Alex Burghart MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I do not think I am being impatient, because this is an extremely important subject. We were all aware, when the Command Paper was published earlier this year, that this would need to be done. The framework was in the Labour party’s manifesto, so we assumed that it was making those preparations. It is perfectly possible to put together terms of reference for Intertrade UK within three months, for example. We are not being impatient; such things need to be done for a reason and within a reasonable time. I know that the Minister is alive to the importance of those things, but I hope that she will hurry that work along. It is clear that under this Government the Windsor framework will continue to run. How successfully it runs will depend on any deals they strike and on whether they are able to uphold the commitments made in “Safeguarding the Union”. However, as Opposition Members have said, the limitations of the Windsor framework, in practical terms and on constitutional principle, are clear. That is why we must continue to seek even better solutions. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked about the Bill’s central issue: mutual enforcement. During the Brexit negotiations, mutual enforcement was categorised as “magical thinking,” but I think that was an unfair ploy used by people who did not want to do it. It is thinking that has magical potential but it is not magical thinking, because, as my right hon. Friend spelled out, mutual enforcement has already been done. We have seen it work in the EU’s dealings with New Zealand. Significantly, we heard that Monsieur Barnier was open to it, and that people involved in formulating policy at the time have stated again that they know it is deliverable. I just do not want anyone on either side of the House to think that mutual enforcement cannot be pursued; it can and must be. With the good will and the technology, there is no reason why there cannot be a future in which mutual enforcement plays a role. During the Brexit negotiations, I remember being told repeatedly, as a Back-Bench Member, that there could not be any border checks, any infrastructure, or any checks near the border. However, in recent months we have seen that is not true. We know that it is not true because the Republic is conducting Operation Sonnet, which it is perfectly entitled to do. Operation Sonnet is a series of checks performed by the Garda on people crossing the border to make sure that they are not crossing illegally.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be called in this debate—and nice to have an opportunity to stand up. It is also nice to see such enthusiasm for this subject from Labour Members, and I can see how disappointed many of them are not to have been called in this debate. There are so many things that one might say about the extremely interesting Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We know that it will not progress, as Labour Members intend to talk it out, but I want to talk about some of the ideas and principles that have been raised today, and indeed some of the ideas and principles that are contained within this interesting Bill. Many new and enthusiastic Labour Members were not here during the difficult days of 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, although some senior and experienced Members were. When looking at that densely packed history, there is a temptation to step back. We perhaps do not need to go back quite as far as Sophocles, although the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) always peppers his interesting remarks with cultural references. I was reminded of something else that Sophocles said: “There is a point at which even justice does injury.” There is something in these conflicting ideas of law, international law, obligation and principle that rings with Sophocles. In those Brexit days, mistakes were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has referred to mistakes made by the then Administration. They created a starting position that some of us did not want and that has had long consequences. But we are, as has often been said, where we are. From those starting points there has been progress of a type. The initial proposals for the backstop were unquestionably bettered by the protocol. The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. “Safeguarding the Union” is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible. As the Windsor framework approaches its second birthday, it is worth taking stock of what has emerged from it. Obviously it made some improvements and achieved some of what it set out to do, but there is still the problem that Opposition Members have raised with the flow of certain goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not a frivolous concern; it is a serious concern. The promised investment—we were going to see Northern Ireland becoming a Singapore of the west—has not happened. I have asked about it in my conversations and in my visits to Northern Ireland, and I have heard that it has certainly not yet materialised. On Wednesday night, the House debated the Secretary of State’s statement on legacy and on the challenges that he is bringing to judgments made at the Court of Appeal in Belfast. The interpretation of the Windsor framework is a very live issue that could have profound and long-reaching consequences for how law operates in this country. Even then, it must be acknowledged that popular opinion in Northern Ireland is shifting slowly. Queen’s University Belfast carries out regular polls on how people feel about it. It is becoming less popular over time. That may change, but it is an issue. These are all practical issues, even before we reach the serious issues, which must never be discarded, about sovereignty. If this is where we are right now with the framework, we have to ask what will happen next. The Labour Government were elected not six months ago, with a considerable majority, on a manifesto that committed to “implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market”. They must be sure to do both. Both elements of that promise to the British people are extremely significant. Opposition Members have raised many issues that have arisen with particular goods in particular sectors. Nowhere are those issues more pressing than in the SPS arrangements and the veterinary medicine arrangements. I talked to farmers in Belfast a few days ago, and they said that they were concerned that the Government do not appreciate that time is of the essence. