House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

Questions the logic of removing hereditary titles while defending the monarchy, suggesting inconsistency in the Government's position.

Raises concerns about other aspects of representation in the House of Lords, including Church of England bishops and faith-based appointments.

Asks for clarification on why other reforms mentioned in the manifesto are not included in this Bill. Requests more comprehensive reform.

Supports the Minister's position and urges for wider reforms, questioning why these should be delayed due to this specific measure.

Highlights concerns about Church of England bishops' focus shifting from spiritual duties to political ones, suggesting potential reforms or removals.

Expresses surprise at Conservative Members wanting significant reform after a 14-year period of inaction.

Critiques the idea that this Bill is comprehensive reform, suggesting it is merely 'tinkering' for political advantage.

Supports the Minister's position, highlighting the importance of equal opportunity for young people to influence legislation.

Welcomes assurances that bishops will continue to play a role and confirms hereditary peers can become life peers post-reform.

Questions the Minister's logic regarding equal opportunity while defending positions based on birth, suggesting inconsistency.

Challenges the consistency of arguing against hereditary peers in the House of Lords while supporting a hereditary monarchy.

Mr. Lewis supports the idea of sensible and credible reform, suggesting that removing hereditary peers could undermine non-partisan appointments. He highlights an argument from Lord Norton of Louth about putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis.

Mr. Ward is in favour of removing hereditary peers to modernise Parliament and make it more relevant to contemporary Britain, arguing that their existence is indefensible.

Mr. Swallow questions the Conservative's affinity for outdated relics in a democratic system and suggests that hereditary peers are out of step with modern Britain.

Ms. Jardine agrees on the need for reform but argues it should go beyond just removing hereditary peers, advocating for a fully elected upper Chamber.

Mr. Hayes defends political legitimacy derived from multiple sources beyond democratic elections, including life peers and the constitutional monarchy.

Mr. Davies questions how long it will take to consider reform options and suggests that hereditary peers should be removed for a modern democratic system.

Mr. Snell questions the Conservative's adherence to the Salisbury convention and whether they will vote in favour of manifestly stated commitments.

Mr. Amesbury criticises the notion of defending hereditary peers, suggesting that reform has been long overdue and necessary for modern democracy principles.

Mr. Jogee challenges Mr. Hayes to support the bill's passage, questioning whether he will join in supporting its amendment later.

Mr. Ferguson discusses the role of new MPs versus experienced ones, suggesting that collective knowledge does not solely reside within long-serving parliamentarians.

Mr. Rosindell questions whether the roles of Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain will be protected, advocating for their retention based on historical significance.

Shaun Davies supports the reform of the House of Lords, particularly in abolishing by-elections for hereditary peers. He praises Lord Bruce Grocott’s efforts towards constitutional change and emphasises that a second Chamber should be based on merit rather than lineage. Davies argues that the current system is undemocratic and unrepresentative, with no women among the 92 elected hereditary peers. He advocates for a more progressive approach to peerage appointments, emphasising that individuals can become Members of the legislature through their contributions and skills rather than bloodline.

Ms Olney emphasised that while the Bill does not deliver a fully elected House of Lords, it is a significant step towards reforming the Chamber. She highlighted the gender disparity among hereditary peers and expressed hope for future reforms such as introducing a mandatory retirement age and addressing regional composition imbalances.

Mr Holden questioned the concept of 'democracy' in having a nominated Chamber, suggesting it is not truly democratic despite Liberal Democrats supporting such reforms.

Sir Roger proposed a radical restructuring of Parliament with four national Parliaments instead of the current system, expressing dissatisfaction with partial reform as proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Hoare criticised the inconsistency between the Liberal Democrats’ policy stance and their actions in nominating individuals for life peerages, despite advocating for an elected House of Lords.

Mr Timothy challenged Ms Olney with a specific example involving Sir Nicholas Clegg's involvement in peerage appointments, questioning the consistency and principle behind such nominations.

Mr Taylor supported his colleague Ms Olney, defending their approach to progressive reform from within the system, highlighting past instances of electoral success despite ideological challenges.

Mr Williamson inquired about potential further reforms beyond those proposed by the Government to improve the upper House's structure.

Mr Spencer questioned the Liberal Democrats' vision for a future elected Chamber, specifically seeking clarity on the proposed number of peers in an elected upper House.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

Order. I give Members a small reminder that this is a very specific Bill, dealing with the hereditary Members of the House of Lords, and therefore that speeches need to focus on that topic. I also remind all Members—it is sad to be saying this to Front-Bench spokespeople—that when you use the word “you”, you are referring to the Chair. That is not how we conduct debate in this House.

