things by the country.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he not think that things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he not think that things like the order of the Garter, the order of the Thistle, they are not sufficient ways to recognise those kinds of people. The House of Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

kinds of people. The House of Lords should be a working chamber. The honourable gentleman makes a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman makes a good point, there are other types of honour. But it is also the case that honour. But it is also the case that we already have peers... We already have peers who have stood down and have peers who have stood down and they get to keep their titles. They they get to keep their titles. They are people who are called Members of the Lords but don't sit in the Lords. The disjuncture already Lords. The disjuncture already exists.

If the Paymaster General would not mind passing me a bottle. would not mind passing me a bottle. would not mind passing me a bottle. Could I have the bottle, thanks. We already have peerages that work in this way the other way around. What this way the other way around. What we are suggesting is that it ought to be possible for someone in advanced years or someone who is not advanced years or someone who is not very well to accept a peerage without feeling they are under any obligation to sit on the red benches.

It is a perfectly reasonable request.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. What he is suggesting is more about the title and the style I presume rather than about his seat in the legislature. He will know that under legislature. He will know that under the 2011 Royal warrants that granted the justice of the Supreme Court the style and title of Lords, did not style and title of Lords, did not come with any connection with the come with any connection with the legislature. There is a way of doing it that does not require the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. It can be done by Royal Warrant through the council. He is well-informed and is right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is well-informed and is right. What this amendment would do is add clarity to this process and means that it becomes more routine rather that it becomes more routine rather than occasional. He is entirely right. I will conclude by saying that there are good amendments that that there are good amendments that have been sent back by their Lordships. Amendments that improve this bill in more ways than one, this bill in more ways than one, amendments that would keep the considerable skill and expertise of considerable skill and expertise of the Hereditary Peers on the red benches for a bit longer, would not prevent the Labour government from bringing in more peers if they wanted to, and also raise important questions about ministerial pay and about how we use our titles.

I'm pleased that we have reached common ground on the issue of advocates power, and I look forward to hearing power, and I look forward to hearing
14:31
Jonathan Davies Portrait Jonathan Davies MP (Mid Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
My contribution relates to Lords amendment one which looks to gradually reduce the number of peers in terms of the elections in which they are replaced. Democracy has thrived because power is not concentrated in the hands of too few people, which has mitigated the risk of overreach. Frustrations are frequently expressed but the parliamentary system is the envy of many around the world and several in my constituency along with other hereditary peers make a contribution and public service and I promised I would campaign for locals and was would campaign for locals and was not thinking about replacing the House of Lords when I started in this place.

The reform has been on the cards for a long time and there is broad consensus that should happen. The previous Conservative government did not undo reforms made by the previous labour government. There were things removed and there were also the time when the other place was abolished altogether. No changes followed and couldn't legislation was passed to create life peers for people with specific skills and expertise and it included admitting women for the first time. The spirited reform was dealt with in 1999 when hereditary peers were limited.

The principal of the reforms the government is pushing through is not necessarily controversial and Lords amendment one does not seek to block the principle of accepted religion peers but asks for the conclusion of this patient to be undertaken gradually and I believe that there is more merit and I have been lucky to work with some exceptional accepted hereditary peers on committees and all-party parliamentary groups and to do this at the end of the session rather than the Parliament risk some of the work is undergoing.

I would be grateful if the Minister would sum up if is considered different ways of this, for example, looking at it at the end of the Parliament rather than ahead of the next King's Speech, which might ensure the professional relationships we have fostered with those in the other place and the work we conduct with them continue to be fruitful and conclude with natural kittens that the end of Parliament. -- Natural cadence. A wider plans for reform which may come into play at a later stage.

We welcome the participation requirement because it is not right the other plays should be used as a social club or a facility to be used, but people should do the job for which they have been appointed. The government also wishes to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber, more representative of regions and nations and it is clear it represents the social and geographical diversity of the UK but it's essential issues are considered through the lens of locality at the House of Commons.

Through the introduction of live purities, the House of Lords has included voices of experts across a wide range of fields and I would encourage colleagues to reflect before introducing fundamental change to the relationship. The manifesto that we were elected on includes crib and for mandatory retirement from the House of Lords at the age of 80 and I would welcome clarification of that remains the case and is necessary to get younger voices in so it can represent and serve the nation but the proposal they should retire at 80 is not convenient and there are many examples of those who there are many examples of those who are older.

For peers who reach the 80th birthday, we could have some further clarity on this about how the mandatory retirement age could lead to us losing knowledge and expertise and I'd be grateful if the Minister can sum up how the plans for constitutional reform could be affected and any further shakeup of the other place. Advice is, as the government seeks to make the House of Lords more representative and effective, should tread carefully to avoid unintended consequences because our precious democracy deserves no less.
14:36
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The Liberal Democrats welcome the bill as the first step to a greater democratic mandate for the House of Lords, entrenching the role in the legislature of the UK and democracy relies on a Parliament that equally represents all members and that is why this abolition is a long- standing policy of the Liberal Democrats. We are pleased the government is taking steps to address the issue and for too long the second chamber has lacked the democratic mandate and inherited membership of the Lords will only weaken democratic institutions and trust in the system and it reinforces the gender imbalance and as I noted in previous debates, not a single hereditary peer in the Lords currency are women.

Looking around, I think I am the only Women's Euro. It falls to me... -- The only woman here. It falls to me to discuss how important the role of women in parliament is and this is not about invalidating traditions or discrediting the contributions of hereditary peers in previous decades but is about improving democracy and improving public trust in parliament by making it more representative and many have skills they have given to the system and the elective process.

It is disappointing and perhaps unsurprising that after years of delays and resistance from successive Conservative government, they continue to resist meaningful electoral reform and the proposed amendments would only water down the bill or waste further time prolonging the system and I wish to speak against the Lords amendment one which would delude the bill and continue the system of hereditary peers. -- Pilot. In practice, it would have the effect of leaving all current and hereditary peers in place indefinitely.

For years, there have been attempts to enter the system, despite the resistance of this vital reform by successive Conservative governments and now there is a motion to change the entire system and the Conservative party again resisting. The will of Parliament is to end the hereditary system in the Lords. There has been enough delay. It is time to end the hereditary P Diddy is here and now because we have the -- hereditary -- peerages. I also want to speak to MM and two with the 14 on appointed salaries and whips and since 2015, there have been at least 30.

The same party that appointed them is seeking to champion the end of this as if they have not had the power to do it over the last decade and to draw attention to the points excellently raised by my colleague in the other place about the potential anomalies, I want to focus on Lord True who said in his speech that it did not apply to any existing member but future ministerial appointments. Given all hereditary peers are current members, I do not understand the relevance it has to be legislation in front of us.

Unusually, I happen to agree with Lord True that the Minister should be properly regulated but I do not understand why the legislation to scrap hereditary peers is the appropriate vehicle to entrain this point. Lord True spoke of his anger at being unable to provide remuneration to fellow conservatives during the last Parliament. I sympathised but it is an issue for another occasion. The Liberal Democrats believe democratic accountability and proper renumeration does not lie in this amendment and instead we must push for wholesale reform of the House of Lords and the Democratic system more widely, including decisions that affect lace.

We urge members to -- affect peoples lives and still be urge democratic reform properly of the House of Lords and to give it the attention it is. I speak against amendment three which presented an opportunity for a first step towards meaningful reform and that is why I originally peopled the new clause 7 which would have reformed the second chamber and the new clause 8 which was to strengthen the powers of the House of Lords appointments committee. However, the Conservatives have demonstrated no interest in strengthening democratic institutions and the amendment creates yet another type of peerage which does nothing to strengthen democracy or transparency.

The amendment before it calls for a new type of peerage and this exclusively deals with the legacy of hereditary peers. If the Conservatives have proposals to improve the second chamber, they should support the cause of the Liberal Democrats for further reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to reducing the size of the second chamber and if the government could update us on proposals for legislation for further reform of the House of Lords, then they could put proposals for new categories of peerage.

The House should look to be ambitious for reform, not look to expand the system with time wasting amendments. Liberal Democrats will vote to reject this amendment. We welcome amendments four, five, six, seven, nine, which are modest amendments to update function and include lasting power of attorney being effective in supporting individual freedom and dignity and is only wrecked individuals are not restricted from the freedoms as we welcome the amendments and support the introduction into the legislature. Liberal Democrats welcome the aims of the bill but are concerned that bypassing it the government believes the efforts can end here.

Let's be clear, the bill is a welcome step towards a better democracy but not the final step. The Burns Report recommended the decrease which the Liberal Democrats support and elitism is entrenched in our politics. The Labour festival committee to a retirement age which is another changeable support. There are opportunities to improve the functioning of democratic institutions and the government should look into them, including the most overdue and important change when it comes to the lodgement, finally giving it a proper democratic mandate.

I urge honourable members and Liberal Democrats will support this once- in-a-lifetime opportunity to strengthen the system and use it to begin rebuilding trust in our politics. Speak I speak to clause 1 which flies in the face of the intention of the government to reform the House of Lords by removing the last 91 peers who sit in Parliament based solely on bloodline entitlement. I start with the premise that the last 91 set in the other place as a result of compromise in 1999 we are more than 160 were removed and taken in the view that the other place is no less effective as a Parliament as a result.

The markets of Salisbury has
14:46
Shaun Davies Portrait Shaun Davies MP (Telford, Labour)
-
-
said this proposed change was supposed to last for six months until the final 21 have had 26 years of notice already, I notice period any work in the real economy would any work in the real economy would welcome. It is time to complete the form and for those seeking to support the amendment, I ask where support the amendment, I ask where have you been. One of my predecessors, the noble Lord predecessors, the noble Lord Grocott, who has campaigned for decades, has been vindicated at long last and has proposed the measures outlined in amendment one by ending outlined in amendment one by ending the by-elections to phase out hereditary peers and four Private hereditary peers and four Private Each and every time those have been blocked by Conservative peers and Conservative governments.

So I don't Conservative governments. So I don't believe this is being brought forward in good faith but a way of clutching straws to prevent progress clutching straws to prevent progress because they fear change. In a recent speech on this bill, Lord Grocott used the word devastating. Grocott used the word devastating. It is the right word, the opponents of these changes new in the 1990s that they had lost the argument. That the best they could do is slow down the inevitable, bog down reforms with procedure and compromise, and I agree with Lord Grocott that, for almost 30 years, the gestation is far too long for anyone.

It is this government's decision to finally lance the boil and it is long overdue. It should be no surprise whatsoever that we are facing exactly the same kind of resistance now as our predecessors faced 26 years ago. First they try and defeat the bill, then when that fails they try to compromise, and back then it was, well, just keep a few Hereditary Peers, phase them out to the changes not too sudden. Then it is you must keep Hereditary Peers, phase them out the changes not too sudden.

Somehow what was only ever intended as interim solution is being replaced by another interim solution. We've had 26 years to phase out Hereditary Peers and they are still there. Frankly, the 92 remaining Hereditary Peers have had 26 years of borrowed time. In fact we have also heard from a Tory Hereditary Peers about the repercussions for this bill. Threats they will use obstruction and delay to get what they want. If this sounds familiar to the House, this is because, in 1998, it was exactly the same threat that was provided to the then government and Parliament.

But if this went through, as the market of Salisbury said, "My whole tactic was to make their flesh creep. " We must fear this opposition at all costs and opposition to the democratic opposition to the democratic process. Unlike the last compromise, this one will eventually see Hereditary Peers leave the other place. They have already delayed the inevitable by 25 years. We have to wait another 26 years or 30 years? The youngest sitting Hereditary Peers is just 39 years of age.