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned the need for haste in the Paymaster General’s work. It is indeed pressing, because the timescale that the EU is briefing out is the next two to three years, and the grace period is due to end at the end of 2025. More than 50% of Northern Ireland’s medicines will not be sourceable from the UK. That has a huge implication for farming and agriculture, which is a major part of the economy in Northern Ireland, as I do not need to remind Members of the House.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, actually. I have points to make and I want to leave the Minister time to make her speech and take interventions from Members in all parts of the House. One thing that strengthened the Windsor framework was “Safeguarding the Union”, which is critical to where we are now. Hon. Members will remember that the Northern Ireland Assembly came back together only because of “Safeguarding the Union”. If elements of it are removed, it is possible that that agreement will fall away, although we hope that it will not. If it does, it will risk the stability of our institutions in Northern Ireland. There are many points that one could raise—I have asked a lot of parliamentary questions on this—but there are some specifics on which we are now owed some detail. The first is about the independent monitoring panel. The internal market system is supported by the UK internal market guarantee, which is overseen by the independent monitoring panel, but when will the panel first report? Secondly, we have Intertrade UK, which could be an important body. We were all pleased to see Baroness Foster appointed in September, but as far as I am aware, Intertrade UK’s terms of reference have still not been published. That is unacceptable. We are now three months on from appointing a chair, and many months on from the publication of “Safeguarding the Union”. Intertrade UK must have its terms of reference, and they must be shared with Members of this House. Similarly, we must have regular updates from the Government on business preparedness for the internal market system. It is not enough for us to depend on Members of the Opposition to ask questions proactively; the Government should report regularly on that.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very glad that the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to make that point. As I have said, we have seen that the Republic is carrying out checks on the other side of the border, so things that we were told were not possible are. If that is the case, it must open up possibilities for the future. I remain strongly of the view that the Windsor framework with “Safeguarding the Union” is a better solution than the Windsor framework was; that the Windsor framework was a better solution than the protocol; and that the protocol was a better option than the backstop. However, that does not mean that there are not better solutions available. Those of us who believe in the Union do not wish for a sea border, or for a settlement that infracts the Acts of Union. Mutual enforcement obviously has the potential to be a sensible alternative, particularly if it is backed up by very serious penalties for those who infringe those arrangements. Indeed, in those circumstances, it could be remarkably effective. We would not start from here. We are where we are, but that does not mean that we cannot get back to where we once belonged.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim says, if the Bill were to pass—as we know it will not, because it is being talked out—there would not be the same need for that sort of deal, because goods would be flowing freely from GB to Northern Ireland, so the question is at best academic.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for restating what is already known. Obviously, it is a matter of public interest whether the propriety and ethics team had been informed before the right hon. Lady was made Transport Secretary. I ask him again: will he confirm whether the PET was informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed a Minister of the Crown?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Was the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed as a Minister of the Crown?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. It was very nice to receive it only 12 hours after T he Times , although I must say that I received the policy document itself only at 11.05 am, unlike Labour MPs at Pinewood studios who, according to social media, had the document some time before. While the Prime Minister is at Pinewood, I hope he will hear its owner’s concerns about the very substantial increase in business rates from 2026, which will affect the profits and viability of what was, under the Conservatives, a flourishing sector. The Opposition congratulate the Government on their most recent reset—there are only a few more resets left before Christmas. The Labour party might want to try turning it off and, well, maybe just leaving it off, but it is good that it has taken the time to come up with an emergency list of priorities. After only 14 years in opposition and five months in power, it has finally decided on some things that it is going to work towards. The statement was quite punchy about the past, unusually punchy for the right hon. Gentleman. If he is rattled, and he is not the rattling type, it is a sign that the Government must be feeling pretty unstable at the moment. Labour Members talk about legacy, and I wish them good fortune in government—I genuinely mean that. The last Government had to clean up the mess from the greatest financial crisis in a century. The last Government had to deal with the biggest pandemic in a century. The last Government had to deal with the biggest war in Europe since 1945. [ Interruption. ] Labour Members might gloss over that, they might pretend it is not important, but history judges it very differently. It reflects very badly on the Labour party that it refuses to acknowledge the importance of those extremely significant events. I will now turn to each of the new millstones in order. First, raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where they live. How is this to be measured? What are the metrics? When will the data be published? Who will be held to account? We all need to know. Secondly, building 1.5 million homes and fast-tracking planning decisions. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already said that this Government are very unlikely to build more homes than the last Conservative Government. What has changed since the Budget? Why do the Government now believe they will be able to achieve this? Is there more money? Have the spending plans changed? Thirdly, tackling hospital backlogs. We have already seen funding first, reform later—a disastrous way to do business. NHS bosses have been briefed about this, and they are already briefing the press that this requirement will put enormous pressure on A&E without additional money beyond that given at the Budget. Is more money going to be made available for the NHS to fulfil this milestone? Fourthly, policing. Only 3,000 of the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers are extra new police officers. This target is not genuine. Is there a proposal to deal with the backlog in the courts? Without that, extra police officers will lead only to greater backlog in the courts. Does the Labour party have a plan for this? Fifthly, energy. In March, Labour’s missions document said that, by 2030, the UK would be the first major country in the world to run 100% on clean and cheap power. Since March, this has been degraded by 5%. Can we expect the target to be degraded by 5% every nine months? Sixthly, getting children ready to learn. This is a genuinely wonderful target, but what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by “ready to learn”? How will it be measured? When will the House be told whether progress is being made? Obviously, on all of these, there are good things to be done, but the missions will only mean anything if the Government are honest about what they are doing and about the milestones they are hitting or not hitting. Also, why have the Government downgraded certain other priorities? How have they chosen these six issues over immigration, over GP surgeries, over A&E, over defence, over the £300 energy bill reduction target or over becoming the fastest-growing economy in the G7? Why have the Government chosen these priorities? The House should be told. Finally, who is taking responsibility—I mean real responsibility—for achieving the targets? A lot of us were pleased when, the other day, the Health Secretary said that individuals at the top of the health service would be held accountable with their jobs if targets were not hit. Will the same apply to Ministers? Who in Government is taking real responsibility for the targets? If the Government are serious, we need data, accountability and transparency. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to the House that we will get that?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Government’s Five Missions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to face the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box for what I believe is the first time. I am pleased to see three members of the Cabinet on the Front Bench—it is quite right that the Cabinet Office should be so well reflected. The day after he entered Downing Street, the Prime Minister pledged to personally chair each mission delivery board to drive through change. We now hear that he is not chairing each mission delivery board. Why has the Prime Minister broken his pledge?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Government’s Five Missions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is right: as the holder of two shadow portfolios, I get double the money. [ Laughter. ] I am sorry not to hear an explanation for why the Prime Minister has gone back on his word. There are growing concerns that the mission delivery boards are not being taken seriously. Those concerns were felt by members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman’s very capable permanent secretary said that “the governance and the wiring of how we do this might not be immediately observable”, which is a masterful piece of civil service phraseology if ever there was one. These boards are not Cabinet Sub-Committees, which means they are not authorised to make policy. The Prime Minister is not there, so his authority is absent. The Government will not reveal who is on them, what they discuss or when they meet. They are starting to sound like figments of the Government’s imagination—a litter of Schrödinger’s cats. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least commit to regular published updates on what each of the boards is doing, who sits on them, what decisions they make, what work they are undertaking and what achievements they have achieved?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, for giving an oral statement on this very important subject, and for scheduling the statement at such a time as would not interfere with the Opposition day debates—that was very decent of him. I do not intend to rehearse all of the long debates that were had in the last Parliament over the legacy Act. The Labour party won the general election on a manifesto that included a number of measures that the Secretary of State has just discussed, and it has a mandate to make the changes it wants to make. But I will say this: there was an attempt by the last Government—a desire from the last Government—to draw a line under many difficult things that had happened, and with the actions the Government are now taking that line is being erased. I will remind the House of the central reasons why the last Government legislated. They did so to try and protect some elderly people, including servicemen, who were being brought before inquests to discuss events that may or may not have happened very many years before. This was a process inevitably weighted against the police and the armed forces, who kept records and whose servicemen were easily locatable and contactable. Tonight there will be many such men harbouring a sense of dread. I know the Government are taking a different approach, but I do ask them to spare a thought for those men this evening and to think very deeply about what they can do to support them and what help they can offer them. I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. I appreciate that he may not be able to answer them all this evening, so I would be grateful if he would undertake to write to me on these very important matters. The first issue I would like to touch on is the ICRIR, which was set up by the legacy Act. Indeed, for all the Government’s current talk of wanting to replace the legacy Act, a very large part of that legislation is concerned with its establishment. I was very pleased earlier in the year that the Secretary of State affirmed his support for the ICRIR and for Sir Declan Morgan, who is doing an admirable job of overseeing it. In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will “reform and strengthen the commission’s independence, powers and accountability.” I would be grateful if he could set out exactly how and why he intends to do that, given that in September Sir Declan made it clear that he already had the necessary independence and powers to do his job. Secondly, I was pleased to hear that the Secretary of State intends to appeal the Court’s specific finding regarding the Secretary of State’s power to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information in circumstances where disclosure would be prejudicial to national security, but will