House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

I turn now to Lords amendment 1. The House of Lords has, understandably, introduced an amendment that would keep the existing hereditary peers in place. We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) how the Labour party has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s that was going to keep a small number of hereditary peers in place until such a time as it brought forward a comprehensive constitutional reform package, which this clearly is not.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

This is a fascinating return to the ’90s—like much about the Conservative party—but I think the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has missed the fact that there was an election last year in which the Labour party clearly won a mandate to deliver the removal of hereditary peers. What may or may not have been discussed in the 1990s is for the birds. There was an election. We won that election. We said we were going to do this. Let’s get on with it.

[Alex Burghart]

I fully accept that the Labour party has changed its mind, but in doing so it has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s. Let us be clear about what is happening. The Labour Government are now seeking to remove a whole group of public servants who have done nothing wrong—

[Mark Ferguson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Burghart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Frankly, I do not agree with that principle. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, this will leave the monarchy wholly exposed as the only person who holds his office by reason of hereditary principle.

[Mark Ferguson]

Will the Father of the House give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He makes a compelling point about other countries. Would he care to name some other countries that have people sitting in their legislature, able to introduce and vote on legislation, entirely by dint of their parentage? For the life of me, I cannot think of many examples.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course, nothing in our constitution is perfect. We would not be starting here—we accept that. We are just saying that this is 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, rather than be kicked out primarily because they are from Opposition parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia]

I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of a check on this place. However, that check must come with due wisdom and expertise. We have heard from the Conservative Benches about those centuries of wisdom, but wisdom cannot simply be passed down genetically to people in the other place today. Surely we need people in the other place who have expertise and are there on merit, not because of who their ancestors were.

Lords amendment 1 seeks to amend the 1999 compromise of by-elections to replace vacant hereditary peers by allowing the cohort of hereditary seats to gradually reduce by natural departure. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, that amendment would effectively delay our manifesto commitment to end the hereditary element in the other place for many years to come.

As I said earlier, this is about not individuals or personalities but ensuring that our institutions reflect the values of our modern democracy. I have seen at first hand the important role of the second Chamber in scrutinising legislation and improving the quality of lawmaking, but 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 up in the Gallery—and 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, including ex-hereditary peers, should have the ability to serve as a parliamentarian if they are willing and able to do the necessary work—and work is the point here.

Doing the necessary work brings me to Lords amendment 3, which would effectively bring about a new tradition of creating life peerages as honours in name only, with no work involved. What on earth is the use of that? There are plenty of other honours, as we have heard, that His Majesty can bestow that would show due public recognition for services rendered to this country. The other place is not and should not be used as an honours board. It should be a working and effective part of our legislature—our Parliament.

I believe that any parliamentarian 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. When I was elected on that expectation by my constituents in Stevenage, that was the pledge I promised to uphold. Although Members of the other place do not have expectations from constituents, I believe there is an expectation from the public as a whole that they are there to do the work of good parliamentarians. An empty life peerage title would only take away from that public expectation.

These amendments complicate what is and should be a simple task before us: to deliver—finally—on ending the principle of hereditary peerages and ensure that the other place is a working place in a Parliament that works for all the people.

[Mark Ferguson]

This has been a suitably fascinating debate. I do not plan to speak for too long, because the points have already been well made. We have had 10 hours here and 52 flippin’ hours in the House of Lords on this concise, four-clause Bill, and now we have a number of amendments. I will address Lords amendments 1 and 2.

Lords amendment 1 is fairly straightforward up and down. We know what it is. It is a wrecking amendment, pure and simple. It is nothing more than an amendment designed to preserve the hereditary principle in the House of Lords—a principle that is an outdated anachronism that has no place in 2025 or any modern democracy. The only other comparable democracy is Lesotho. I do not know much about Lesotho, but I would quite like not to share this unenviable record with the good people of Lesotho for any longer.

