House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will make a bit of progress.

I know the Minister will say that the monarchy is popular—which it is—and that it does not have political power, but it has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer. I do not think we should accept that the hereditary principle is entirely wrong. Even if we accept that and say it is quite wrong that somebody should be called an hereditary peer, which I suspect is a lot of the problem, why do we not just make all the existing hereditary peers—who, as we have heard, are not stately home owners; they are dedicated public servants, with scores of them having worked in Parliament for years—life peers? Given that they are dedicated public servants, if we hate the fact that they are called hereditary peers, why not have an evolutionary form and call them life peers? But we are not doing that.

Lords amendment 1, tabled by my party in the other place, is entirely sensible. Rather than kicking people out in a flash, the hereditary peers—which we could now call life peers, if it is the name that makes people unhappy—could simply fade away. There is a lot of merit in old people gradually fading away rather than dying.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Declare an interest!

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not declare an interest.

In a sense, that is already the case, as the Lords have suspended hereditary peer by-elections by amending the Standing Orders of their Chamber. Evolution rather than revolution—bending instead of breaking—is the usual method of British constitutional change. It has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work now. It is far wiser than overnight change.

There is also the matter of optics and fairness. This, of course, is a partisan point by its very nature, but of the 86 remaining hereditary peers, 48 are members of Opposition parties—Conservative or Liberal—31 are independent Cross Benchers, and two are totally non-affiliated. Britons 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

In summary, this Bill is about rebuilding trust in politics. It is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century, not the 21st. It is about showing the British people that Parliament works for them, not the privileged few. Let me also say that 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 introducing, yes, a mandatory retirement age; to requiring meaningful participation; and, ultimately, to replacing it with a more modern second Chamber fit for the 21st century. That is the path to a fairer, more accountable and more democratic politics. It is what Labour promised, which is why I am proud to see the Government delivering on it.

[Jack Rankin]

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 and 8, and therefore against the motion, in two minds. I say in two minds because I find the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers without seeking consensus, which is what a rejection of Lords amendment 1 would mean, both regrettable and exciting. I would like to take each of these two polarising mindsets in turn.

My first emotion is regret. Britain has something of a Schrödinger’s cat constitution. We are simultaneously a modern, plural and open democracy, and a kind of autocratic theocracy. Our national motto, “Dieu and mon droit”—God and my right—points to the hereditary monarch being appointed by and accountable only to God. We have a state religion in England and Scotland, and in England the divinely appointed monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church. The bishops, whom the King appoints, sit in our legislature, as do hereditary peers, who are the focus of the amendment. The King appoints the judiciary and is the commander of the armed forces. On paper, as Labour Members have pointed out, the country with which we have most in common is the demonic Islamic Republic, but unlike Iran we have simultaneously free and fair elections, broad debate in a free press, and freedom of religious and belief, and we are an open member of the international order.

The point is that we would never design our tapestry of a constitution. In many ways it is absurd, but it is organic. It is rooted in the millennia of history. In two years’ time, we will celebrate the 1100th birthday of England, the most remarkable nation on earth, which a majority of us in this place are fortunate to have won the lottery of life to be born in. We should be respectful of that evolution, because that evolving constitutional order has empirically served us well. It is how it works in practice that matters, not how it looks on the ideological grand planner’s piece of paper.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is making the speech that he is, because he understands that, essentially, our system is an organic one. Constitutions are not written from a blueprint—they can be, but they are not in this country—and what he is describing is a blend of democratic legitimacy and the other forms of the exercise of power. What the Government are proposing is not a democratic House of Lords, but an appointed House. That in itself contradicts some of the speeches made by Labour Members.

[Jack Rankin]

My right hon. Friend is right. Our national story has brought us to a place where this House is rightfully dominant among the three parts of Parliament in exercising the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, but we should be careful of the wholesale execution of one of those arms. Let us be clear: that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do. The other place without them is no more a House of Lords than my terraced house in Sunninghill is. A Cromwellian purge, it would leave that place the preserve of political cronies and failed advisers. Is that what we want? Is that progress?

The House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. This place has the attention span of a TikTok-addled teenager, as we jump to half-hourly news cycles driven by Twitter and rolling news.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My hon. Friend is making the correct argument. The hereditary peerage in the House of Lords represents continuity in our country and wisdom throughout the ages. Most of the House of Lords is appointed, but that hereditary element is vital as part of the mix of our very successful parliamentary constitution.

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend’s point is right, and I thank him for it.

We walk through the Division lobbies, directed by the Whips, often having had no time, because of the impossible juggling act, to develop real knowledge of the topic in question or to think through properly the implications. Some of the stuff that leaves this place with a massive majority might have well been written in crayon. Thank God for the other place. Do not remove long-serving public servants and outstanding legislators. Do not pick at the threads of our constitution. The other place is one of the parts of our constitution which works best. We should retain Lords amendment 1 and 8.