I wish him a long and happy life. Of course I do. If he survives to the age of the oldest thing Hereditary Peers, 93, he will be part of another 54 years until the interim solution that was agreed 26 years ago. It is 11 general elections from now. A Telford constituent born the they became an act, the day we started phasing out Hereditary Peers would be 80 years old by the time the last one retires. It is enough for my constituents to be retired

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from this house themselves. My honourable friend is making an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is making an excellent point. And the work in the other place was commendable. Sadly other place was commendable. Sadly was blocked time and time again by the Conservatives. The point that was made about how long it will was made about how long it will take, by no longer being a member of the House of Lords, he retained his right to vote and stand in a general election. So there are plenty of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

election. So there are plenty of places in this House you could try for. He makes a valid point and the point made by other members including opposition benches that including opposition benches that there is nothing to stop the leader of the opposition putting forward any of those Hereditary Peers for any of those Hereditary Peers for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

life peerages also. To conclude... ... He says the leader of the opposition could give those peerages opposition could give those peerages but he will be aware it is organised in conjunction with usual channels with the prime minister and members with the prime minister and members of the governing party. We would be a lot more comfortable today to talk about replacement of those Hereditary Peers if the Minister came here with any clarity on what conditions that may be set going conditions that may be set going forward.

We have had none of that. So I challenged him slightly to say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they can be. They can be put in is Life Peers and we would like more information what we're getting. I would say the priorities and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would say the priorities and choices, Leader of the Opposition will have nominations to put forward. This year, next year, and forward. This year, next year, and maybe the year after. She can make a decision as to whether she puts decision as to whether she puts forward a member of the Hereditary Peers or someone else.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peers or someone else. I am sorry to be up again. The point that has been debated here is important. Since the general important. Since the general election, have been 21 nominees to election, have been 21 nominees to the other place. That would have accounted for half of the entire Hereditary Peers group of the Hereditary Peers group of the Conservative party, the leader of the opposition taken the opportunity to promote them to life peerages. By

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to promote them to life peerages. By not doing so, they have chosen to keep the Hereditary Peers out. Leader of the opposition has got

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leader of the opposition has got a number of tough choices ahead of her, and those choices will no doubt be executed using her good political judgement that she apparently has. judgement that she apparently has. In conclusion, for those honourable friends from different sides of the chamber who say we need reform of chamber who say we need reform of Parliament, the House of Lords, the constitution the way that Parliament works, as a moderniser and an area where the current system does not work, I could not agree more.

But I say this modest change has taken around 10 hours in this place, around 40 hours in the other place, more than 180 amendments tabled, can one imagine how larger and more far-reaching bill would be treated? As the Minister has stated, there have been calls from many people from across the little spectrum in the other place that there should be a cross-party approach and that is exactly what the government is doing by the establishing of a select committee.

I will close on this thought, we also have heard over many decades the promise of future reforms. I support the government they will vote with the government today on the basis that those future reforms will come through and I hope the government will be true to their word. For areas like mine that have seen themselves being locked out of this place for far too long, we will have an opportunity to serve it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here we are again. The House of Commons and the House of Lords loves Commons and the House of Lords loves debating reform of the House of Lords. We have been doing it for over 120 years. But we have made a over 120 years. But we have made a bit of progress. At least after all this time we seem to have finally this time we seem to have finally killed off the idea that the House of Lords should be elected and that is a great step forward.

I is a great step forward. I congratulate the Minister for his wisdom in realising that it would wisdom in realising that it would just replicate the sort of system just replicate the sort of system they have in Washington and make it virtually impossible to have coherent government. So well done and I think we should give credit and I think we should give credit where it is due. The poor old liberals have been dreaming about reform and elections for a hundred reform and elections for a hundred years but I'm afraid it is not going to happen.

But I will take issue to happen. But I will take issue with the Minister. He was a bit cruel about the Conservative party and accused us of being just and accused us of being just relentlessly negative for all these years. He seems to have forgotten years. He seems to have forgotten that in the 1920s, about 1924, the Conservatives led the debate for Conservatives led the debate for making House of Lords genuine Parliament of the Commonwealth. There were innovative ideas coming out of the Conservative party.

When he blames the Conservative party for endlessly blocking reform, it was actually an unholy alliance of Michael foot and Enoch Powell during the Wilson years that blocks that last real attempt at House of Lords Reform Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He mentions Conservative policy in the 20s and 60s maybe can recall better than I, I don't believe there was any mention of House of Lords reform in the manifesto in the general election last year. Can he general election last year. Can he mention what Conservative party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy is on reforming it? It is gradual evolution and reform, and that is what the reform, and that is what the Conservative party is all about. This is actually an historic day, This is actually an historic day, rather sad historic day, because after that Crown, the House of Lords is the most ancient part of the is the most ancient part of the Parliament. In House of Lords, Hereditary Peers are the most ancient part of that chamber. You can laugh at history and status all can laugh at history and status all old hat but history is important.

It always evolves to the great Council always evolves to the great Council of England, the coming together of England to a single realm is through England to a single realm is through the king's court. Bishops, abbots, the king's court. Bishops, abbots, came across the land. Was not just a privilege but their feudal duty was all about duty to give the king all about duty to give the king counsel and consent. So it slowly evolved so that some peers sat in evolved so that some peers sat in Parliament, or by the hereditary.

I do repeat this point, I can't understand this contempt and hatred for people just because they have their office by view of hereditary. Actually the Hereditary Peers are the only people in the House of Lords who are actually elected by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anybody. I thank him for giving way. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. This is not about individuals. It is about principle. Doesn't the Father about principle. Doesn't the Father of the House agree that actually it is principle we should be talking about today not individuals however about today not individuals however good they may be in serving the other place?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Frankly I don't agree with that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Frankly I don't agree with that principle. The point I make is it leaves the monarchy wholly exposed now as the only person who holds office by reason of hereditary office by reason of hereditary principle. I will make a bit of principle. I will make a bit of progress. I know that Minister will say the monarchy is popular and does not have the power but it has not have the power but it has infinitely more influence than any Hereditary Peers. I don't think we should accept this principle that the hereditary Prince was entirely the hereditary Prince was entirely wrong.

By the way even if we accept wrong. By the way even if we accept it, if we state is quite wrong that somebody should be called a Hereditary Peers, and I expect that
14:57
Edward Leigh Portrait Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)
-
-
Hereditary Peers, and I expect that a lot of the problem, why don't we just make the existing Hereditary Peers who, by the way, are not stately home owners, they are all dedicated public servants, scores of them have worked for years in Parliament. When we just make them Life Peers? If we hate the fact they are called Hereditary Peers, given they are dedicated public servants, why not have an evolutionary form and just call them Life Peers? I think actually the amendment that we put down today which comes from the other place is actually entirely sensible.

Rather than kicking people out in a flash, the Hereditary Peers which we can now call Life Peers if we want, could simply fade away. There's a lot of merit in old people gradually fading away rather than gradually fading away rather than dying. I don't declare an interest. In a sense is actually the Lords have already suspended Hereditary Peers by-elections by making standing orders in the chamber. It is evolution rather than revolution. Bending rather than breaking, the usual method of British constitutional change.

It has worked well in the past and I don't see why it should not work now. It is far wiser than overnight change and there is also the matter of optics and fairness. This of course is a partisan point by its very nature. But the 86 remaining Hereditary Peers, 48 are members of opposition parties. 30 31 are independent crossbenchers and two are nonaffiliated totally. Britain's pride themselves on the spirit of fair play. It is not frankly cricket for a governing party to expel opposition members from the national legislature, as Lord Strathclyde pointed out, if any other country were doing this, expelling Members of Parliament primarily because they were from opposition parties, we would be launching petitions against it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He makes a compelling point about what other countries could think. Would he care to name some other countries that have those in the legislature have those in the legislature sitting able to introduce sitting able to introduce legislature entirely by dint of their parentage. Because for the life of me I can't think of many examples.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nothing in our constitution is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nothing in our constitution is perfect. We accept that, you have a perfect. We accept that, you have a group of dedicated public servants who have done nothing wrong and we are simply asking that they should be allowed to carry on their work be allowed to carry on their work rather than be kicked out primarily because they are from opposition parties. The honourable gentleman has had a lot of turns here. He is a very good chap but he has had a lot of turns.

We all know, let's be real about this, the real reason behind all this is that the government all this is that the government wants to make space for more of their donors and cronies to enter the House of Lords. It is entirely the House of Lords. It is entirely understandable, there are sensible understandable, there are sensible reforms that can be made in the House of Lords, and many people have been appointed to the House of Lords and this is where the SNP has a good point, who are donors and cronies.

By the way I think we could have started by giving real power to the Appointments Commission which should not simply look at people's propriety but also their suitability. We have heard criticism of some newly appointed members of the House of Lord who are young. I think the Appointments Commission could consider the attributes of any aspiring candidates and could ensure that the membership of the House of Lords, new membership, was taken from the most distinguished parts of the nation.

And by the way, it may be a fair point for another reform we should not have people appointed for life. We have heard someone who is 39 younger, we should say that if you are appointed to the House of Lords should only serve for 15 years or Parliament. These arguments around age. I agree with the Shadow Minister, I'm glad we have got in this ageist principle. There's nothing wrong with people over the age of 80 or indeed the 70s. They are just as useful.

A lot of people in their 80s and 90s you do a billion job and there are some people, not of course in this chamber, who are complete useless. I chamber, who are complete useless. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I commend the Father of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I commend the Father of the House for everything he is saying. He sums it up beautifully. It is constitutional vandalism and destroying the continuity that has destroying the continuity that has made this place so special for so long. To do this, which I think is long. To do this, which I think is from a place of political motivation, I think is wrong and I motivation, I think is wrong and I think if you make constitutional reform then, at the least, the reform then, at the least, the British people should have a say in a referendum.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

a referendum. He wants me to sit down and my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He wants me to sit down and my honourable friend made the point brilliantly and so I shall sit down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brilliantly and so I shall sit down. I rise to speak about the proposals put forward by the Lords proposals put forward by the Lords but I would like more detail on amendments won, three and eight. I amendments won, three and eight. I look forward to seeing this unstructured weeks as soon as unstructured weeks as soon as possible and we are one step closer to fulfilling another manifesto pledge and I welcome amendments four, six, seven, nine, which will allow members of the other place the capacity to retire with the dignity that they deserve.

It is clearly a complex problem and I congratulate the government on finding a solution which received unanimous cross party which received unanimous cross party support in the other place and I hope it will receive cross-party support in this place today. Turning to amendments one and eight which to amendments one and eight which have been discussed which are the process of hereditary peer by- process of hereditary peer by- elections and filling vacancies but elections and filling vacancies but allowing them to stay in the Lords, allowing the numbers to grow smaller allowing the numbers to grow smaller and smaller as they begin to leave.

If passed, the amendment would leave If passed, the amendment would leave the current crop of hereditary peers the current crop of hereditary peers in the second chamber for years and years and, in some cases, decades. The entire purpose of the legislation now is to remove them legislation now is to remove them immediately because of the principle that underpins the decision to make this change.
15:04
Mark Sewards Portrait Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)
-
-
I can't a great many -- I can count a great many hereditary peers among my friends and I know that they do excellent jobs but Britain is a complete anomaly in the 21st century in preserving these roles based on lineage and so with the honourable member agree the members should be there based on public opinion, not DNA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I could not agree with her more and it is like she has read my and it is like she has read my speech, hence the timely intervention. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention. Of course. If the honourable member agrees the hereditary principle is wrong the hereditary principle is wrong the hereditary principle is wrong then surely he is saying we should abolish the monarchy because the Crown is part of Parliament and Royal assent as part of the Royal assent as part of the legislative process and so going by that principle, the honourable member is basically saying the member is basically saying the monarchy is no longer relevant. Is monarchy is no longer relevant.