The point has been made that if we do not want the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, perhaps that means that we no longer want the monarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As all Members in this place did, I swore an oath of allegiance to the King. I have not always been ardent monarchist, but I support a constitutional monarchy, and one of the many reasons I do is because the monarch has absolutely no role in introducing laws, in amending laws or in voting on laws. The monarch’s role is quite clear and simple: Royal Assent. They do not obstruct the work of this place—rightly so—and yet we have heard so many times today about the guerilla warfare that is being led in the other place against numerous pieces of legislation in retribution against this simple removal of an anachronism.

That is not what the King does. Frankly, it is when monarchs have sought to obstruct this House that references to Cromwell are relevant. That is not what the Bill does; it is about removing the hereditary principle from the legislature that develops, scrutinises and delivers legislation. The King may sign it—that is his role.

[Sir John Hayes]

The point has been repeatedly made from the Government Benches that this is a matter of principle and that hereditary power is unacceptable. Now, the hon. Member is right that the King has no role in introducing legislation, and so on and so forth, but the King does have immense political influence. Which Labour Back Bencher meets the Prime Minister weekly to discuss the affairs of state?

[Sir John Hayes]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the king of Stoke!

Which Labour Back Bencher receives a regular report from the Whips on the proceedings of this House? That is what the King has. The King rightly has powers, and he derives his power by birth.

[Mark Ferguson]

I delighted to inform the right hon. Member about the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench committee, which meets the Prime Minister weekly when Parliament is sitting. I see at least one of my hon. Friends from the committee here—[Interruption.] In fact, there are two here. Staffordshire is well represented at the moment on the committee, and that is quite right—oatcakes all round for them, and of course for the Prime Minister.

[Adam Jogee]

rose—

[Mark Ferguson]

I will happily take a point in a second from my hon. Friend, which I presume will be on the Lords amendment and not on oatcakes, but I wish to respond fully to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) before I got so distracted. I apologise for that self-distraction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The role of the Lords in our legislature is quite clear, as is the role of the monarch. In fact, I spoke this morning to students from Emmanuel college in my constituency about the three distinct parts of our Parliament: this place, the other place and, of course, the monarch. But the principle under discussion is the ability to introduce, amend or vote on legislation. The King does none of those, so I see no contradiction on that important point of principle.

I will now happily accept an intervention.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although the moment has passed slightly. I wanted to thank him for acknowledging the work of the PLP Back-Bench committee. I will happily bring him some oatcakes from home on Monday morning.

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank my hon. Friend, although I do not think that will help me with my diet. However, I am doing the great north run on Sunday so I will probably need the calories.

I am happy that we are having the debate, but I am somewhat surprised by its tenor, which runs contrary to the Salisbury convention—its correct name, of course, is the Salisbury-Addison convention; we too often neglect the Labour Member of that important duopoly. It has been surprising—particularly so on Second Reading, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), led for the Opposition—that there has not been a more straightforward argument from the Opposition in favour of the hereditary principle, because it seems fairly clear that that is what they are arguing for.

I dare say there is a—probably dwindling—proportion of the electorate who wish to see the hereditary principle enshrined within those crucial aspects of our legislature in the scope of our discussions, but no Opposition Members appear willing to make that argument. I am afraid it is an act of constitutional contortion for them to say they merely wish to allow some people to serve out their time. If that is the case, why do we have elections? Many wonderful public servants on both sides of the House lost their seats at the last election; but in this place we believe that, at the will of the people, any of us could be gone—and that is quite right.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

The hon. Member is making the point that any of us should be able to go, and I agree. Should that not be the case for all parliamentarians and not just those in this House?

[Mark Ferguson]

My long-standing views on reform of our Parliament can be looked up by any Member if they so wish. I very much welcomed, both on Second Reading and from the Front Bench today, the comments on the future reform of the Lords and what that might look like. However, I dare say to the hon. Gentleman that we might agree on some specific aspects more than he imagines.

There has not been much discussion of Lords amendment 2, on Ministers’ pay. I welcome the Conservative party’s stout defence of working people and of ensuring that people are paid what they are owed. We have also heard references to equalities law from the Opposition Benches, and I welcome that. I just think it is such as a shame that it is only being applied specifically and uniquely to hereditary peers.

