House of Lords Reform Bill - Multiple amendments to clauses and new clauses for reforming the House of Lords

Ms. Cummins proposed extensive reforms to the House of Lords including the exclusion of bishops, mandatory retirement at age 80, minimum participation requirements for peers, and a duty on Ministers to secure a democratic mandate through directly elected members. She also suggested changes in peerage conferment practices and restrictions based on previous political donations.

Proposes immediate reform of the House of Lords to remove remaining hereditary peerage rights, emphasising it is long overdue and not a personal attack on individuals. Supports the Bill’s provisions for phased transition and acknowledges the historical context but argues for decisive action now.

Suggests providing a pathway for hereditary peers currently serving to acquire life peerages, indicating support for the Bill’s aims but proposing transitional measures to ensure continuity of experience and expertise in the House.

Questions whether the Bill makes the House of Lords more democratic, implying scepticism about the democratic merits of hereditary peerage removal. Challenges the Government’s commitment to broader reform, suggesting a lack of genuine democratization efforts.

Asks for clarity on future legislation timelines for further reforms promised in the manifesto, expressing doubt about the Government’s commitment to comprehensive reform as outlined.

Raises concerns over the timidity of proposed changes and calls for delays in implementation until more substantial reforms are forthcoming, questioning the Government’s sincerity about broader House of Lords reform.

Challenges the perceived hesitation in pushing for more radical reforms given Labour's majority, suggesting that bold action is necessary to achieve meaningful change.

Critiques the Government for not following through on previous reform opportunities, suggesting fear of bold reforms and highlighting Labour's past voting record against similar measures.

The Bill undermines the House of Lords by removing hereditary peers without a proper reform plan, thus setting a dangerous precedent. It fails to address the core issues such as scrutiny, expertise, and fair representation. Burghart also addresses the potential for gerrymandering and warns that the Government’s approach could undermine the primacy of the Commons.

Leigh questions the need for comprehensive reform, suggesting a hands-off approach is better. He echoes Burghart's concerns about undermining scrutiny and the effectiveness of the House of Lords.

Lewis suggests that offering hereditary peers life peerages could mitigate concerns over gerrymandering but does not fully endorse the idea. He supports Burghart's stance on preserving effective scrutiny in the House of Lords.

Snell challenges Burghart’s assertion about life peers' capability to perform scrutiny effectively. He argues that even with modest reforms, his party can still contribute meaningfully and believes the Bill is a step towards broader reform.

Vince questions the consistency of Conservative views on Lords reform and suggests that if hereditary peers are valuable, they could be given life peerages to continue their work. He indirectly supports the Bill's intentions for modernization.

Hayes supports Burghart’s stance, arguing that the Bill fails to improve the status quo of the House of Lords and thus should not be pursued. He criticises the lack of effective reform proposed by the Government.

Van Mierlo questions why Conservatives are defending hereditary peers, suggesting that merit should be the basis for legislative positions rather than inheritance.

Mr. Gareth Snell supports the Bill as it is a necessary step in House of Lords reform and emphasises that it should be kept focused to maintain consensus among Members, arguing against tacking on unrelated amendments.

Mr. John Glen interjects to question the Government's lack of a detailed plan for future steps in House of Lords reform, suggesting that more detail is needed given the time since previous reforms.

Mr. Julian Lewis suggests that Mr. Snell's position reflects a focus on low-hanging fruit for consensus, while acknowledging future steps may be more complex.

Mr. Gavin Williamson clarifies that his amendments do not aim to disestablish the Church of England but remove an anomaly in constitutional arrangements.

Mr. Ashley Fox asks Mr. Snell about his position on new clauses 1 and 2, which aim to remove bishops from the House of Lords.

Mr. Nick Timothy asks Mr. Snell to explain what specific legal or constitutional consequences he believes could result in disestablishment of the Church from his proposed reforms.

Interjected to question the logic behind having a second Chamber of elected parliamentarians, arguing that it could lead to deadlock and conflict.

Recalled past debates on this issue leading to chaos, questioning the feasibility of achieving consensus on an elected House of Lords.

Argued that as the amendments are unlikely to pass, consistency would require voting against the unamended Bill since it does not make the House of Lords more democratic.

Asked whether Liberal Democrats would support a new clause he tabled to remove bishops from the House of Lords, noting historical Liberal Democrat support for this policy.