Is that what he is saying? All I will say is long live the king. It does not affect the monarchy, what we do not affect the monarchy, what we do with hereditary peers today and, as I said, no one should serve in the other place and make laws, simply other place and make laws, simply because of the family that they were because of the family that they were born into, not me, not my children, born into, not me, not my children, not theirs either.

I hope we can all get behind that basic principle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

His case is essentially the only form of legitimacy in the exercise form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic but that does not square with power in many ways not square with power in many ways because we do not elect judges. Some because we do not elect judges. Some countries do, we do not. There are all types of unelected people who all types of unelected people who issue fundamental powers and so many types of legitimacy are not types of legitimacy are not democratic.

Had the government come democratic. Had the government come forward with a different proposal, I would have been hard-pressed to would have been hard-pressed to disagree, given the manifesto to. Speak the principal I'm talking Speak the principal I'm talking about here applies to the two about here applies to the two chambers that make our laws, scrutinise them, make amendments and so on. The idea that some should be so on. The idea that some should be allowed to have a say in the process because of the family that they were because of the family that they were born into a zillion to me.

-- Into born into a zillion to me. -- Into is alien to me. It should have been removed. I'm certain we will hear today that there are arguments that can be made that they can make good contributions, often with you on contributions, often with you on signed expertise that comes with nuance. The same is true with life nuance. The same is true with life peers, when political parties fulfil responsibilities and choose people for roles and the life peers will continue to use excellent expertise and knowledge which they are often selected because of, not in the cynical be that was suggested earlier.

Even if the do not, it is a life appointment, not a blood one, that they can pass down to the next that they can pass down to the next generation. I think life peerage is the way to go and the honourable members believe that those are all members were going to lose your play should still be in the other place, make sure you get your name put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward is to be made a life peer. He makes the point extremely well

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes the point extremely well and I think some people are inclined and I think some people are inclined to compromise would like to go down that road but does he realise the usual handful of allocations would usual handful of allocations would not be enough to meet the requirement that is required. Sting requirement that is required. Sting there are over 20 interventions and more will become available and it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more will become available and it will be up to the Leader of the Opposition to decide. Would my honourable friend agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would my honourable friend agree with me that the Labour Party manifesto clearly said that we would abolish hereditary peers and if we abolish hereditary peers and if we were not to do this, the people of this country would simply be bewildered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bewildered. I thank my honourable friend for the intervention and he's put the the intervention and he's put the point well and there are a number of point well and there are a number of issues including VAT on private schools and members said we had no right to do it but it was in the manifesto in this case. We have a moral obligation to pass legislation today and I hope the members opposite will join us in the lobbies as we do so.

From a sedentary position, and I will happily take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his intervention... The Labour Party has the obligation to implement every part of its manifesto so how does he feel about the part it has ditched?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the part it has ditched? It does have that moral obligation and I'm confident in our obligation and I'm confident in our 5-year term, we will make great progress on everything set out in the document. I think I have the document. I think I have essentially argued the amendment undermines the core purpose of the undermines the core purpose of the bill and is consistent with the to remove hereditary peers from the other place. I meant two is designed to ensure in future that all Lords to ensure in future that all Lords ministers receive a salary and they know it is well intentioned and I know it is well intentioned and I can see why the Lords have submitted this amendment.

Ministerial salaries this amendment. Ministerial salaries are determined by the Salaries Act of 1975 and I suggest changes be of 1975 and I suggest changes be made to the act, not included in this bill, which is narrow in focus, this bill, which is narrow in focus, and if we want to have that conversation, I think we have to allocate far more time to regulate it and I will not support amendment two today. Turning to amendment three which I had to do quite a bit of rooting around to understand and I understand Lord True wanted to clarify the power of the monarch to confer a life peerage granted without someone being exceeded to the Lords.

This is unnecessary and I will take interventions because I'm happy to have the point qualified because, quite simply, the King already has a power and he uses when he granted his brother the title of the Duke of Edinburgh. It already Is Is already Is already there. Is already there. There Is already there. There are Is already there. There are plenty of ways to do that already. I would maintain that life peerage should be reserved for those who actively participate in the work of the House of Lords and IRG House to disagree of Lords and IRG House to disagree with amendment three today.

-- I urge. I was pleased that Baroness Smith has suggested a mandatory retirement age and minimum participation requirement and I know many agree on that. The suggestion included a timeframe to set it up within three months of royal assent and then make real progress on the other commitments and I wholeheartedly endorse this approach and I look forward to the outcome of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this work. I'm inclined to agree with him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers. about the appointment of life peers. On this matter of retirements, it is sensible to say that people do not sensible to say that people do not attend, they should not retain the right to because people do not turn right to because people do not turn up, there is a good argument but, on up, there is a good argument but, on up, there is a good argument but, on age, this is a very dicey business because we have legislation which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

basis of age. His point is well made and that is why I will follow the work of the is why I will follow the work of the Select Committee closely because we have had the names of many over 80 have had the names of many over 80 who are making great contributions. I will follow the Select Committee closely before making a final judgement on that one. More broadly than that and the work Select than that and the work Select Committee will undertake, once the bill has become law, I will continue to advocate for a second chamber to advocate for a second chamber that is more representative of the regions of the nation.

My honourable friend made a good point about expertise and not wanting to lose the expertise in the other place by appointing a proportion of people from other regions but Yorkshire and Humber, to 5.8 million people, the suggestion you cannot find experts within that is not necessarily a good suggestion. I'm not saying he was saying that but I think we can increase representation without balloting expertise in the other place. I do not think it is wrong to three it is -- to say it is easy to be a light and serving the other place if you have a place in London.

If you look at the surveys, they show the breakdown of where each Lord come from a 25% from London, 20% the south-east, and 5% from my region, 5% of the population. I am When it comes to Scotland it is about 2% or 3%. The point is we have to make it more representative of our nations and. We could address this in a piecemeal way, in the same way that we have done with a hereditary issue over many decades.

So we could slowly introduce reform after reform, get appointed, where do they come from, what proportion has to come from Yorkshire and so on. I'm not a fan of that approach. I do think we should be as bold as possible, do the difficult work now because we were elected to do the difficult work in this term. And set out an ambitious plan for the wholesale replacement of the other chamber. Ready to made up of people from all of our nations and.

A truly democratic body which draws the same golden thread that should always exist between the people we serve in this place, and those that should sit in a second elected chamber. But the honourable gentleman chunters there, this is off topic I probably do agree with him because the bill does not cover this. I will draw my remarks to a close. The bill in front of us today will remove the archaic right to sit in Parliament because of the family you were born into.

I find this very hard to disagree with. It shows our determination to make a democracy stronger and more representative and it should just be the start of reform to the other place and improve our ability to do what we were all sent here to do which is serve the public.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I found this a curious debate so far, found this a curious debate so far, and it does not seem to show any great energy amongst the Conservative benches. I anticipated Conservative benches. I anticipated that they would be down here to defend their noble colleagues in great numbers. There is only one great numbers. There is only one Conservative speaker left. The honourable Member for Brentford, honourable Member for Brentford, honourable Member for Brentford, sorry Brentwood and Ogo.

I just sorry Brentwood and Ogo. I just don't know what was missing was I think there is a sense that they can't be bothered defending this any more, and that is a good thing. I'm more, and that is a good thing. I'm beginning to detect perhaps a bit of a drift between the noble Lords and a drift between the noble Lords and the members here. And I think it is preposterous to abolish the hereditary principle of the House of hereditary principle of the House of Lords on the basis that they give
15:18
Pete Wishart Portrait Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)
-
-
good service. As I have already described, many are disproportionately active, and whilst I accept it could have been done in a much more measured

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sensible and moderate way. That is the way to do it and I hope the rest of the Conservatives paid close attention was not that is how you defend the un-defensible Conservative peers. One other thing Conservative peers. One other thing I have detected, there seems to be a I have detected, there seems to be a concession, and there won't be a concession, and there won't be a democratic second chamber. I think that has been implied and suggested and I have not had anything to counteract that so far.

The Minister counteract that so far. The Minister can say that is gone because I think can say that is gone because I think this is as far as Lords reform goes this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great Gordon Brown vision of the Senate of the nations and is just totally for the nations and is just totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream that is not going to happen. dream that is not going to happen.

This is all this House is going to do when it comes to Lords reform. I look at these amendments and I have look at these amendments and I have to say, I find them a snivelling contentious bunch of amendments. And contentious bunch of amendments. And what they do is for the Lord to demonstrate their contempt for parliamentary democracy. And their contempt for the democratic will of this house, and members who were democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed this vote with a large majority.

And for all of its faults the government said it would do it with a manifesto commitment they should be allowed to get on. Since then, the Lords of done everything possible to thwart this bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their "Save the aristocrats" campaign. The principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected. Since going down the corridor, these peers have tried to delay this bill through Filibustering, keeping the Lords up Filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the bill full of amendments.

This bill has only got two pages. But they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it. There were 154 amendments defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy, or global conflict. If you look at Hansard, some of the contributions were truly bizarre. They had an oozing sense of entitlement from the upper and ruling classes. It was extraordinary. It started to get a bit threatening, and when the noble Lords true warned that if this went ahead, we would face a very aggressive procedural action.

They said this could involve Filibustering, wrecking amendments, and even worse, the Parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said this tough rebellion would only be stood down if a number of hereditaries remained. I don't know about you but I am positively waking in my boots. The prospect of somebody charting me with a vintage claret jug terrifies me to death. The thing is they really do believe they were born to rule. That their role in the legislature through birthright, is a gift they should be eternally grateful for.

We have now returned to these amendments, but they may want to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement. That is not getting rid of hereditaries, it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments I wish we could introduce more amendments ourselves, because I would have an amendments that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. Maybe a little bit of free education, a couple of shifts in little, maybe having them living on the minimum wage.

Or having them speak in regional accents for a day. Given they have made this thing about public contribution, given it is so important, how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? It is a suggestion. What all of this does, and I have been a bit comical with this, it endorsed the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of Arista craps, donors and bishops, who feel they can continue with impunity.

They are probably right in this assumption. I do think there's any desire to defend them any more, but the other members of the circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop and to thrive. It is increasingly going to become a house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of patronage. We are debating the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are debating the amendments not your vision for the future of the House of Lords. Perhaps we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should stick to the amendment. I was getting a bit carried away. What this amendment wants to do is What this amendment wants to do is be sure the aristocrats remain in be sure the aristocrats remain in this place. They're not going to succeed in that. But the rest of them still will be there, a strange them still will be there, a strange assortment of people that we find. It will become a house of patronage It will become a house of patronage from the Prime Minister.

We are already beginning to see this, 57 new Labour peers have been new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election. We since the last general election. We have heard that dozens of new Labour peers about to be introduced was top peers about to be introduced was top this does not seem like a government keen on even more Parliament. This seems like a government that wants seems like a government that wants to increase a new set of labour Lords at the expense of the Lords at the expense of the hereditaries.