I talked of a tension, a conflict in my thinking. I have tried to articulate a deeply conservative instinct, but I also feel excitement, as I will explain. My view is that the British state is way off course, dangerously off course. It needs deep and radical change. To take one issue, immigration, almost nothing is now too radical to consider. Whether we look at the asylum system or legal migration, the radical change that the country needs will be of significant scale. None of that will be possible in the Blairite constitutional straitjacket that is at direct odds with our historic constitution.

[Mark Ferguson]

That is a fascinating argument. The hon. Gentleman has argued in favour of the Lords for their restraint, and now he is arguing in favour of the Lords because they allow radicalism. That does not make any sense.

[Jack Rankin]

That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, 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. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have plenty of respect for it.

[Jack Rankin]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make to those on the Government Benches is that if a Government can expel their political opponents from the other place because the majority in this place says they are not elected, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister’s patronage, so can a new Government—so take the compromise. Be careful what you wish for.

[Kevin Bonavia]

Our constitution is indeed a very curious beast. Nobody starting from scratch would come anywhere near designing what we have for this country—perhaps apart from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and some of those on the Benches behind him. It has evolved over the centuries in response to the political pressures that arise from time to time, and today is part of that evolution. As the constitution has changed, our traditions have remained. I for one love a bit of tradition in this place, especially when it tells the story of how we have come to be where we are; whether it is Royal Assent being signified in Norman French or the doors of this Chamber being shut on the entry of Black Rod, it all tells a story. However, when tradition holds us back from the work we are sent here to do, it becomes a barrier.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s campaigning on this really important issue. Russia’s policy of forced deportations and indoctrination of Ukrainian children is despicable, and anybody who has heard the stories or seen the pictures cannot be other than profoundly moved. We have taken firm action. This was one issue that we discussed two weeks ago in Washington when I went over with other leaders to ensure that we are all imposing maximum pressure. Among the very many horrors of the Ukraine conflict, this is right up there as one of the absolute worst.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q12. Like many, I was deeply concerned that a police force deemed it necessary to take five armed officers to arrest a comedy writer from a flight. Some may have found Mr Linehan’s comments offensive, but that is not the point. If we do not support speech that we do not like, we do not support free speech. Will the Prime Minister commit to reviewing our speech laws to ensure that legitimate free expression is protected and will he condemn the culture within the public sector that prioritises this dangerous and perverse nonsense?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this point. He will have seen that the commissioner put out a statement this morning in relation to this case. I have been clear throughout that we must ensure that the police focus on the most serious issues and the issues that matter the most to our constituencies and all communities. That includes tackling issues such as antisocial behaviour, knife crime and violence. We have a long history of free speech in this country. I am very proud of that, and I will always defend it.

UK-EU Summit

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I start by paying a small tribute to the Government because just last week they passed secondary legislation, albeit made possible by the Conservatives’ groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, that will mean more resilient crops, further food choices and enhanced food security. Although it might pain some of them, Labour Members have to admit they are making some use of the hard-won Brexit freedoms secured by the Conservatives. Why would we give them away? The example I have used might seem somewhat niche, but this is exactly what a modern industrial strategy focused on technology, productivity and the future looks like, and in doing this, we have a head start on the continent, which is now fumbling to produce regulation of its own in this area.

We should be going further still. Gene editing has the power to reduce the impact of animal disease and stop pandemics in their tracks. Researchers at Imperial College London and the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, are now close to making breakthroughs on bird flu-resistant poultry using gene editing. The Government must introduce secondary legislation for farmed animals, as they have done for plants.

I visited Imperial’s Silwood campus in my constituency. The students there are doing incredible things. When they make breakthroughs, our regulatory framework should allow us to nimbly make use of them, but there is a very real risk that with next week’s reset the Government could kill the progress with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement they are negotiating.

Companies at the forefront of the agricultural industry have raised concerns about this reset, and I know that my colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture have done the same. This is a rare—and much needed as those on the Government Benches hammer our farmers—competitive unique selling point for British agriculture. Reports suggest that this Government will make concessions on SPS to give them more bartering power on other issues, setting a precedent for the wider agricultural relationship with the EU, bending over backwards for an establishment that the British people voted to reject. We would also be signing up to rules we have no power to influence. There were good reasons to leave the EU and good reasons to stay in the EU, and reasonable people could and did disagree, but there is no good reason to leave and opt into rules over which we have no say. That is the worst of both worlds.