As Conservative Members well know, there is a limit on the number of Ministers who can be paid. I think that is right and I do not believe that now is the right time to expand the cost of our politics with more paid Ministers. However, if the Conservative party believes, genuinely and deep down in its soul, that it needed to have more paid Ministers, it had 14 years of Government in which it could have done that, rather than tacking it on as a distraction from the issue at hand here, which is incrementally but crucially reforming our constitution.

I support the Government’s position on all the amendments. Let us get on with this. We have had 62 hours of debate—and counting. Let us crack on. It has been 1,100 years; I think it is time to cut it short.

G7 and NATO Summits

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have long argued that Iran should not be capable of having a nuclear weapon, and what happened on Saturday night was a big step to alleviating that threat. That was the subject of many comments at the NATO summit, along with the congratulations for the ceasefire that has now been brokered and the emphasis we now need on getting Iran around the negotiating table, because if it is to be irreversible and verifiable, it is important that it is done through negotiation. That is what we are focused on.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, especially on defence. Politics is about priorities and, as I know he knows, the most important responsibility of Government is the defence of the country and its people. I echo the sensible points made by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)—sadly, they were not made by those on the Opposition Front Bench—and in particular his point about our intelligence services, who are the finest in the world. There are those whom we will never know and never see, but who have kept this place, our democracy and our communities safe. Will the Prime Minister assure me that, as we seek to invest more in defence, there is a particular focus on supporting our intelligence services?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our intelligence services do an incredible job, and I pay tribute to them. As he will know, from now on, where the intelligence services are contributing to our national defence, that will be included in our defence spend. It will not be included in the 2.5%—that is core defence, as always understood—but will be added to it, taking it to 2.6% in 2027-28.

UK-EU Summit

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The e-gates will make a huge difference and will probably be the first impact that many people see. Hopefully, we will get those in train just as quickly as we can. We are also looking at other measures.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this deal. Perhaps most important to people in Gateshead will be the downward pressure on food prices, so I ask the Prime Minister, when it comes to food prices and to this deal, would he rather listen to Asda, Morrisons and M&S, or to the Leader of the Opposition, who does not think that sandwiches are food?

[The Prime Minister]

I listen to businesses on this, and they are universal in what they say about food. That is why I am surprised that the Conservative party is against a deal that brings down the price of food.

Defence and Security

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, because although difficult decisions have had to be taken today, the alternative is inaction—which, of course, is also a decision. Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson of history is that Ukraine’s survival and its defence are completely indivisible from our own?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. That is why I say that this is not just about the sovereignty of Ukraine, but about European defence and security and our own defence and security. We have already paid a heavy price in this country—the contribution we have made has had an effect on our cost of living, our energy prices and so much else—but this is fundamental. It is about our values; it is about our freedom; and it is about understanding who Putin is, and what his ambitions are. We must never forget that.

General Election

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. This has been an interesting debate so far. Like other hon. Members, I thank the people who came up with the petition and those who signed it, but ultimately I believe that it is based on a false premise: the idea that economic growth can be kick-started within a single quarter of a new Government after 14 years of a previous Government.

Labour Members always talk about 14 years, although the Conservatives—and, I dare say, some Lib Dems—do not want to hear it, but in places such as my constituency it has not been just 14 years. The global financial crisis was in 2008, so it has actually been 16 years, two of which were regrettably under a Labour Government. In 2007—a year before that—people in my community in the north-east were queuing up on Northumberland Street in Newcastle to take cash out of cashpoints because Northern Rock was going bust. Our economy has not been functioning in the way that people in this country would expect for the best part of two decades, and the idea that we can turn around 17-plus years of failure in less than 17 weeks is, I am afraid, for the birds.

I am not surprised that we are discussing this petition—there is clearly a great well of discontent—but it was cheered on by politicians, some of whom are on the Opposition Benches today, who lost a free and fair election fair and square, and it was then amplified by a foreign billionaire. I know that hon. Members do not want to hear about foreign interference, but it is a fact that he used his platform and his algorithm to exacerbate this petition to the point that we are here today.