The public are sick of this was not only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see them abolished, and I support them in this vision. The Labour Party 150 years ago promised to abolish the House of Lords, I think it will take at least another 115 years for we see the next set of reform.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I will start by setting out some will start by setting out some context as to why this bill, though small, is important I am delighted to be speaking in support of it today. I will then address amendments one, three, and eight directly. As has mentioned already, directly. As has mentioned already, in 2024, Labour promised to end the right of Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the other place. In 2025, that is exactly what the government is delivering.

In my view, not a is delivering. In my view, not a moment too soon. The principle at stake it is simple, and it is the principal not process. No one should make laws for the British people, no make laws for the British people, no one should claim a daily allowance, no one should influence the future no one should influence the future of this country purely on the basis of who their great-great-grandfather of who their great-great-grandfather was. In my estimation, that idea belongs in history books.

Not in a belongs in history books. Not in a modern democracy. It is incompatible with the Labour Party's values, and with the Labour Party's values, and anathema to the values of the British people in 2025. Of course the Conservative party opposite will the Conservative party opposite will resist. We have already heard diversionary tactics today. Talk already about the Blair government's reforms in 1999. We all know that previous government don't buy the hands of future ones. About next steps and whether the statutory committee or select committees the committee or select committees the right thing to do.

Having asked the Official Opposition what their Official Opposition what their official policies on this, I am still unaware of quite what it is. We heard from the shadow Chancellor We heard from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier, his concerns about this will be a his concerns about this will be a numbers game. May I remind him that UCL's constitution unit has done the maths. In fact, were the changes to come into effect, the number of Conservative peers in the other place will still be the largest out place will still be the largest out of all the parties.

Larger even than the crossbenchers. It was see a the crossbenchers. It was see a small and minor reduction composition from 34% to 32%. It composition from 34% to 32%. It would still be the largest. The Father of the House mentioned he is Father of the House mentioned he is not supportive of an elective upper chamber. I am still at a loss as to chamber. I am still at a loss as to exactly what gradual change in the composition of the upper house means. We have already talked about means.

We have already talked about the principal... I will give way.
15:28
Phil Brickell Portrait Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)
-
-
You mention the gradual change. We had that was apparently the policy of the Conservative party. Does he not agree with me that a six-month temporary arrangement that takes 1/4 of a century to overturn

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is the epitome of gradual? He makes an excellent point, and that is exactly the concern that I that is exactly the concern that I and many members on this bench have. That long-standing reform is well That long-standing reform is well overdue. We also heard about the overdue. We also heard about the principal of monarchy, and mention was made of constitutional monarchies. Of course we are all aware...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aware... The right to say to me I was going off topic but it seems that your judgement is doing exactly the same thing. From what I recall rightly every one else has as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to be entirely clear, it was the property rights element of the contribution that I thought was contribution that I thought was beyond scope. I do think all members this afternoon, you will be Contonou not been in the chair a long, might like to stick to the scope of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments what we are debating. Mention was made of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mention was made of constitutional monarchies. There are a number of European countries that have constitutional monarchies, monarchies that have the hereditary principle. None of them have hereditary members in the Parliament. Mention was also made of the hereditary principle for parliamentarians being somewhat unique. But also of the printable of mandatory retirement at a certain age. The right honourable Member mentioned that. Of course that principle also exists in the judiciary I don't see any objection from human rights perspective.

I wanted to go back to UCL and the constitution document which found 60% of the public want Hereditary Peers gone for good. Who can blame them? The record speaks for itself. Not a single female Hereditary Peers elected in 66 years, over one third of Hereditary Peers concentrates in London and the south-east. And by elections so farcical they verge on satire. These are in the scope of amendment one which I will come to. My electorate is about 76,000 electors.

In July of last year, 17,363 people voted to elect me as their MP and give a voice in this You yet in 2018, one hereditary peer was elected with a dozen votes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fewer than it takes to become a parish councillor, and in a Tory by-election... I will give way. I thank my honourable friend. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend. As he was giving his very eloquent excellent speech, I was reminded of a comedy series called Blackadder a comedy series called Blackadder were some very bizarre electoral were some very bizarre electoral practices happened in our television screens. And it is a shame that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seem to be happening even this day. My honourable friend makes a very good point and talks of one of my all-time favourite comedies. But it all-time favourite comedies. But it speaks to the need of more drastic reform in the other place that is long overdue. The Tory by-election long overdue. The Tory by-election in the other place, another peer asserted that fellow members should vote for him because he " Races on vote for him because he " Races on the gardens enthusiastically." That the gardens enthusiastically." That vote was a total of 43 for these are not democratic contests, they don't seek to promote those with the very seek to promote those with the very best talent and expertise to serve this country, they lack the fundamentals of what should be at fundamentals of what should be at the heart of this, transparency, accountability, and scrutiny.

And accountability, and scrutiny. And since 1999, there have been over 30 of these bizarre contests, all with vanishingly small electorates, a process which is frankly long overdue. All producing more, by accident of birth. And that is the principle that icon and many members on this bench -- And that is the principle that I and many neighbours

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on this bench... I will give way. What government was it that instituted this arrangement, whereby a certain number of hereditaries stayed and were replaced?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member will have heard what I said previously that heard what I said previously that previous government don't mind the hands of future governments, this was a manifesto commitment last was a manifesto commitment last year. Which leads me onto the amendments that have come back from the other place. Amendments one and eight from the noble Lord, Lord eight from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, concerning ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. These would hollow out the bill and would hollow out the bill and perpetuate the very problem we are perpetuate the very problem we are trying to fix.

I urge colleagues in the other house to respect the Salisbury Convention, as has already been mentioned today. That this House has privacy on election winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues opposite Conservative colleagues opposite have had ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm they respect that Constitutional Convention. And I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that. But we cannot just scrap the by-election process. It is the principle, as I say, that is so objectionable. And that is why I will be voting to make sure that this bill gets onto the statute.

Many hereditary peers have made viable contributions. I have worked alongside some myself already, with the short amount of time I have spent in this chamber. But those that want to continue serving can that want to continue serving can They can be related to life peerages and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong candidates for top this bill is not an attack on individuals, it is an attack on mediaeval principle of privilege by birth. No one should set our parliaments because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago.

Amendments one and eight are not about accountability. They are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament. And the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle. Second, amendment three, from the noble Lord, Lord True, on so-called non-sitting peerages. Let's be clear, peerages should not be signing. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, then what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people's contributions, we already have a system for that, the honours process.

Knighthoods, CBEs, MBEs, as the Attorney Massa general has already expressed. -- Master general has already expressed. We have already seen the pattern. Titles handed out as bargaining chips, or awards for party donations. Now, the debate today has been quite well human but I do have to flag the Conservative party's tradition of enabling its treasurers at this point. And I take no pleasure in quoting this but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted, in 2021, " Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage." That is not public service.

It is politics for sale. And is exactly what the public are fed up with. So, in summary, I will give way, finally on this point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, of course there are simple adductor seas, with Conservatives offering peerages. Does he not think offering peerages. Does he not think the catch for Tony Blair, there was a police investigation and he was cautioned under the police

**** Possible New Speaker ****

arrangements, it goes on in all parties and it is a disgrace from each of them. In summary, this bill is about rebuilding trust in politics, it's about ending practices that belong about ending practices that belong to the 18th-century, not the 21st. It's about showing the British people that Parliament works for people that Parliament works for them. Not the privileged few. And let me say this. This bill is just let me say this. This bill is just the beginning, and I am committed to wider reform of the second chamber.

To improving its national and regional balance, to introduce and, yes, mandatory retirement age, to yes, mandatory retirement age, to requiring meaningful participation and ultimately, replacing it with a and ultimately, replacing it with a more modern second chamber fit for the 21st-century. That is the path for a fairer and more accountable and more democratic politics. That is what Labour promised. That is why I am proud to see the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliver on it. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to the Lord's amendments one and eight and therefore against the motion, in two minds. In two minds because I found the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers without seeking consensus, which is what a rejection of this amendment would do, both regretful and also exciting. Two polarising mindsets, which I like to take into. My first emotion, regret. Britain has something of Schrdinger's cat contribution, we are simultaneously a modern, plural, open, but we are also kind of an autocratic theocracy.

The national motto points towards the hereditary monarch being appointed by accountable only to God. Any good, we have the divinely appointed Monica supreme Governor of the church will stop the bishops, picking up points irrigated, as to the hereditary peers, today. The king appointed judiciary, he is a Commander of the Armed Forces. On paper, this point has been made by members of the party opposite, the country we have most in common with on paper is the Islamic Republic, but like Iran, we have simultaneously free and fair elections, broad debate in the press, freedom of religious and belief, and we are an open member of the international order.

Now, the the international order. Now, the point that has been made, he would never design our tapestry of the constitution. In many ways, it is absurd. But it is organic. It is absurd. But it is organic. It is rooted in the millennia of history. rooted in the millennia of history. As we celebrate the 1100th birthday of England, the most remarkable of England, the most remarkable nation on earth, in the next couple of years, which a majority of us in this place are fortunate to have won this place are fortunate to have won the lottery of life to be born into, we should be respectful of that evolution.

Because that evolving constitutional order has empirically constitutional order has empirically served us well. It is how it works in practice, not how it looks, on in practice, not how it looks, on the ideological grand plan as piece of paper.
15:40
Jack Rankin Portrait Jack Rankin MP (Windsor, Conservative)
-
-
I am not surprised he is making the speech he is, he understands that essentially, our system is an organic one, constitutions are not a blueprint, at least they haven't been in this country, they can be, but not here. The way he describes it is a blend, a blend of democratic and the other forms of the exercise of power, but what the government are putting forward is not a democratic House of Lords, it is an appointed House of Lords. That, in itself, contradicts some of the speeches being made only on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benches opposite, does it not? National story has brought us to this place where the House is this place where the House is rightly dominant in the Houses of Parliament, recognising the sovereignty of the King of Parliament, but we should be careful in the wholesale execution. Lets be in the wholesale execution. Lets be clear, that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do, by accepting motion one. The other place, without them, is no more a House of Lords, then my more a House of Lords, then my terrace house is.

An Orwellian purge leaving the place of political cronies and failed advisers, is that cronies and failed advisers, is that what you want? Is that progress? Because the House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. difficult to justify, but it works. I am afraid this place, too often, has the attention span of a TikTok has the attention span of a TikTok adult teenager, as we jumped to the half hourly new cycle driven by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Twitter and the rolling news. My honourable friend, the member for Windsor, is making absolutely for Windsor, is making absolutely the correct argument. But of course, the hereditary peerage in the House the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords represents continuity in our country, and wisdom throughout the ages, that hereditary elements, the ages, that hereditary elements, most of it is not hereditary, most of it is appointed in the House of Lords, but that element has a vital element, as part of the mix of our very successful parliamentary constitution.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is quite right and the point he makes it I thank him for it, and when we walk through the division when we walk through the division lobbies, often having had no time, because of that impossible juggling act to develop real knowledge of what the topic in question we are what the topic in question we are voting on is or having thought through the implications. Some of the stuff that leave this place with the stuff that leave this place with a massive majority might as well be written in crayon.The other place.

Do not remove long serving public servants, do not pick apart friends of the constitution. The other place of the constitution. The other place is one of parts of the contribution -- One of the parts of the -- One of the parts of the constitution that works best. Madame Deputy Speaker, I also talked about attention, conflict in my thinking. My remarks so far have tried to My remarks so far have tried to articulate a deeply conservative instinct. But I also feel excitement, which I would like to excitement, which I would like to explain.