Under Switzerland’s agreement with the EU, it must align with almost all the EU’s food safety demands and replicate any further regulatory changes made in the future. That agreement may well be in the best interests of the Swiss but it would not work for Britain. Every time we want to diverge in a way that could benefit the British people, we would have to supplicate to those in Brussels once again. Carve-outs are possible, but we all know what tends to happen when the Prime Minister negotiates. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. A reset deal with a deep SPS agreement would be short-sighted, perhaps offering a quick boost in the near term but taking the wind from the sails of longer term, game-changing investment that is starting to flow in.

We need to maintain a competitive advantage to supercharge investment in areas like the Thames valley, where we have a world-leading life sciences sector. So I warn the Government not to chain Britain to the economic anchor of the EU and the dead hand of its precautionary principle regulators, especially when last week’s secondary legislation on precision breeding is such a clear example of what regulatory autonomy for an innovative UK could do for us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Government’s defence spending plans on Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the artist Jack Vettriano, who sadly died this week. He was the son of a Methil miner who taught himself to paint, and our country is a little less colourful for his passing.

May I express my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and to Members throughout the House for the many kind words following the birth of my daughter Loïs? She was born at home two hours before the midwives could arrive, so I suppose it could be said that I am delivering for Scotland. A number of Members have asked me consistently how I am coping with the tears, snotters and tantrums, but I remind them that I have been on paternity leave, so have not had time to keep up with Scottish National party selection dramas.

It has been an historic week for our country. I know that the people of Scotland stand with Ukraine, and will recognise the importance of the Government’s decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Prime Minister’s leadership on the world stage should be a source of pride for all who value Britain’s role as a defender of democracy and a partner for European peace. Scotland has never been more ready to play its part in defending the UK and our allies.

[Jack Rankin]

Scotland’s world-class defence industry will play a key role in rebuilding Britain’s military capabilities, and during my visit to Babcock at Rosyth I saw at first hand how defence spending benefits Scotland’s small and medium-sized enterprises. However, investment in Scotland’s defence SMEs lags far behind that in the rest of the United Kingdom, accounting for just 2.5% of the total spending of the Ministry of Defence, largely owing to the hostile environment created by the Scottish National party. How is the Secretary of State working with the MOD and Scotland’s defence industry to unleash Scotland’s SMEs and enhance our nation’s defence capabilities?

[Ian Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the cross-party support for the Prime Minister’s actions on Ukraine and, indeed, defence. Scotland needs all its political leaders to stand up proudly for our defence industry. Scotland has led the UK in defence, and has been home to its nuclear deterrent since the 1960s. I recently hosted a defence industry roundtable to discuss sector priorities and opportunities, and, as part of our Brand Scotland programme, I have discussed those in Norway and south-east Asia. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of new SME spending targets for defence, which will boost access to UK defence investment, unlocking new jobs in the process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important issue. Yesterday, we introduced our Crime and Policing Bill, which is central to our plan for change and to halving knife crime. It involves new powers to seize and destroy knives found on private property and a new criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with the intent to cause harm, plus tougher penalties for selling dangerous weapons to under-18s and stricter rules for online sales under Ronan’s law. We will continue that work.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q4. The floods of 2013-14 devastated Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury, and the flooding last January was not much better. But shockingly, the River Thames scheme as currently proposed continues to leave my constituents at risk. The council was asked to cough up tens of millions but, like many, it is cash-strapped. Does the Prime Minister agree that the only option to protect my constituents is to fund channel 1 of the River Thames scheme as national strategic infrastructure, which really it is?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member has raised this issue before, which obviously is important for his constituents. We inherited flood defences in their worst state on record, which is why we are investing £2.6 billion to protect over 50,000 properties. I understand that the options to reduce flood risk to these communities are being considered as part of the Datchet and Hythe End flood alleviation scheme. I will ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to take forward the work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Rankin Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that, because off-road bikes were a complete nuisance under the last Government and got completely out of control. We are introducing new respect orders to crack down on off-road bikes, strengthening police powers in relation to dealing with this big problem that got out of control under the last Government. We will also deliver 13,000 more neighbourhood police to ensure that we keep control of our streets—something that was lost under the last Government.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q8. Last week, the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead announced plans to hike council tax by an unprecedented 25%. That would require the Government’s permission. Does the Prime Minister agree that this outrageous request should be rejected, that the borough might be a candidate for accelerated local government reorganisation, and that my constituents should not be footing the bill for the persistent weak financial control and political failure locally?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue on behalf of his constituents. We are, as he knows, committed to fixing the foundations of local government and keeping taxes as low as possible for working people. The Budget announced a real-terms increase for local government, with over £4 billion of added funding. We will put that support in place, and he is right to raise that issue.