I am not surprised that just over 4,000 people in my constituency of Gateshead Central and Whickham signed this petition, but 18,000-plus people voted for me and the Labour party on 4 July, just over six months ago. I will not allow what effectively amounts to an online vote exacerbated by Twitter to overrule the votes of more than 18,000 people and everyone else who took part in that election on the basis of nothing more than that. We had a free and fair election in this country, in which every eligible adult was allowed to take part and those who wanted to vote voted. The result was a majority for the Labour party and that is the way we are going to govern. We are going to govern for the majority of people in this country, whether they voted for us or not.

I know what I am meant to say. Hon. Members on the other side of the debate will say that Labour has misled people and broken promises, so I am meant to play my part by reeling off the litany of promises broken by the previous Government. But I am not going to do that. [Interruption.] No, there is a serious point to be made here: in British politics, the standard used to be that we might disagree with each other, but we would make our points and the other side would agree or disagree on that basis.

I am sad to say that that is not how British politics works now. Now, those on one side make their arguments and those on the other side sow distrust in those arguments. They say that we are all liars, so if we are all liars, I am a liar. But if they say that I am a liar, they say that you are liar. They say that we are all liars and that on that basis, “No one should trust any of them.” Well, I will not play that game, because I believe that the vast majority of Members of Parliament are honourable and respectful people.

I will not accept the lie that Members of Parliament are disconnected from their communities. In my six months as a Member of Parliament, I have never felt more connected with my community; I have never spoken to more of my neighbours; and I have never been more engaged with the business of politics and the business of my community. I believe that that is the same for all hon. Members, regardless of party, on both sides of the House. I have great disagreements with many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, but I will not play the game of sowing distrust, because ultimately that damages our democracy, our politics and the British people.

Instead, I will talk about the promises that Labour has kept, such as the new deal for working people that will make a radical change to the rights of working people in this country, including my constituents in Gateshead Central and Whickham; the changes being made on energy so that we become an energy-independent country; and the planning reforms and house building policies that will mean that my son, and indeed all our children and grandchildren, will have the homes they need to live in. I will also mention the measures to bring the railways back into public ownership, so that they once again function for our benefit, and our Budget, which invested in public services rather than cutting them.

Hon. Members may disagree with that, but they should not use it to sow distrust. Let us have political arguments in this country, because the way that we do things at the moment is not who we are. This is not the way we do things and this is not what a good democracy looks like. Let us be better.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I welcome the question from my parliamentary neighbour on the other side of my constituency. He is right that people in his constituency and mine care deeply about the safety of their community. They saw the cuts in policing after the Conservative party came to power. They saw their neighbourhood officers being more and more stretched, trying to cover more and more area with not enough officers. It is really important to restore a sense of community policing, so that people feel safe in their community and on their street, because that underpins the freedom that people need to live their life.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. When these achievements are reached, the impact on communities like mine will be profound. For too long, people have been told that government does not work. They need to understand that when government is done well, it can and will work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people need these milestones for progress, after 14 years of milestones of failure?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I said in my statement, let us consider what the situation would be if we did not do these things. We would just carry on with the situation that we have, in which, for example, young people work harder and harder and think, “How will I ever get a home of my own?”, and people waiting for NHS treatment are told that they might have to wait for 18 months or two years. That is too long to wait for treatment. That is why we put those things at the heart of the document today. It will make a real difference to people’s lives if we manage to meet the milestones. They are challenging, but doing this can help drive the system and ensure progress towards our goals.

G20 and COP29 Summits

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I want this initiative to proceed at pace; it is a really important initiative. There is no silver bullet here. We need to work across all areas to reach the goal of clean power by 2030, and we will continue to do so at pace.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I echo the remarks of the Prime Minister and others about John Prescott. Rarely has there been a better example of the fact that working people are meant to govern, and I hope that John knew what a great example he was to so many of us on the Labour Benches and across this House.