My view is that the British explain. My view is that the British day is way off course, dangerously of course, it needs deep and radical change. If you just take one issue, change. If you just take one issue, for example, immigration. There is almost nothing too radical to consider. If I may, I have a point to make. Whether you look at the asylum system, whether you look at Illegal Migration Act radical change this country needs is going to be a significant scale. And none of that is possible in the constitutional straitjacket, which is at direct odds with our historic constitution.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. Absolutely fascinating argument,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely fascinating argument, I thank him for giving way at this point because he has argued in favour of the Lord's restraint but favour of the Lord's restraint but he argues in favour of the laws, because of allowing radicalism. This argument doesn't make any sense.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am trying to bring that tension out and that is the point I would like to make. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda? The Lords might, in its current form. And I find it exciting that a majority in find it exciting that a majority in this House, this is a warning, this House, this is a warning, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place.

The benches opposite may not agree with the hereditary principle, but do you know who else doesn't get elected in the other place and who cannot be removed by elections? The life removed by elections? The life peers, and I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia old principle, I have for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

millennia old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds. Can I reassure the honourable gentleman, I have plenty of respect for it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for it. I thank the deputy speaker for her comment. What I would say, that I am trying to elicit from the opposition, the government benches, if the government can expel its political opponents from the other place, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister's patronage, because the majority in this place say they are not elected, so can a new government. So, take the compromise, be very careful what you wish for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Our constitution is indeed a very curious beast. Nobody starting from scratch would come anywhere near to designing what we have for this country. Perhaps apart from the shadow minister and some of his friends behind him of course. It has friends behind him of course. It has evolved. Evolved over the centuries, in responsibility pressures that
15:45
Kevin Bonavia Portrait Kevin Bonavia MP (Stevenage, Labour)
-
-
in responsibility pressures that arise from time to time. -- In response to pressures that arise from time to time. And it's part of that evolution. But when it has changed, so traditions have remained. And I love a bit of tradition in this place. Especially when it tells a story of how we have come to be where we are, whether it is a Royal Assent being signified in Norman French or Chambers doors being shut on the entry of black rod.

That all tells a story. But when tradition holds us back from the work we are sent here to do, it the work we are sent here to do, it That is why this bill was introduced in the first 100 days of this Labour government. We were elected on a manifesto government to sit and vote in the other place. That principle is simple and it is long overdue as we have heard from the member from Harlow. In the 21st-century, there should be no places in our legislature reserved for those who were born into certain families.

It is an outdated and indefensible part of our constitution and last year, the British people gave us the mandate to change it. And yet, the shadow minister claims this is a Cromwellian. Was it not Oliver Cromwell who came into the chamber of our predecessors and shut it down? That is not what is happening here today. We are following through on a democratic process consulting the people, bringing it through a full act of Parliament in this place, and indeed, the other place.

Let me tell the right honourable gentleman something which is far more Cromwellian. Only a few years ago, a conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson forced our late Queen to probe this Parliament. That, that is much more Cromwellian than anything else that we are doing here today. The attention of the hereditary Peers, after 1999, was meant to be a temporary compromise. 1/4 of a century later, it is time to finish the job. And today, we are nearly there.

But for some amendments from the other place which I want to address, in particular, amendments number one and number three. Amendment number one. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to get Cromwell right, it was Cromwell -like Boris Johnson who ended long Parliament by looking ended long Parliament by looking into this chamber, so the parallel is closer than the gentleman would is closer than the gentleman would like to suggest. And Cromwell was a like to suggest. And Cromwell was a tyrant. He wanted his sons to succeed him. He believed in the hereditary principle. But on the hereditary principle. But on the point of substance, the point about the House of Lords as a check on the power of this place, and that is a helpful thing.

Sometimes governments benefit from having to think again. This is part of a healthy This is part of a healthy constitutional settlement. If you sacrifice that settlement, I think you will get less good rather than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better government. I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, and on the for his intervention, and on the principle of a check on this place, I wholeheartedly agree, but that I wholeheartedly agree, but that check must come with due wisdom and expertise, and we have heard somebody from the other side say somebody from the other side say centuries of wisdom. How can that passed down? How can wisdom be passed down genetically to somebody passed down genetically to somebody in today's, in the other place today.

Surely we need people who have expertise in there on merit, not because of who their ancestors were. Amendment one seeks to amend the by-elections to replace and allow a cohort of hereditary seats by natural departure. As my right honourable friend the Paymaster General has said, that amendment would delay the amendment to end the element in the other place for many many years to come. As I said in my intervention, this is not about individuals or personalities.

It is about ensuring that our institutions reflect the values of our modern democracy, and I have seen firsthand the important role of a second chamber in scrutinising legislation and improving the quality of lawmaking. That role must be based on merit and public service, not on birthright. If anyone watching today's debate is a hereditary Peer, I see none over there, but is dismayed at the prospect of no longer being able to contribute to the work of the other place, I say to them do not be downhearted.

Anyone in principle should have the potential ability to serve as a parliamentarian if they are willing and able to do the necessary work, and work is the point here. Doing this work brings me to amendment number three. This would create a new tradition with no work involved, but what is the use of that? There are plenty that his match can bestow that we showed you public recognition to services rendered to this country. But the other place is not and should not be used as a board.

It should be a working and effective part of our legislature. And our Parliament, and any parliamentarian that comes to this building to do the work. To hold or be held to account, to raise issues that matter to the wider country and to pass good and workable laws. I know that when I was elected on that expectation by my constituents at Stevenage, that was the pledge I promise to uphold. And while members of the other place do not have expectations, I believe there is an expectation on the public as a whole that they are there to do the work of good parliamentarians.

And empty titles which would only take away from that public expectation. So these amendments complicate what is and should be a simple task before us. To deliver finally on ending principle of peerages that the other place is a working place and a people.
15:53
Mark Ferguson Portrait Mark Ferguson MP (Gateshead Central and Whickham, Labour)
-
-
This is been an interesting debate. The point has already been well made here. We have had hours on this concise bill. 52 hours in the House of Lords on this. And now we have a number of amendments. I am going to be addressing amendments one and two. Amendment or one is fairly straightforward up and down. It is nothing more than an amendment for the principle in the House of Lords.

It is an outdated anachronism that has no place in 2025 or in any other place. The only other comparable government is Lesotho. I would not like to share this unenviable record with the good people of Lesotho. The point made is that if we don't want the principle in the House of Lords, perhaps that means we think nothing could be further from the truth. I swore allegiance to the king. I have not always been an ardent monarchist, but one of the reasons I support in money is because I have no role in introducing roles, and amending laws, the monarchs role is quite clear and simple.

Royal assent. They do not obstruct the work of this place, and yet, we have had so many times today about the guerrilla warfare. I will absolutely take an intervention. We heard today about the guerrilla warfare against numerous piece of legislation in retribution against this simple removal of anachronism. That is not what the king does, but when monarchs have sought to obstruct this house, this is why it is irrelevant. This is about removing the hereditary principle from the legislature that develops.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point has been repeatedly made that this is a matter of principle. That heredity power is principle. That heredity power is unacceptable. The king has no role in introducing legislation and the king has immense political king has immense political influence. Which Labour backbencher discusses the affairs of state? discusses the affairs of state? Which Labour backbencher, the King Which Labour backbencher, the King of Stoke. So, which honourable of Stoke. So, which honourable gentleman receives a report on the procedures of this house? That is procedures of this house? That is what the king has, so the king has those powers and derives its power by birth.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

by birth. I think the honourable member for his intervention, and I'm delighted to inform him about the PLP Parliamentary backbench committee which meets with the Prime Minister which meets with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis and I see at least one of my honourable friends. one of my honourable friends. Oatcakes all around for them for the Prime Minister, but I will happily take the point which I presume will be on the amendment but I wish to fully respond to the points before I was so distracted, and I apologise for that self-destruction.

The role of the Lords is quite clear in our legislature. The role of the monarchy in our legislature is quite clear, in fact, I spoke this morning to students from a college in my constituency about the parts of Parliament. The principal under discussion here today is whether or not you should be able to introduce amend or vote on legislation. The king does neither so I see no contradiction, and of course, I will happily accept an intervention from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my honourable friend. The moment has passed slightly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The moment has passed slightly but I want to thank him for acknowledging the work of the PLP backbench committee and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happily bring him some oatcakes on Monday morning from home. I think the honourable member I don't think that will help me with don't think that will help me with my diet but I will probably need the my diet but I will probably need the calories for Sunday. I am happy that we are having a debate but I am somewhat surprised by the tenor of somewhat surprised by the tenor of this debate. It runs contrary to the Salisbury Convention. Too often, we neglect the Labour member of this important police.

But what is surprising and it was surprising surprising and it was surprising also in second reading on behalf of also in second reading on behalf of the opposition, but there was not a more straightforward argument in favour of the hereditary principle. It seems pretty clear that this is what we are arguing for, and it seems there is a dwindling proportion of the electorate who wish to see the hereditary principle enshrined within those crucial enshrined within those crucial aspects of our legislature within the scope of what we are talking about here today.

There appears to about here today. There appears to be no one on the benches willing to make that argument, yet clearly, that is the argument we are willing to make, and it is an act of constitutional contortion to argue that what they actually wish for is merely just to allow some people to serve out their time. If that is the case, why have elections? There are wonderful public servants on all sides of the house who lost their seats at the last election, and yet in this place, we believe that, at the will of the people, any of us can be gone and that is quite right.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

On moving on. Making the point that any of us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Making the point that any of us should be able to go and I agree with him. Shouldn't that be the case for all parliamentarians and not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for all parliamentarians and not just those in this house? My long-standing views on reform

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My long-standing views on reform of Parliament are something that any of Parliament are something that any member can look up if they wish, and I very much welcome the second I very much welcome the second reading and the comments from the Frontbench today on future reform of Frontbench today on future reform of our lords and what that might look like. IDSA we might agree on some specific aspects more than he specific aspects more than he imagines. And I moved to the Second Amendment.

This is the question of the Second Amendment on the paying of ministers. I welcome the of ministers. I welcome the Conservative party is a stout defence of working people and making sure that people are paid what they are owed. We have had references to equalities law as well from the opposition benches and I welcome that. I just think it is a shame that it is being applied that it is being applied As opposition members know, there is a limit on the number of ministers who are able to be paid, I think that is right, don't believe now is the right time to be expanding the cost of old politics with more paid ministers.

However, if the Conservative party believes, genuinely deep down in its soul, that they needed to have more paid ministers, there was 14 years of government in which they could have done it, rather than tacking this on as a distraction from the actual issue at hand here, which is reforming, incrementally but crucially, our constitution. And supporting the government's position on all of these amendments today, let's get on with this. We have had 62 hours of debate, let's crack on. It has been 1,100 years, I think it's time to cut it short.
16:01
Gareth Snell Portrait Gareth Snell MP (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour )
-
-
I do draw attention to my declaration of interest, my wife is a life peer in the House of Lords and a salaried minister, so on two fronts this bill is of interest. She is very good, yes, thank you very much. Madame Deputy Speaker, just want to start by addressing some of the points that the honourable gentleman from Scotland, what constituency I don't know, Perth and Perthshire? Yes. His characterisation of the House of Lords Act think is grossly unfair.

He characterised everybody as being a sort of pocket stuffing hanger on, and I think that exposes more about his particular brand of petty grievance politics than it does about the actual calibre of individuals down the end of that corridor. Regardless of party affiliation, or independence, the numbers of life come across in committee work, joint committee work, in delegations when I was previously in the House, are a group of people that want to see the nation benefit and want to see our country thrive and they want to see good politics and good governance.

