-
Supports the Bill, noting it aligns with historical discussions on reforming the House of Lords dating back to 1924. Emphasises that this Labour Government is finally taking action towards long-standing issues.
-
Questions whether removing hereditary peers without assurances about full reform of the House of Lords undermines political stability and calls for clarity on when proper proposals will be made to address comprehensive reform. Points out that a deal was struck in 1999, where Labour promised not to remove hereditary peers until a fully reformed upper chamber is established.
-
Critiques the proposed Select Committee as insufficient given the long-standing calls for reform. Expresses disappointment that a more robust proposal for comprehensive House of Lords reform is not being offered, suggesting the current approach lacks ambition and detail.
-
Presents an argument questioning the Opposition's stance on the pace and extent of reform, implying inconsistency in their position regarding the Bill’s objectives.
-
Inquires about the numbers involved for appointing outgoing hereditary peers to life peerages, suggesting a need for a larger one-off tranche given the unique situation of losing many peers at once.
-
Asks for reassurances regarding equal opportunities for constituents and young people in legislative bodies, highlighting concerns about merit-based appointments rather than hereditary privilege.
-
Challenges the Minister about future reform, questioning why the Government lacks ambition and courage to bring full Lords reform. Points out that the Conservative party is tinkering at the edges and then attacking opponents for not being in favour of reform.
-
Interrupts the Minister to deny having protested about newly found passion for wholesale Lords reform, but is dismissed by the Minister as 'the real voice of the Conservative party'.
-
Claims that it has been 115 years since Labour promised to abolish the House of Lords, criticises new peerages created by Labour. Asks if we are replacing old nobility with new Labour nobility.
-
Asks where the principle leaves the hereditary monarchy given that it has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer. Questions why blocking Acts of Parliament is acceptable for some but not others.
-
The debate addresses a historic piece of legislation against the backdrop of significant economic challenges. The Bill seeks to remove hereditary peers' voting rights and faces criticism for undermining the upper House's ability to scrutinize legislation effectively. The Conservative Party supports certain amendments in the Lords but opposes removing hereditary peers, emphasising it as Cromwellian.
-
Challenges the Conservative position by asserting that Labour won an election mandate to remove hereditary peers. He argues against focusing on past deals made in the 1990s.
-
Questions whether blocking and improving Bills undermines future legislative processes, referencing the Salisbury-Addison convention. Criticises the Conservatives for previously blocking similar amendments and warns against undermining constitutional balance.
-
Highlights the service of hereditary peers like Patrick Courtown and argues that their removal should prompt discussions on support for those affected, recognising many have devoted significant portions of their lives to parliamentary duties.
-
Intervenes to clarify a point about the interaction between statutes and its unintended consequence on the number of ministers in the House of Lords. Does not explicitly support or oppose but aims for clarity.
-
Argues against the amendment, suggesting it would be politically unpalatable to constituents as they might prefer local Commons representatives over peers. Emphasises the current system's perceived shortcomings in representation.
-
Suggests that changes can be made via royal warrant rather than through the amendment, highlighting a precedent set by justices of the Supreme Court receiving titles without legislative duties. Agrees with parts of the shadow minister’s position but offers alternative methods to achieve similar goals.
-
Supports gradual reduction in excepted hereditary peers, emphasising their value and contribution. Proposes an alternative timeline for their phase-out, advocating for a more natural conclusion at the end of Parliament rather than before the King’s speech. Calls for a balanced approach to ensuring expertise is maintained alongside regional representation.
-
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a first step to giving the House of Lords a greater democratic mandate and entrenching its valuable role within the constitution and legislature of the United Kingdom. Noting that inherited membership weakens our democratic institutions, she expresses disappointment at the lack of meaningful electoral reform proposed by the Government. She criticises Lords amendment 1 for diluting the Bill's intent to abolish hereditary peerages and wishes to speak against it. Additionally, Olney opposes Lords amendments 2 and 3 for similar reasons, arguing that they do not address necessary reforms and instead create new categories of peerage. She supports amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 as modest but important changes that will improve the functioning of the House of Lords.
-
Davies opposes Lords amendment 1, arguing it hinders the reform to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords. He notes that the compromise in 1999 should have been temporary but has lasted for over two decades, stating it is now time to complete the reform. Davies criticises opponents who delayed reforms through procedural tactics and argues for ending by-elections for hereditary peerages to phase out these peers.
-
Hon. Friend's argument highlights the need for reform and criticises Conservative obstructionism. He also notes that since the election, there have been opportunities to replace hereditary peers but this has not happened.
-
Questions the lack of clarity from the Minister on conditions for replacement by life peers and challenges the need for more information.