It is clear that we must take a far larger role in international affairs—that is not optional at this time—but that role must translate into greater prosperity at home. Can the Prime Minister expand on how the conversations he had at the G20 and COP will bring more jobs and investment to communities such as mine in Gateshead?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that international affairs are probably more important now than they have been for a number of years, because of the volatility, but they are also a great opportunity, because the next generation of jobs is there. There is a race on for those jobs, particularly in renewables, and I want the UK to be not just in that race, but winning it. That is why, in every international engagement that I have had, I have pressed the case for the UK, and I am very pleased with the investment that is now coming into our country. An example I gave was the investment in Hull, which I announced at COP; but at our investment summit a few weeks ago, £63 billion of investment in this country, which will be measured in good, well-paid jobs, was forthcoming. That is good for our country.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly be saying that there is any comparison with breaching the rules during the covid pandemic. He really cannot; that is not a serious proposition. Nor is it a serious proposition to suggest that this is comparable with the money that was lost in the PPE VIP lane—it really is not.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Despite the rumours being spread, including by the Conservative party, can my right hon. Friend confirm that not a single change to taxation has yet been announced, and that they will in fact be announced at the Budget tomorrow?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As my hon. Friend says, the measures will be announced at tomorrow’s Budget in the normal way, with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal forecast. The Conservative party may denigrate the Office for Budget Responsibility, but this Government respect our financial institutions.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to a sapling. The interesting thing about saplings, as I am sure he knows, is that sometimes we become oaks—I guess we shall have to see—and the reason there are so many saplings on the Government Benches is that we chopped down so many oaks from the Conservative party. Although we have not been in the House for long, many of us have been involved in the interests of our constituents and the conversations of politics for a long time. Does he agree that the House does not hold the collective knowledge of the whole country and that sometimes we may have formed views about what is necessary for the other place before reaching this Chamber?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman grows into a sturdy oak, like all the great oaks on the Benches behind me. There is a path to be followed to achieve that. Many people may well enter the House with pre-existing views, and that is of course the basis on which many of them were elected, but my argument is that we should consider the consequences of one change in relation to hereditaries for the wider composition of the House of Lords and the constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis]

I rise to make a few brief points in this incredibly important debate. The most important point—one that we have still not spent enough time discussing—is the basic one that people should not be in this place on the basis of the hereditary principle. It is incredibly important that we move away from that for a variety of reasons, which I will come to. I will not pretend that the legislation goes as far as many of us would like it to —although, at the moment, most of us Labour Members think that elections are a pretty good way to decide things.

[Mark Ferguson]

Recently, while doing a media interview, I was confronted by comments from a Conservative Member of the other place who argued that hereditary peers were good for Parliament because it meant that there were more northerners in that Chamber. I am a proud northerner myself. Does my more southern Friend agree that although regional proportionality is important, hereditary peers are not the way to achieve it?

[Chris Curtis]

We could say many things about hereditary peers, but their being representative of the country as a whole is certainly not one of them. Many of us Labour Members think that elections are certainly good, and I hope there will be a point in the future when we can look at introducing them to the House of Lords, but in the meantime, there is no good argument for keeping the hereditary principle.

Let me turn to the importance of trust in politics. I worked in polling before I became an MP; I spoke to many people across the country, and unfortunately it was always amazing just how low trust in politics is. There are many reasons for that, which I hope we will continue to work on throughout this Parliament—we are doing some important work to address that lack of trust—but one of those reasons has to be the knowledge that people can make it to Parliament not because of what they have done in life, because they represent their communities and their country, or because they have a fantastic vision for what they want to do, but because of what womb they happen to be born from. I do not think that is right, and it is one of the reasons why we have seen that lack of trust.

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Mark Ferguson Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister remind Members of this House which Prime Minister was rewarded with a holiday to Mustique? As hon. Members may remember, there was a lot of mystique about Mustique at the time. I will give the Conservatives a hint: it was not a Member on the Labour side of the House.

[Ellie Reeves]

As I recall, it was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who benefited from that holiday to Mustique.