Our characterisation is often unfair, and he belittled his own position as a member of this House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I merely make an intervention because the man is not here to defend himself and I am grateful for defend himself and I am grateful for giving way. There are a number of fine people in the House of Lords, I work with them in a number of ways. work with them in a number of ways. However, in order to have democratic However, in order to have democratic accountability, it should be at the heart, the promise to scrap the House of Lords Act the first manifesto it produced over a century manifesto it produced over a century ago, so your honourable colleague might be waiting 1,100 years but we have been waiting for Labour to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a commitment for 110 years, to give them that democratic mandate. Without getting drawn into a debate about the rights of wrongs, I debate about the rights of wrongs, I will say, if they wanted an elective chamber, they could have one of the chamber, they could have one of the Scottish Parliament but I -- But today chose not to full to put away today chose not to full to put away our democracy works, simply have a pop at this place, with the pop at this place, with the grievance politics.

Frankly, if they spent more time thinking about how they can help the nation rather than they can help the nation rather than their petty nationalism, we may better be in a better place as a country, they would be better in country, they would be better in Scotland. What I want to do is appoint to amendment one. As my honourable friend from Telford pointed out, this bill has been proposed in the House of Lords, numerous times over the last 20 years, he has tried to get to the point where they could have been an opportunity over the last two decades, for members who are here by the virtue of the hereditary principle, to be phased out over time.

And every opportunity, it was blocked by the Conservative party, and every opportunity, it was talked out. When the bill was introduced in this place, first by Dave Hansen and then by John Sabella, the Conservative party opposed it. They said the party opposed it, et cetera, it is now disingenuous to be proposing something that over the last two decades they have opposed, as their solution to the problem that they themselves created us not accepting it in the first place is slightly unfair.

It is a categorisation of their own politics, that they are seeking to find ways to frustrate this bill. Because they have no option for themselves. As the points have been raised, and I think someone spuriously, by the members -- Somewhat spuriously, by the members, this is a way of neutering opposition in the other place, this was pointed out by the Member for Bolton, after the expulsion of hereditary peers, the number will still be the largest party in the House of Lords.

The Labour Party is currently the third largest party in the House of Lords, after the crossbenches, and even after the removal of some of the crossbench peers that set by virtue of hereditary peerage, they will still only be slightly behind the Labour Party. So the idea that this is going to remove any opposition in the other house is city not correct. It doesn't hold water. What it does also, saying it could only happen in the virtue of the application of the minds of the hereditary peers, it is also equally incorrect, that some of the best challenges to government that have happened in this parliament have come from members of the House of Lords that have been appointed.

It doesn't necessarily mean that because you were there by virtue of hereditary. You are less likely to be independent, genuinely do not see that for myself. The times where I have sat and watched the House of Lords, because their sitting hours later, you can see the challenges that come from the bishops, from the crossbenches, from the members of the Conservative and Liberal parties, regardless of how they reached it, it has been thoughtful, well considered, and it has been challenging, and long may that continue.

I do not think it gets diminished by the fact that we say to a small group of those who have a right House of Lords, your route into this place was an irregularity and we are seeking to sort that. And I would say to the master general, he disputed my figure, there have been 21 appointments the House of Lords that had the Conservative whip. I appreciate some of those having resignation honours from previous prime ministers and there were a few to get through. Because of the way the party operated, but there have been 21 at any point, the former prime minister's could have said we would like to consider giving those two members of the hereditary group you are not able to continue.

There had been a number of appointees who were not part of a resignation honours list. And again, the Conservative party did not take the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity to say to the Earl Howe, we are going to make sure you can continue. The honourable gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he making a very good speech. Does he think that given the policy it has embarked on, the government should have the duty to protect crossbenches who have no party representation in this House? But the hereditary to our crossbenches the hereditary to our crossbenches are otherwise going to go by the wayside, but he at least support his government doing that? -- Would he at least support his government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing that? It is hard to underestimate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is hard to underestimate the contribution that the crossbenches make to the House of Lords, not least the number of retired memos of the judiciary, you feel a certain judicial responsibility, I think the honourable gentleman has an element of a point that I was almost of a point that I was almost agreeing with. To say there is a conversation to be had about how you make sure crossbenches continue to have representation that reflects have representation that reflects the breadth of the country and the skills of the Parliament needs.

skills of the Parliament needs. Obviously, there is a role for the House of Lords appointments commission who can make recommendations for new crossbench peers and how that works going peers and how that works going forward, I am sure something that will be considered. But again, there will still be 151 crossbench peers, even after the number of hereditary even after the number of hereditary peers have been expelled from the House. That is a large number of peers, all of whom are bringing expertise of the House, that should be looked at, and if there are new crossbench peers to come in, House of Lords appointments commission I am sure will make that recommendation.

The idea that the House of Lords will somehow cease to function by virtue of the abolition immediately, of those who are hereditary is, it simply doesn't hold order, it doesn't make sense. Therefore, simply saying we are going to have a clean break, thank you for your service, we appreciate it, if you wish to come back to politics and Parliament, then you can be nominated to the House of Lords for life peerage or seek election to this House. If the Conservative party really wanted to make sure that some of those hereditary peers were able to come back to this place, they can say to the 25 safest Conservative seats, if there are 25 safe seats for any party these days, we're going to make sure that you are our candidates, they can come back to this place and make a valuable contribution to politics, in a way that gives you a seat in at one of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the two, so there are ways of doing about simply do not allow the situation that we have. Very briefly. What I am puzzled about, Madame

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I am puzzled about, Madame Deputy Speaker, is how does the abolition of these great people who abolition of these great people who have come to this place, with the duty of service, inherited, they have inherited. They have come here, have inherited. They have come here, serve the country, how does it benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent to remove them? How are our constituents going to be benefited by this change in our constitution? Does he really think this country is going to be so much better by getting rid of our hereditary peers who have such a great duty of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

service to our country? The honourable gentleman poses a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman poses a question. A fair question. I would question. A fair question. I would argue that having are in fenced argue that having are in fenced number of seats reserved for predominantly white, almost exclusively men, in our national legislature sends the wrong message to my constituents, and I fully to my constituents, and I fully accept that they remember is of the House of Lords, for whom my constituents could look to and think they have done something very spectacular in their life.

And before the honourable gentleman interrupts, there are members who have come in through the by-election process who have had careers before, who have made good contributions, and then being there does bring something but I do not believe they would be diminished by their expulsion, I do not believe my constituents would be harmed by their expulsion and I cannot see if there was a justification for saying that there are going to be 92 people who remain in this legislature by virtue of an appointment many, many decades ago.

It is a small element. But the removal of that small element by virtue of his argument won't have a big reason either, I also want to mention, saying this is an attack on the principal, the Earl Marshal will continue to be an officer of the House of Lords. And he will be intrinsically linked to the families of the Duke of Norfolk, he just won't be able to vote in divisions. He won't be able to go into debates, and therefore, I do not believe this is necessarily an attack on hereditary principle per se, he is simply saying there is no place for the hereditary principle in a modern democracy.

I want to move on, Madame Deputy Speaker, to the point about the titles that could be given out as a reward, as an honorary point. I do not believe the amendment is necessary to achieve what the Conservative party's aims are, not least because the monarchy is the font of all, and can create whatever styles he likes, through the letters patent, with whatever particular caveat he wants, it doesn't immediately mean you have to become a member of the House of Lords by virtue of having a life peerage, if the letters patent say something different.

I am sure the shadow Paymaster General as well read up on the Wensleydale decision of 1856, whether life peerage was created for Sir James, that specifically said he couldn't go and be a member of the House of Lords. So, the principle of being able to establish those titles and styles, for reward and recognition, without tying it to something that already exists, it is something this country can already do, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. The final thing I do want to say, because it hasn't really got much discussion this afternoon.

It is around the government amendment, around the point of capacity for colleagues in the House of Lords. It is something that hasn't been picked up, because of your sleep, -- But I think it is quite clear, there are memos of the House of Lords who have served our country well and serve the communities well. -- Members of the House of Lords. Some of them find themselves in old age, as the dignity they deserve is to be able to retire from that place without it becoming a story of capacity.

So I think the amendment being proposed that was accepted in the government, by the government at the opposition of the Lords, is an important way of recognising there are small changes we can make every day, to the House of Lords. As the last government it was the retirement ability and the ability to take leave of absences, and what this government is doing around ensuring that resignation for those who have power of Attorney can be given is an important one. I hope that that would get cross-party support this evening, but to summarise my honourable friend from Gateshead, this is a long time coming, which is part of the evolution of the House of Lords, the amendments this evening do nothing to improve the bill, it simply slows down the pace of reform.

And adds a little bit that seeks to do nothing more than frustrate the passage of the bill in the other place, where these amendments go back. So I would urge the House to reject the opposition amendment, and give those who deserve it the dignity to retire without it becoming an issue of capacity, and building a more successful democracy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, and with the Leader of the House, I and with the Leader of the House, I will close this debate it is a privilege to close what has been a
16:14
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
wide-ranging, if I'm a say-so, well natured -- If I may say so, well natured debate. I will begin, if I may, with the shadow chancellor, who I think has been treated somewhat unfairly I think in the course of this debate. I have to say, the honourable member Perth and Kinross-shire who accused him of a lack of energy I think was completely wrong. The contribution, Madame Deputy Speaker, may have been ill judged, but it was certainly energetic and we can certainly give him that.

Some would say as well that the contribution of the shadow chancellor was, in some ways, brave. Some would even say it had crisper Trashing precedent, while simultaneously trashing president himself. The Labour manifesto of last year, said this. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation by introducing in legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Not over time, as amendment one claims, and over time is about half a century, if you look at the age of the youngest hereditary peer.

But immediately. And amendment 13 shadow chancellor support is therefore an absolute breach of the Salisbury Addison convention, that should be allowed on that convention onto the statute on that convention onto the statute Let me just say, let me repeat that point to the right honourable gentleman. He claims to respect president and the right of Parliament but the position he takes supporting amendment one is around coach and horses. It is in breach of that convention. He is trying to put a defence up on that precedent.

He supported the closing down of Parliament in 2090. He supported closing it down. He is lecturing me closing it down. He is lecturing me on precedent. I say to him as well that there was an opportunity this afternoon. They didn't have to join in with the Filibustering tactics. He could today have not joined in through the lobbies to continue to try to block these reforms, and that is what this is all about.

It is not about trying to improve the bill. It isn't that the Tory frontbencher is a secretly in favour of radical reform. They are trying to wreck this bill, and that is exactly what he will do as he seeks to go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through. The lobbies with his troops laid it on. You may remember at the beginning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You may remember at the beginning of this bill hearing that I asked him to bear in mind the him to bear in mind the circumstances of somebody who is given their life to this place over the last 25 years who were not in the best financial health that we the best financial health that we are not now in Downton Abbey which had its premiere last night. Can I ask him that we will reassure the ask him that we will reassure the House that if we end the hereditary House that if we end the hereditary Peer ridge immediately, what support Peer ridge immediately, what support will be looked after as they are taken out of the chamber immediately?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immediately? It was the decision of the British people supporting the British people supporting the manifesto, but with regard to the point, it is the end of the session that hereditary Peers would need, but there is no barrier to them becoming peers. There is no barrier to them becoming peers in this house. I will give way but then I probably need to make some progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You frequently sites the Labour Party manifesto which should include Party manifesto which should include this provision in relation to the abolition of hereditary hears. It also includes the provision. Why has he chosen to bring forward he chosen to bring forward hereditary Peers but not wait until he is resolved in relation to the retirement age? Surely there is one retirement age? Surely there is one reason for that, that it benefits the party politically to remove conservative hereditary Peers immediately and of less political benefit to have a mandatory 80 year retirement age.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

retirement age. The manifesto is clear that it was going to be staged. This would be the immediate first step. The be the immediate first step. The government remains in favour of the House of Lords for nations and House of Lords for nations and regions. This is the first step that will be a Select Committee as announced by the Leader of the House announced by the Leader of the House of Lords. With regard to other contributions that were made to the contributions that were made to the debate, to the point made by honourable gentleman from honourable gentleman from Derbyshire, this is not a personal issue but an issue of principle.