-
Defends gradual evolution as a reasonable approach to reform. Highlights historical context and importance of hereditary principle, criticising contempt towards those who hold office by heritage. Proposes evolutionary form where existing hereditary peers could become life peers.
-
Argues that the debate should focus on the principle rather than individuals and questions Sir Edward Leigh's position.
-
Mr. Snell seeks an opportunity to speak but is denied by Sir Edward Leigh.
-
Supports the Father of the House, describing the proposed reforms as constitutional vandalism that destroys centuries-old traditions and undermines democratic principles. He suggests a referendum should be held before such significant changes are made.
-
Welcomes Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 which allow Members of the House of Lords who lose capacity to retire with dignity. He argues against Lord amendments 1 and 8 that propose stopping hereditary peer by-elections and filling vacancies, stating they are inconsistent with the Bill's core purpose of removing hereditary peers immediately.
-
Argues against maintaining legislative roles based on lineage, suggesting that serving in parliament should be based on merit rather than family background. She acknowledges the friends she has among hereditary peers but questions the principle of their role.
-
Questions whether democratic legitimacy is the only form of legitimacy, noting that we do not elect judges or other important roles. He suggests a proposal to allow hereditary peerage to wither naturally over time might have been more acceptable.
-
Agrees that Labour has a moral obligation to abolish hereditary peers as per their manifesto, urging other parties to support this legislation.
-
Agrees with the appointment of life peers who do not sit but opposes mandatory retirement based on age due to discrimination laws. Defends hereditary peers in the House of Lords for their good service.
-
Critiques Conservative members for lack of energy in defending noble colleagues. Expresses concern over concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber. Describes amendments as snivelling and contemptuous, highlighting the Lords' entitlement and threats against parliamentary process.
-
Since Labour promised to abolish the House of Lords in 1909, no female hereditary peer has been elected in 66 years. Over a third of hereditary peers are concentrated in London and the southeast, with by-elections being farcical. A Tory by-election had only 43 voters electing a new peer who was supposed to be chosen for his skills at racing on the Solent and gardening. Labour's Bill is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century.
-
A six-month temporary arrangement taking a quarter of a century to overturn epitomizes gradual change. This contradicts Conservative party policy, highlighting the need for drastic reform of the House of Lords.
-
Referenced the absurdity of hereditary by-elections similar to those in a comedy series 'Blackadder', emphasising the need for urgent reforms in the electoral practices of the House of Lords.
-
Agrees with Jack Rankin's argument, stating that the system is organic rather than designed from a blueprint. He argues against the Government proposal as it contradicts democratic principles.
-
Supports retaining the hereditary element in the House of Lords, arguing it represents continuity and wisdom throughout the ages.
-
Argues for removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote as it is an outdated feature. He supports a democratic process and emphasises merit-based appointments in the House of Lords.
-
Sir John Hayes questions the argument that hereditary peerages are unacceptable, pointing out the political influence of the monarchy through regular meetings with the Prime Minister. He suggests this indicates a different form of power inheritance.
-
Responding to Mark Ferguson, Adam Jogee thanks him for acknowledging the work of the PLP Back-Bench committee and mentions his colleagues' presence in the debate.
-
Stephen Gethins supports the idea that any parliamentarian should be subject to democratic accountability. He highlights Labour's long-standing commitment to an elected second Chamber, dating back over a century.
-
Gareth Snell criticises the characterisation of hereditary peers as pocket-stuffing hangers-on and defends their democratic credentials. He points out that Labour has been trying to reform this issue for decades but was repeatedly blocked by the Conservative party.
-
The hon. Member disputes the lead MP's figures regarding Conservative appointments to the House of Lords, suggesting there have been 21 such appointments despite the possibility of using these slots for hereditary peers.
-
Responds by highlighting that the Government could ensure some hereditary peers can return as nominated life peers or candidates in safe seats. He also argues against ringfencing seats for white men and discusses the implications of titles given as rewards.
-
Questions how abolishing hereditary peers benefits constituents, expressing doubt about the practical advantages to the public or country from this change.
-
Reiterates his belief that having seats reserved for white men sends a negative message. He dismisses concerns over the impact of removing hereditary peers and argues against it being an attack on the hereditary principle.
-
Closes the debate, criticising the shadow Chancellor's position as contradictory to precedent. He emphasises that Labour’s stance is in breach of the Salisbury-Addison convention and calls for rejection of Opposition amendments.
-
Asked the Minister to consider the financial circumstances of some long-serving staff who may be affected by the abolition of hereditary peers. Suggested waiting until the end of the Session instead of immediate action.
-
Questioned why the Government chose to abolish hereditary peers immediately but not to implement a mandatory retirement age as promised in their manifesto. Suggested political motivations behind this decision.