he confirm that, in the event that his appeal is unsuccessful, the Government will legislate to ensure that national security is protected? If he does so, he will have our support. Thirdly, I must ask the Secretary of State about the new regime that is emerging—it seems rather more by accident than design—and how it will work. We will have inquests, the ICRIR and inquiries. Who will decide which route a family goes down? Will it be the family, the Government or the courts? What criteria will be used? How will disputes about the route chosen be adjudicated? One of the qualities of the legacy Act was that it greatly simplified the system. The system is now being returned to complexity. Finally, I must ask the Secretary of State to give the House some clarity on the Government’s position on article 2(1) of the Windsor framework. I am pleased that he is continuing his appeal against the Colton judgment handed down in July. That was a decision in which the Court of Appeal sought to disapply statute, and in his statement in July he referred to it as a technical point of law, but it is quite some technicality. Article 2(1) of the Windsor framework is very important in this judgment, and I would like him to be able to give clarity on the Government’s position. Is it, as the last Government’s position was, that the rights available to the people of Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement should not be diminished as a result of our leaving the EU, or is it that a broader range of rights available at the time of our departure from the EU should not be diminished as a result of leaving the EU, or is it that the rights of the Northern Irish people should keep pace with EU law as it develops? Those are incredibly important points of law that will have a long consequence in British courts. I would be grateful if he could give the House clarity on those matters.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Budget · Hansard source

  More

  And, I hope, conversations with the Secretary of State. He will know that the make-up of farming in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that in the rest of the UK: there is a greater density of farms in sole ownership and agricultural land is worth more. That means that farms in Northern Ireland are more exposed to Labour’s family farms tax. The farmers I have met in Northern Ireland are deeply concerned about that. As the Secretary of State said, there is disagreement nationally about the figures. On one side, we have the Government who say that not many farms will be affected. On the other side, we have the experts who say that very many farms will be affected. Transparency will help everyone. Will the Secretary of State commit to asking the Chancellor to publish detailed Treasury working on the Budget’s impact on farms in Northern Ireland so that independent experts can check their figures?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Budget · Hansard source

  More

  I associate Conservative Members with the remarks that the Under-Secretary of State made about Ken Reid; he will be very much missed. A belated happy birthday to the Secretary of State for yesterday. Last week, the Secretary of State suggested to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the Treasury had not yet conducted a detailed analysis of how the Budget will affect farmers in Northern Ireland. Has he now asked it to do so?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I understand why the right hon. Lady does not want to answer questions about the terrible choices the Government have made. It is because the truth is ugly. The truth is that this is a punishment meted out to people who do not vote Labour. It is the same punishment meted out to parents who send their children to private schools. It is the same punishment meted out to the owners of small businesses who are terrified about national insurance contributions, and it is the same punishment meted out to pensioners who cannot afford to pay for their fuel this winter. Is it not the truth that if you do not vote Labour, they do not care about you? [Hon. Members: “More!”]

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  First, we had above-inflation pay rises for the unions. Then we had a Budget that the OBR said was going to push up inflation. This morning, we had City economists—real economists—saying that next year inflation will hit 3%. Does the right hon. Lady agree that this Government’s decisions mean higher inflation for working people?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This is just another part of the Budget that is unravelling. Everyone here and all the farmers at home will have heard that there was no guarantee there. We know what that means: they are coming back for more. Even if the right hon. Lady had made a promise today, it would not have been worth a fig. We know that the Environment Secretary, before the election, promised the farmers that this would not happen. Labour promises get broken. Let us put all this into context. The Treasury says that the family farms tax will raise on average £441 million a year. The Treasury also says that the public sector pay rises the Government announced in July will cost £9.4 billion a year. That is over 21 times as much. Why do the Government think that above-inflation pay rises for the trade unions are worth so—

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We have already talked about Ukraine. It was Ukraine and covid that drove up inflation, but this Government are doing it to the British people. High tax, high inflation, low growth, low reform—there is a word for that: it is Starmerism. Yesterday, like many Opposition Members, I spoke to farmers from across the United Kingdom. Some of them were families who have farmed their land for centuries—elderly men in tears, children worried about their parents and all of them worried that their way of life is about to be destroyed. What would the right hon. Lady like to say to them?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the right hon. Lady thinks that everyone came to London yesterday to thank the Government. Let us look at the facts. A typical mid-size, 360-acre family farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) have spoken to their accountant. Their new liability because of this Government is half a million pounds. That is 12 years’ worth of profit. When this generation passes away, that farm will become totally unviable, and it is just one of thousands and thousands of similar farms. It is clear the Government have not got their facts right. The Central Association for Agricultural Valuers—the real experts in this field—say so. The National Farmers Union says so; it is shortly to publish a report showing that 75% of all commercial farms will fall above the threshold. If the Government are not going to reverse this terrible policy, will the right hon. Lady at least commit to no further increases to inheritance tax and no further reductions in agricultural property relief or business property relief in this Parliament?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I thank the right hon. Lady for her standard charm. The truth is that the Government are not doing anything to bring down inflation; this Government are stoking inflation. First, we had above-inflation pay rises for the unions. Then, we had a Budget that the Office for Budget Responsibility said would increase inflation— [ Interruption. ]