The spokesperson for Richmond Park for the Liberal Democrats talked about about this as a first step but also about the appointment process, and in the course of recent months, the government has ensured that when people are selected for a place in the House of Lords, there is an explanation, a citation. We didn't have it for those nominated from the House of Lords, and that has now been changed. The member for Telford set out very powerfully that amendment one, the abolition of the hereditary by-elections has put that forward time and time again on every single occasion it was blocked by the Conservatives.

And the honourable member for Gainsborough did accuse me of being a bit unfair to the Conservatives in the 20th- century. And of course, we did have life peerages introduced in the late 1950s. Certainly, it is the case that on every opportunity, we are trying to abolish the principle the Conservatives have blocked it. That is exactly what they are doing again today. My honourable member from Leeds Southwest gave a very powerful speech in terms of the central perks of this bill, but also the position of the government on the amendment.

The honourable member for Perth and Kinross show made his characteristic contribution to the debate, and where I would agree with him is the point around the Filibustering in the other place on this bill. My honourable friend, the member for Bolton West made the point very well that even after this change, the Conservatives will still be the largest single party in the House of Lords. Then I come to the speech of the honourable gentleman for Windsor who I think seems to be simultaneously arguing for maintaining the hereditary Peers and radical reform.

When he talked about parliamentarian with the attention span of a TikTok video, I thought you meant the shadow justice secretary for a minute. But also, I have to say to him, I had the member for Clacton meet the comparison. I have to say that this piece of legislation is quintessentially British. It is about British democracy, about putting an argument to the electorate last July and then putting it into practice. My honourable friend, the member for Stevenage made a very powerful case, making the point that this is about principle.

It is about there not being a series of places in the legislature that are reserved for people from birth. I'm sure the whole house would wish him well for the great North run, but also, a very powerful case made for the abolition of hereditary principle and the position on the bill, and I should say a real thank you to my honourable friend from Stoke-on- Trent Central, a powerful case for change throughout the passage of this bill at every stage that has been in the House of Commons.

But it debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the things he hasn't discussed in his roundup is discussed in his roundup is ministerial pay, and I appreciate that this is in the right way to do it all the right place to do it, but will he accept in principle that in the future, the government should find a mechanism for ensuring that all houses are paid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just come to the other point. In terms of raising the other amendments, amendment one cuts the amendments, amendment one cuts the purpose of the bill. The other purpose of the bill. The other amendments that we have the power of attorney, and I think the whole attorney, and I think the whole house accepts that there is a dignity that we should give. On the dignity that we should give. On the other two points, I don't regard the other two points, I don't regard the creation of a new set it on.

We have it on the system already that it on the system already that recognises outstanding contributions to our society, and I think we should maintain that link between the title and the action going and doing work on legislature. On the point is rated couple of times around ministerial, the point I make to him is that that actually requires that if he wants to make the argument, there should be a debate and he is entitled to do that.

The point is the mechanism that he is seeking to have in respect of it. But concluding, I am concluding not just the afternoon's debate but tens of hours of debate in the other place. We are moving towards a House of Lords that is fair, open and truly representative of the nation it serves. A house where expertise is recognised not inherited, where policy is shaped by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

merit and not by Bloodlines. I commend the government's position to the house. The question is that this house disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment one. As many of that amendment one. As many of that opinion say I division, clear the Question Question is Question is that Question is that this Question is that this house disagrees with the Lords in their amendment one.

As many of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Locked Locked the Locked the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 336, The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, 336, The noes to the left, 77.
16:40
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 77. The ayes to the right, with 336,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right, with 336, The noes to the left, 77. So, The ayes have it. The ayes have it. ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to Lords amendment to, minister to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion to disagree formally. Formerly. The question is this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment number two. As many as are amendment number two. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this House The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment number two, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye".

Of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The eyes to the right, 331. The nose to the left, 73.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nose to the left, 73. The eyes to the right, 331. The nose to the left, 73. So the eyes nose to the left, 73. So the eyes nose to the left, 73. So the eyes Order. Under the program order of Order. Under the program order of today, I must now put the questions necessary to bring to a conclusion proceeding on the Lords Amendments. We now come to Lords Amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

three. Minister to move the motion to disagree formally. Move formally. The questionnaires of this house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The questionnaires of this house to disagree. As many of that to disagree. As many of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this house disagrees in the Lords Amendments three. As many of that opinion, say three. As many of that opinion, say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Locked Locked the Locked the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right, 338, The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 74. The ayes to the right, 338, The noes to the left, 74. The ayes have noes to the left, 74. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to Lords amendment eight, minister to move the motion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagree formally. Moved formally. The question is this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment eight. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that this House agrees with the that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments for and seven and amendment nine, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Minister to move that a committee be appointed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to draw up reasons. I beg to move that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons, to be appointed to draw up reasons, to be assigned to the Lords disagreeing with amendments one-three and eight. The tellers are (Reads). Members of The tellers are (Reads). Members of The committee do withdraw daily.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The committee do withdraw daily. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments disagreeing to their amendments (Reads). That the (Reads). That the committee (Reads). That the committee do withdraw immediately. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. That That includes That includes consideration That includes consideration of That includes consideration of Lords amendments to the House of Lords
17:08
None Portrait Adjournment: Future of the BBC Monitoring Service
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this House to now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to now adjourn. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Just over four decades ago, I first
17:08
Julian Lewis Portrait Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)
-
-
Just over four decades ago, I first became aware of the BBC Monitoring Service, BBCM. The year was 1982 under very different Labour Party, led by veteran unilateralist, Michael foot, was committed to imagining the British strategic nuclear deterrent -- Abandoning. I was involved in a campaign against that, together with my right honourable friend, the Leader of the House and a brilliant colleague of ours, counsellor as he then was, Tony. The researcher handed me a transcript of a radio Moscow interview, with the national organiser of Britain's leading disarmament campaign group.

Who was visiting the USSR, as one does. Asked why, unlike her organisation's opposition to the UK government, the official Soviet peace committee was supporting the Soviet government, she revealingly replied, and I quote, " Well, obviously, because the Soviet government is in favour of peace, and this makes a big difference." That was Moscow Radio, June 7, 1982, for the historians amongst us. The source of such telling material was a publication called A Summary of World Broadcasts.

It was produced by BBCM, and packed with invaluable insights into the propaganda campaigns, of our adversarial, and those who consulted with them. Founded in 1939 to give speedy access to foreign media and propaganda output, the monitoring service for its first 70 years, was funded by an annual government grant. This was as it should be. The government was paying for a service, for which it was the main customer and consumer. Certainly, there were periods of famine and feast. Reductions in the grand after the end of the Second World War limited the frequency of the Summary of World Broadcasts which resumed publication only in 1959.

But the principle of the annual grant held firm and there were further government investments in computerisation, and new buildings Havisham Park headquarters of BBCM in the second half of the 1980s. At the time the grant was split between the Foreign Office, the defence ministry, the Cabinet Office, and World Service budgets. But a 2005 report reinstated the single government revenue stream, cuts and redundancies nevertheless took place in 2006-seven, under Tony Blair. With worse to follow under Kamron and Clegg in 2010.

That was the year where the coalition government decreed that the BBC World Service and the monitoring service to also would be funded in future from the corporation's licence fee income. Eventually, direct government funding for the World Service had to be restored. Amounting to about one third of its annual income. BBCM however remains disproportionately dependent on the licence fee, plus a certain amount of income from its commercial contracts. Given that the BBC claims to have seen a 13% reduction of its overall income in real terms since that fateful year of 2010, it's hardly surprising that both the World Service and BBCM have suffered financially.

Yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the number for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the number for taking an intervention. Would he agree were in a world where the autocracies are in the ascendancy and falsely use spreads like the and falsely use spreads like the speed of -- False news spreads like the speed of light, that the funding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the speed of light, that the funding from the government for services which bring truth to the world have never been more important? I couldn't agree more with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I couldn't agree more with the honourable gentleman. May I take the opportunity to thank him again for the excellent debate on the BBC the excellent debate on the BBC World Service, which he led one if I remember correctly, 26th of June, remember correctly, 26th of June, which gave me the idea for bringing forward the subject of BBC forward the subject of BBC Monitoring separately. Over very many years, BBC Monitoring had built up the closest conceivable up the closest conceivable relationship with its United States counterparts, known as Open Source counterparts, known as Open Source Enterprise or OSC, indeed, the two organisations were based on alternate floors of the Caversham Park headquarters, dividing between Park headquarters, dividing between them, the coverage of global broadcasting to the enormous benefit broadcasting to the enormous benefit of both countries and the transatlantic alliance.

This was the nerve centre of world beating open source intelligence. Yet, the BBC decided to evict OSC -- OSE, and decided to evict OSC -- OSE, and sell the Caversham estate. Can I thank the honourable gentleman for making a great speech, it sits within the constituency and was a wonderful facility, and I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to those who work there for many years, breaking news stories, such as the initial news reports of the Iranian revolution, 1979.

Many other similar events, which were only possible to be recorded, because of the amazing talents of the linguists and journalists basing this facility, which sadly has now been mothballed and due to be sold

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to developers. I'm grateful for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for that intervention. I am sure the staff of BBC Monitoring, both present and past, would be great for the honourable gentleman for the support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable gentleman for the support he has addressed for them in this debate today. Yes. Very grateful to the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving way, and for bringing this debate to the House. I conducted my PhD research at the BBC conducted my PhD research at the BBC National archive Centre, which was within the Caversham Park, and every lunchtime I would go and have lunch lunchtime I would go and have lunch with the extraordinary linguists, who occupied the building, that the who occupied the building, that the honourable member has just described. The loss of BBC Monitoring, if that were indeed to Monitoring, if that were indeed to come about, would be a considerable national loss.

It doesn't just represent an incredibly important represent an incredibly important part of our security passed, it represents a very important part of represents a very important part of our security future, for the reasons the honourable gentleman has the honourable gentleman has mentioned before, in terms of the rise of this information. Does the honourable gentleman agree with me we need to preserve these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we need to preserve these institutions because often we do not know what we have lost until it has gone. Indeed, if there were any ever

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Indeed, if there were any ever something that summarised the consolidation of power, and what underpinned some of the agencies that have to delve sometimes formal secret sources for information, this is an example. And I must say, it is very gratifying at an end of day adjournment debate on the Thursday early evening, to have so many people who are so keen to intervene, including the honourable member for Harlow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for letting me intervene and his wonderful introduction of my intervention. He mentioned the intervention. He mentioned the importance of soft powers, we spoke a great deal about it in the adjournment by debate that my adjournment by debate that my honourable friend wanted this House, would he agree with me that we don't know what we have got until it is know what we have got until it is gone but if we were to lose BBC Monitoring Service as well as World Service, not that we are suggesting Service, not that we are suggesting that of course, it would be difficult to get that back if we realised the error we had made.