Argues that hereditary peerages are indefensible in the 21st century, advocating for a merit-based system instead of an inherited right. He emphasises the need to remove archaic rights and strengthen democracy.

Intervenes by questioning whether life peerages, which can legislate for decades without accountability, are justifiable. This raises concerns about the principle behind any form of indefinite or hereditary legislative roles.

Responds to Nick Timothy's intervention by questioning the legitimacy of bishops voting on matters outside their own constituencies, challenging the broader principle behind life peerages and their accountability.

Mr. Van Mierlo questions whether new clause 4 takes into account periods of illness or maternity/paternity leave, suggesting that an eight-week minimum participation requirement might be too brief.

Mr. Lewis expresses concern about the practical challenges of implementing new clause 4 and suggests it could lead to an unmanageable influx of peers into the upper chamber.

Mr. Snell points out that merely attending a session without participating in divisions would not satisfy the requirements set by new clause 4, and questions whether retrospective application of such measures might be necessary.

Mr. Murrison suggests that the issue lies in failing to separate the honours system from actual work performed in Parliament by peers, implying that some may view their role as merely an honour rather than a duty.

Mr. Leigh questions the basis for setting an age limit of 80, noting that individual capability varies widely beyond such an arbitrary threshold.

Ms. Ward supports the broader Labour programme for government, including the Employment Rights Bill, but does not directly address new clauses 3 or 4.

Mr. Brickell challenges Mr. Williamson on his party's voting record in relation to previous House of Lords reform attempts, implying inconsistency and a lack of genuine commitment.

Asked how long a parliamentary term is, questioning the time available to implement manifesto promises. Made an intervention highlighting that Labour needs more time for further Lords reform.

Reminded Members of the rules regarding making interventions, indicating a concern about maintaining orderly debate.

Responded to an earlier comment with scepticism, suggesting that the Conservatives should have learned from past mistakes regarding reforms.

Argued against the belief that further Lords reform would be possible, suggesting this was the final opportunity for such reforms.

Advocated for the importance of historical traditions over modern fads, emphasising conservative values in relation to constitutional arrangements.

Highlighted the unique position of the Scottish Church within constitutional arrangements, suggesting it underlines the importance of considering historical context.

Expressed concern over the special speaking and seating privileges enjoyed by bishops in the House of Lords.

Supports the Bill, stating it is long overdue and essential for modernising the House of Lords. Argues that hereditary peerages lack accountability and undermine political integrity, citing public opinion studies showing low support for the current system. Emphasises the importance of equality in representation, pointing out a significant underrepresentation of women and individuals from northern regions among hereditary peers. Condemns cronyism and corruption associated with previous governments and argues that the Bill is crucial for restoring trust in politics.

[INTERVENTION]: Argues against Phil Brickell's position, stating that hereditary peers are more active and involved in debates compared to appointed peers.

[INTERVENTION]: Disagrees with Phil Brickell's argument about life peers, suggesting they also lack democratic legitimacy.

[INTERVENTION]: Questions Phil Brickell's argument about English bishops voting on Scottish affairs and argues for reform of this issue.

[INTERVENTION]: Raises concerns about blaming hereditary peers for modern political trust issues, noting that many have served diligently over long periods when public trust was higher.

[INTERVENTION]: Reminds Phil Brickell of his own support for House of Lords reform in 2012.

Intervened to point out Labour's achievements in delivering devolution, a Mayor for London, and other constitutional changes.

Asked about the progress of Labour’s commitment to make the second chamber more representative of regions and nations.

Noted that SNP's stance on getting rid of hereditaries contradicts their approach to creating a hereditary system in Scotland.

Highlighted the Labour Government's recent achievements, questioning SNP’s criticism on delivery and effectiveness.

Asked if Mr. Wishart would apply his amendment prohibiting former MPs from seeking nomination or election to the Scottish Parliament.

Asked if the amendment excludes her party due to its current status as the fourth largest in Parliament, implying that it might be seen as a partisan move rather than a comprehensive solution.

Pressed the hon. Gentleman to declare definitively that no publicly funded positions have been awarded based on donations or past membership in his party, challenging him to live up to his proposed standards.

Complimented the hon. Gentleman for his bravery in raising issues of financial transparency, supporting the initiative as a means to address concerns about financial mismanagement.

Suggested putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory and independent footing as a way to address concerns over political appointments, inquiring if this proposal might be supported by the hon. Gentleman's party.