Mr. Waugh agrees with Mr. Snell's argument about the lack of women among hereditary peers, suggesting that Conservative Members should be embarrassed by this fact.

Mr. Rosindell questions how the proposed removal of hereditary peers will benefit legislation, highlighting their contributions in terms of wisdom and experience.

Mr. Wishart raises concerns about the influence of millionaires and party donors in the House of Lords, questioning whether the proposed reform addresses this issue.

Mr. Gale criticises Mr. Snell's ageist remarks but raises questions about Labour's use of Prime Ministerial patronage to appoint party cronies while seeking to abolish hereditary peerages.

Mr. Williamson questions when further Lords reform Bills will be introduced in this Parliament and expresses scepticism about the commitment to subsequent reforms.

Mr. Holden asks if Mr. Snell will welcome amendments introducing a retirement age at 80 for Lords members, aligning with some aspects of Labour's manifesto but not others.

The speaker supports the removal of hereditary peers, arguing it is a missed opportunity for comprehensive Lords reform. He suggests offering life peerages to those wishing to continue their service outside leadership nominations.

Ms Hazelgrove gave a maiden speech focusing on her background, commitment to serving constituents, and belief in fairness. She criticised the notion of people gaining political power through birthright and emphasised the need for modern institutions to be fairer.

Mr Hayes argued that authority in Parliament is legitimately exercised by elected MPs but also acknowledged other forms of legitimate authority such as judges appointed based on merit. He emphasised the role of the House of Lords in providing scrutiny and tension with the Commons, stating it works effectively despite being awkward.

Mr Norman interjected to congratulate Mr Hayes on his speech. He argued that while we respect evolutionary progress in nature, we should be cautious about institutional evolution. He questioned whether the House of Lords’ legitimacy comes from both effective authority and expected expertise.

Endorsed the right hon. Member's view on incrementalism and supported the idea that ministerial appointments and House of Lords appointments are part of representative democracy with accountability to constituents, noting the unusual nature of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

Argued that politicians are held accountable by the electorate for their appointments, using Liz Truss as an example. He emphasised that hereditary peers face no accountability and cannot be part of democratic processes.

Suggested that if the Labour party supports an amendment, it should be consistent with its manifesto commitment to reform the House of Lords.

Agreed that hereditary peers face no accountability and proposed a blended approach for the House of Lords, suggesting that life peers should commit to attending the House.

Did not provide an argument but requested intervention.

Robertson questions the selective quoting of the Labour party manifesto by Williamson, pointing out that any proposed changes to the House of Lords would occur at the end of a Parliament. He argues that there is no intention for premature reforms.

Wishart raises a point of order, expressing frustration with the debate's direction, deeming it irrelevant and unproductive.

In his maiden speech, Henry Tufnell supports the clause on hereditary peers. He discusses the history of his constituency and acknowledges its economic transformations over time, emphasising the need for a 'just transition' to renewable energy. His support is rooted in serving the many and ensuring that Pembrokeshire benefits from future industries while addressing child poverty rates.

Supports reform of the House of Lords, advocating for a fully elected upper House using a fairer voting system. Emphasises the need for urgent and radical reform in government structure to be fit for the modern age, bringing policy and service delivery closer to constituents' needs. Cites examples from rural areas like North Norfolk where public services are declining due to siloed structures of government.

Commends the Labour movement for offering opportunities through education and highlights the importance of diversity in Parliament. Argues that removing hereditary peers will make the House more representative, citing her own journey from a working-class background to being an MP as evidence of how such changes can empower individuals.

Mr. Wishart argues that the Bill is a joke and represents an outdated system where people gain legislative power through birthright, akin to medieval times or 'Game of Thrones.' He criticises the current House of Lords for being unreformable, embarrassing, and lacking credibility. Mr. Wishart also points out the absurdity of reserved seats for Church of England bishops and highlights the issue of political appointees who gain their positions due to donations or patronage rather than merit. He calls for meaningful reform or abolition of the House of Lords.

Argues that hereditary peers are an unsustainable anachronism, unrepresentative of modern Britain, and not accountable to the electorate. Cites statistics on the age and gender disparity in the House of Lords. Supports further reforms such as a mandatory retirement age and improved transparency in appointments.

Acknowledges the need for reform while criticising the Bill's approach as insufficient. Supports removal of hereditary peers but calls for a comprehensive reform plan addressing composition, funding, and representation in the House of Lords.

Welcomes the Government's steps to reform the House of Lords by removing hereditary peers, stating it is a long-overdue step towards democratisation. Criticises the argument that focusing on democratic principles is narrow-minded and considers the current system anachronistic and undemocratic. Emphasises the need for further electoral reforms in line with broader constitutional changes.