I would also mention certainly in regard to the BBC World Service, the regard to the BBC World Service, the conversation he and I had that debate about whether the BBC World Service was to pull out particular countries, what replace it, plenty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

countries, what replace it, plenty of propaganda we are trying to avoid. The only good thing to be said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The only good thing to be said about propaganda and adversaries is sometimes unwittingly, it gives you sometimes unwittingly, it gives you Let us make sure we preserve the Let us make sure we preserve the crown jewels and that we do not rely simply on fluctuations in licensing income to do that necessary task. With this integration that existed with the American counterparts of the service with the OSC, no wonder that the Select Committee decided to entitle its December 2016 report open source stupidity, a pun on open source intelligence, the threat to the BBC monitoring service.

If you the BBC monitoring service. If you are interested, it is HC 748 and it is still in print. The defence committee chairman who modesty prevents them from identifying pointed out that, and this is a long quote but it is worthwhile, the coalition government was warned in the strongest possible terms not to leave the BBC monitoring service unprotected by ending its ring fenced financial burden for the licence fee payer. By doing so, it gave the BBC a free hand to inflect its successive rounds of cuts now culminating in the loss of the specialised and dedicated Caversham headquarters.

The vast increase in open source information in the recent past makes it one of the few tools to provide almost real-time information and analysis on global development to allow the BBC to change and shape it in a different direction is in contravention of UK national interest. It's especially bewildering when you consider the annual cost of BBC monitoring is around £25 million. The decision to evict BBC monitoring's US counterpart open source enterprise from its UK-based at Caversham Park and break the physical link between the two is shortsighted.

The BBC's strategy for BBC monitoring will downgrade our contribution to open source intelligence sharing between the UK and the US at a time when European nations must demonstrate to President-elect Trump as he then was for the first time, that we are committed to paying our way in the fields of defence and security, is one of our witnesses said, this is the height of folly. This was a long quote but it is as true to them as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is today. Is delivering an excellent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is delivering an excellent speech. As the Select Committee had the Foreign Affairs Committee, it is an enquiry into this information. Does he agree with me that the increasing spread of disinformation increasingly in countries that do not speak English but have a real geopolitical relevance make the service even greater today than it is in 2016?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is in 2016? I agree entirely. The next person who wishes to intervene, I will read who wishes to intervene, I will read what I was just about to say when this intervention to place, which was at the reports conclusion was was at the reports conclusion was that the government should reinstate its previous model of funding its previous model of funding monitoring through a ring fenced grant-in-aid, rather than allowing grant-in-aid, rather than allowing the funding to come from the licence fee.

As a nonpartisan cross-party fee. As a nonpartisan cross-party body, I doubt if today's defence committee would take the radically committee would take the radically different view, and we have just heard from the foreigner Select Committee representative that this view still has a great deal of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

validity in it. I was going to congratulate him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was going to congratulate him on the report which I have in front of me and note there are only three of me and note there are only three colleagues on the committee back in 2016 who are still in this house, and the fact that he's making these points speaks to the challenge that I think we face, but also, reflect to our ability to face geopolitical to our ability to face geopolitical challenges and how they will be found wanting if we don't get this right soon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

right soon. Yes, it is very gratifying to an old timer like me to see a fresh old timer like me to see a fresh generation of serious minded, honourable and right honourable honourable and right honourable members from all parties so United on this common theme in the national on this common theme in the national interest. I'm going to have to race on a bit now so as not to cut into on a bit now so as not to cut into the ministers time to much.

So far, I focused on large part on the negatives house has heard, but all negatives house has heard, but all is not a picture of doom and gloom. Despite the substantial redundancies Despite the substantial redundancies of 2016 to 17 after the reduction in licence fee funding and the closure of Caversham Park, an 11 year of Caversham Park, an 11 year customer service agreement was signed with government covering the period 2017 to 2027 inclusive. A business development team also business development team also succeeded in lessening to extent the licence fee.

Those in charge at BBC monitoring are in no doubt of the importance of the mission. They point out in a briefing document point out in a briefing document they provided to me that in today's environment of information warfare, weaponised narratives and global instability, the value of BBC monitoring's work is more crucial than ever. They note that the global media landscape has undergone a transformation driven by the rapid expansion of the democratisation and the accelerating capabilities of generative AI.

These shifts have increased the volume and velocity of disinformation. The strategy moves beyond summarisation to deliver expert evidence-based analysis. This introduction of data specialists has enabled the interactive map, graphics and tools that help users navigate complex information environments. The BCM has expanded its coverage of Chinese ration and its coverage of Chinese ration and Iranians influence, of Jihad is, of energy security, and of migration, all issues that are central to our national interest and policy.

Its products underpinned the work of journalism, particularly when reporting on countries where direct access is restricted or prohibited. There is in short no question about the replaceable value in the BBC monitoring service. By securing this debate in advance with the Minister as I have, I aim to give an opportunity to enforce its vital work tonight and shine a little light on some relevant aspect of that. At the time of the December committee report, the annual costs were known to be a modest £25 million.

What is its budget today and what percentages of its income derived from the licence fee and from each of its other main sources. If the Minister can't be too specific this evening, I would be grateful if you might write to me in more detail. Secondly, now that the open source organisation is that most regrettably no longer colocated with BBC monitoring in the United Kingdom, what is the nature of the residual relationship between the two organisations. Do they know two organisations.

Do they know longer cover the globe, freely exchanging their respective products as in the days of Caversham Park? Does BCM even see the OSC product? Does it have to pay for it, and if so, how much income does BBC monitoring received for supplying its output to the United States? Thirdly, I understand that the BCM has taken some strides in introducing artificial intelligence into its modus operandi. How far does it expect this process to go and well human expertise and judgement remain integral to its work? Fourthly, while the restoration of an annual government grant will be by far the most secure funding model, in the absence of that, is there any danger PC monitoring being cut loose from the organisation, and found out to BBC sounds as has previously been muted.

Finally, with the new agreement having to be negotiated with government before the expiry of the existing one in two years time, will the Minister please undertake to set out specific details of the target quantities of the actual monitoring input, not to be conflated with analysis specified under the existing agreement and the extent to which those targets have or have not been achieved. Only in that way will we know if our vital open source intelligence operation truly has the resources that it needs.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I am extraordinarily grateful to the right honourable grateful to the right honourable member for securing this important debate for sharing his remarks in debate for sharing his remarks in advance with me. Things have changed since Michael foot and we are proud to support our nuclear deterrent and to support our nuclear deterrent and invest in our defence, and I do pay tribute to his extensive and long-
17:28
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
tribute to his extensive and long- standing expertise on this issue and many unrelated issues and I'm grateful to all the contributions. I can confirm that the government shares the view that BBC monitoring is a vitally important national asset as many colleagues across the house have expressed and I declare an interest personally because I have been a user of the services in the past as I am a listener so I can attest to the incredible service and the work of their staff.

For over 80 years, they have provided indispensable insight shaping the global landscape and its high quality analysis in supporting that information worldwide. Those contribute to the government is wide reference to combat misinformation, disinformation and harmful narratives juiced by hostiles and others around the world, and it provides crucial insight to media landscape as well. We must be clear about its present value. We have regional expertise in order to fulfil that task from across the globe and whether that social media, new sites provide that texture, that nuance.

It underpins the policy- making for us and many others, and they also help us understand the deeper messages that people are saying, but also, to their own people and audiences around the world, and the value of that work cannot be underestimated and is valued by colleagues, not only in the Commonwealth office by the Ministry of Defence, Cabinet Office as well, and many others, but its value isn't just confined to Whitehall. It is for the BBC itself with emerging narratives, developing stories, early warning, helps them get ahead of the curve with their reporting analysis, so it is a symbiotic relationship, and of course, they also support commercial partners and others with their insights and analysis as well, so we fully endorse their service and while the BBC is responsible for the staffing administration and editorial direction of the service, it is provided under an agreement which he referred to.

That enables club to discuss and about the government's priorities for BBC monitoring to consider in its wider And that it evolves in line with the media environment and they understand it and involves the licence payer and the nation. The licence payer and the nation. The Leader, as we add to the Commonwealth development office. Of course, as he noted, the services funded through the licence fee as part of the BBC's public service remit, I'm happy to write to him further and some of the details of the current funding arrangements, and as mentioned, it derives from revenues, and they have a partner such as NGOs, governmental research bodies, media organisations, think tanks and businesses.

He asked me how much the monitoring service costs the BBC. They have a range of funding streams, and ultimately commits for the BBC to approve the budget. He has asked me also about a relationship with US open source enterprise, I can confirm to him that the service maintains a strong and highly effective relationship sharing partnership with OSE, under a manually -- Manually reviewed memorandum. And we are working to cover gaps and share expertise as a collaborator in technological innovation.

He is right to focus on the future. We want to see BBC Monitoring thrive and a key part of that is ensuring the organisation is not standing still. They are embracing new technology to enhance their capabilities and that includes integrating AI into their workflows. In accordance of course with BBC permitted usage and protocols. That is, to see staff using cutting-edge tools to sift through vast quantities of data at speed, allowing its analysts to focus on providing valuable insight and giving judgement that human expertise alone can supply.

So it is given human insight as well as AI. I given human insight as well as AI. I do not feel, they are testing out AI tools to track what journalists are saying the different outlets, that follows BBC rules and is designed to give a broad overview of the landscape they are reporting on. But I would reiterate, the decisions will still be made by people, not by machines and indeed, BBC are undertaking mandatory AI training courses. At the same time, BBC Monitoring has chosen on providing deeper insight, and contacts in its work, and now produces fewer reports but each carrying greater analytical value.

In 2024, they produced 78,832 reports, that is a reduction in the original target set out, but that reflects a deliberate and sensible shift away from basic translation summarising and delivering real impact. Having use that service before, I can say it really does provide critical insight. They don't always draw a clear line between monitoring and analysis, recognising that both are part of the same effort to understand narratives. And we are pleased to see those advancements and I'm sure they will continue many in the years ahead.

The existing charter of course is due to expire at the end of 2027 and that will be an opportunity to look at a wide range of issues, and that will ensure the BBC has has a noble funding model for all its important work, including BBC Monitoring. My colleagues in DCMS have made clear they are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee and will think creatively about all the options to future proof our national

**** Possible New Speaker ****

broadcaster. I will give way very briefly before I conclude. I congratulate him and his husband on their recent marriage. I husband on their recent marriage. I am just reading the UK's new approach to Africa, some of its consultation, .47 says we have also heard part of the UK soft power appeal can be, " Intangible", can I invite the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution Dispatch Box to confirm that both the World Service and the monitoring service,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Service and the monitoring service, in his view, are key parts of the UK soft power. I actually agree with him that they are, and as he says, I am a they are, and as he says, I am a higher admirer of them myself, personally, and indeed, they are indeed around the globe, and I hear that repeatedly my own travels, as other colleagues do for some I thank him for his country marks on my him for his country marks on my marriage. In conclusion, I want to really be clear, of course, I cannot pre-empt the licence fee process, that very much is for other colleagues, and I don't want to pre-empt the outcome of that, or pre-empt the outcome of that, or indeed make specific comments about future funding arrangements today but I can give the House, and indeed but I can give the House, and indeed the right honourable gentleman, this assurance that we should be in no doubt about our high regard for BBC Monitoring, and also, its value, its Monitoring, and also, its value, its readiness for the future, is understood at the highest levels, and we will continue to work with the BBC and DCMS and others across the government to ensure its work continues, and that we are all able to benefit from its unique expertise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and analysis. The question is that this House to now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". The ayes that opinion, say, "Aye". The ayes
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page