Suggested that newer Labour Members are prepared to make reforms, emphasising that they were elected on a platform of change. However, his interjection was largely defensive and critical of the amendment's scope.

Did not provide extensive arguments in the provided text but is listed as a speaker indicating opposition based on context.

Acknowledged Richard Baker's contribution but did not provide specific arguments in the provided text, suggesting support for his general position or at least a willingness to engage in discussion.

Supports the clause, arguing that ending hereditary peers' voting rights in the House of Lords is long overdue and necessary for constitutional reform. Emphasises that Labour has delivered on constitutional reforms while the SNP has not acted on similar issues in Holyrood. Notes the outdated nature of having a hereditary element in the legislature compared to other countries, citing research showing 71% public support for overhauling the House of Lords and low confidence due to actions of previous Governments. Mentions regional imbalance in membership and the need for more inclusive representation.

Mr. Hayes discusses legitimacy, continuity, and dignity in relation to constitutional roles such as that of a monarch, who is chosen by birth rather than election.

Mr. Brickell intervenes to highlight the distinction between hereditary roles and constitutional sovereignty, emphasising that a monarch's role is different from hereditary peers who legislate daily.

Ms. Ferguson intervenes to argue that birthrights for hereditary peers are archaic and restricted, unlike those available universally to everyone, supporting the need for reform.

Mr. Slinger intervenes to defend Phil Brickell's intervention against criticism from John Hayes and questions about legitimacy and democratic principles.

Mr. Burghart intervenes to engage in a brief dialogue on scoring political interventions, showing a divide with Labour MPs over the merits of hereditary peers.

Mr. Sobel intervenes to discuss the origins of democracy, emphasising that it means universal rights for everyone rather than select few.

Mr. Davies questions John Hayes on whether he supports the Government's mandate to remove hereditary peers, despite his criticism of their approach.

Mr. Leishman argues for reforming the House of Lords to prevent ill-thought-out political policies, emphasising that talent and ability should be entry requirements rather than class or privilege.

Suggests reducing the size of the House of Lords to around 600 members by asking different groups (hereditaries, bishops and life peers) to reduce their membership proportionally. Argues that this could be done without accusations of gerrymandering and would ensure only hardworking and dedicated members remain.

Supports the removal of hereditary peers but advocates for a wider reform package including bishops. Emphasises the need for careful and measured debate, suggesting that the Bill should be part of broader legislative proposals.

Argues against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Highlights the expertise and value brought by unelected members, suggesting that they can provide beneficial scrutiny to legislation that elected MPs might not have time for.

Intervened to highlight this as a first immediate measure of modernisation, suggesting that further commitments are enshrined in the Government's manifesto.

Questioned whether an elected second chamber would be a duplicate of this House, suggesting that voters are unlikely to choose different representatives on the same day.

Suggested merit in considering a unicameral system rather than having an elected upper house, questioning whether it would compete with the primary Chamber.

Agreed that there is merit in looking at governance mechanisms that ensure power division, referencing differences between English and Scottish law.

Supports the removal of hereditary peers as per the Government's manifesto commitment. Argues that the Bill is a focused step towards broader reforms, including establishing an alternative second Chamber more representative of regions and nations. Highlights the lack of coherent opposition from the Conservatives on this issue.

Inquired about the historical commitment to abolishing the House of Lords by Keir Hardie, questioning whether it would take another 100 years for Labour to follow through.

Asked to give way multiple times but did not provide specific arguments in the provided text.

Williamson thanks the hon. Lady for giving way and questions why the Government would impose a three-line Whip on an issue of conscience regarding the Lords Spiritual. He suggests engaging with Labour to implement changes as part of the Bill in the other House.

Burghart praises the debate's good nature but argues against the Bill. He notes that while Labour has moved away from an elected upper House, removing hereditary peers without a comprehensive plan for reform is unjustified. He criticises Labour for breaking its promise to 1998 and accuses them of treating established scrutineers unfairly.

Hoare welcomes the Bill but argues it is timid in scope, only removing hereditary peers that would have been removed anyway since 1997. He questions whether Labour's constituents are asking about advancement barriers or for greater diversity within the party.

Wishart congratulates the Paymaster General but criticises the Bill as a timid approach to reform. He questions Labour's promises of further reforms and calls for a clear road map from Government Front Benchers regarding proper democratic reform of the House of Lords.