Encourages the Government to proceed with comprehensive reform of the House of Lords, urging them not to wait another 25 years for further changes. Argues that the public is tired of cronyism in the upper house and wants substantive reforms now.

Supports the removal of hereditary peers but criticises the piecemeal approach taken by the Government, advocating for a comprehensive reform package that addresses all aspects of the House of Lords including patronage and faith appointments. Questions why the Government did not include these issues in their initial reforms.

Supports the removal of hereditary peers, citing his experience as a special adviser in the House of Lords and the historical consensus across parties on eradicating hereditary peers. Argues that combining this reform with other reforms risks losing support for the principle of removing hereditary peers.

Expresses concern about the radical nature of the measure and questions whether constituents in his area support such a drastic change. Suggests that reform should be done altogether rather than piecemeal.

Highlights the historical precedent where a coalition's proposed package of reforms was vetoed by one party, arguing that getting done what everyone agrees on is better than presenting a large reform package that risks failing.

Questions why the Conservative manifesto did not mention House of Lords reform and challenges the government to provide clear thinking on this issue. Argues that removing hereditary peers is necessary.

Supports House of Lords reform but argues that this Bill does not lead to a better upper chamber. He criticises Labour's past failure to follow through on their promise of comprehensive reform and fears that removing hereditary peers will delay further reform.

Argues that no Member should disagree with the step to prevent sons from inheriting a place in the Lords through their fathers' titles.

Suggests that hereditary peers play an important role in revising legislation and providing expertise. Criticises the rushed nature of the Bill and questions its lack of cross-party support.

Challenges the Conservative government's past record on reforming zeal, questioning their commitment to meaningful change. Suggests that no family in his constituency would support hereditary peers remaining.

Argues against piecemeal reform and emphasises the need for cross-party consensus on comprehensive reforms. Highlights the valuable contributions of hereditary peers to legislative processes.

Questions the proportion of House of Lords members that should be made up of Conservative Members given the reduced number of Conservatives in the current Parliament.

Mr Rosindell argued against the proposed constitutional change, citing its potential disregard for historical and traditional values. He emphasised that the House of Lords' hereditary peers are integral to British heritage and provide invaluable service to Parliament. He raised concerns over the lack of public demand for such a significant change during recent elections and suggested that discarding hereditary peers without due consideration would be reckless.

Ms Ghani intervened to question Mr Rosindell, asking whether he believed that the expulsion of hereditary peers in 1999 had led to a collapse of scrutiny processes. She argued that if this was not the case, removing the remaining 92 hereditary peers would not impact the House's functioning adversely.

Mr. Taylor supports the Bill on humanitarian grounds, arguing that it is about accountability in decision-makers. He emphasises that this is a step towards restoring respect for Parliament after past failures and urges further reform to improve Parliament's representation of constituents' views. He also suggests capping political donations as part of broader reforms needed beyond this Bill.

Mr. Curtis is supportive but his speech content was not provided in the given transcript snippet, only an acknowledgment of Madam Deputy Speaker's call.

Mr. Allister made a point of order regarding procedural etiquette, stating concern about being gazumped in the speaking list by someone who arrived recently.

Ms. Ghani assured Mr. Allister that he would be called shortly and continued the debate by calling Chris Curtis to speak.

Welcomes the Bill but criticises it for not being significant or radical. Calls for clarity on next steps in House of Lords reform and challenges the Government to tackle issues such as bishops' presence, life peers, and unelected lawmakers.

Argues that debating hereditary peers is less important than addressing laws made by foreign Parliaments affecting Northern Ireland. Raises concerns about EU law impacting UK citizens and highlights issues with pet passports requiring EU compliance.

Critiques the Bill for lacking ambition, detail on next steps, cross-party engagement, and consultation. Emphasises the need for broader constitutional reform and criticises Labour's first 100 days in power.

Tom Hayes questions the Conservative party's position on the hereditary principle, highlighting their manifesto silence and inconsistency in debates.

Ben Coleman intervenes to challenge the Opposition for their inconsistent stance on reform speed and extent. He also calls out the Conservatives for not addressing donor influence in the House of Lords.

Gareth Snell questions the adequacy of previous reforms and calls out inconsistencies among Opposition members regarding reform speed and extent.

Pete Wishart proposes an amendment limiting the influence of major donors in the House of Lords, criticising the current system for its potential conflicts of interest.

Gavin Williamson suggests that any Labour ambitions for further reform should be considered in Committee stage amendments.

Richard Holden questions whether outdated conventions like the Salisbury-Addison convention should also be reconsidered.

John Hayes argues that the current reform is partial and lacks holistic consideration of all aspects of House of Lords reform.

Simon Hoare suggests an alternative approach to honour hereditary peers by granting them life peerages, rather than removing their current status outright.