• 20 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to associate myself and the official Opposition with the right hon. Lady’s remarks about Ukraine. Democracies must stand together. What are the Government doing to bring down inflation?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for Northern Ireland) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Hon. Members will be disappointed to hear that I do not intend to detain them for long. We support this order. As my noble friend Lord Caine said in Grand Committee in the other place, this is essentially Conservative legacy legislation. We drafted it, we conducted the consultation earlier in the year, and we are pleased to see that the Government have continued with it. I want to raise a couple of small points, the first of which is technical. The hon. Lady referred to how an intimate search may not be authorised or carried out under the new power. Will she give us a little more detail about why that decision was made? Secondly, looking to the future, we all hope to see this change implemented. What provision are the Government making to review the new code to ensure that it is working effectively and getting the results that we all want? Thirdly, the hon. Lady referred to the fact that the Government have made money available in the Budget for additional security funding for Northern Ireland. There is, as she will know, quite a long-standing problem with police numbers in Northern Ireland. At the moment, I think the PSNI has 6,300, and the number agreed in New Decade, New Approach was 7,500. What is the Minister doing in conjunction with the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that the PSNI can get up to the required figure, which obviously has implications for national security? That said, I join the hon. Lady in thanking the PSNI for the work it does for the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed for all of us in the United Kingdom, and I congratulate it on helping to reduce the threat level from “severe” to “substantial”. I am pleased to say that my party will be supporting the order today.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has married so well. Of course, life peers do a fantastic job of scrutiny—they do so every day, and I enjoy reading their lordships’ Hansard . What we are talking about is a group of 88 hereditary peers, who have done a very good job in scrutinising Government legislation, but who are being removed, through no fault of their own, simply because they do not fit with the Labour’s party’s views. We believe that that is wrong. I turn now to amendment 25 in my name, which concerns the very simple Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed, and should certainly not be proposed for political advantage. We have inherited a constitution that has evolved through the generations and has the distinction of working. The current constitution of the other place has been effective in bringing expertise and a degree of independence to the work of legislative scrutiny. Like much of the uncodified British constitution, one might not have created such a system from scratch, but the tried-and-tested checks and balances of the House of Lords have complemented the work of the elected Commons. The Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber, and that is the point: our House has primacy. We can see the dangers of ill-though-through constitutional change. None of us in this place will forget the difficulties caused by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a foolish measure introduced by the coalition Government that created all manner of unintended consequences. It was rightly repealed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament to reinstate tried and tested long-standing conventions. Let that be a warning to the Government as they meddle, in the name of petty politics, with long-standing conventions that work. Walter Bagehot eloquently described the “dignified” and “efficient” elements of our constitution. In a sense, the hereditary peers represent both thanks to the way in which they diligently scrutinise legislation. Labour must take care that pulling on one thread—in this case, that of the hereditary peers—does not unravel a great deal more. Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the changes to the composition of our legislature. It makes the simple request that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be allowed to scrutinise and report on the Government’s so-called “immediate modernisation” plans, and that this place should agree before legislation comes into force. That plan would be led by the Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed but carefully considered, and implemented only if the House is confident that it will work. Amendment 26, which stands in my name, seeks clarity on the issue of disputed peerage claims. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I understand that existing mechanisms are in place. For that reason, we will not press it. To conclude, we on the Conservative Benches think that this Bill is a sham of reform. It is fundamentally misconceived, focusing on the composition of the other place rather than on how we can ensure that it best performs its vital role of scrutiny. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not stand up to scrutiny—a Government led by politics, not by principles. My amendments seek to reinsert some principles into this process: that promises to both Parliament and the electorate should be kept, and that we should legislate only for what works, not for political advantage. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendments today.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What would you give him?

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strikes at the critical failure of the legislation, which is that really the Government are seeking to remove Members of the upper House who happen not to take the Labour Whip. What we all agree on—or what I hope we all agree on—is that the role of the Lords is that of a chamber of scrutiny, and we must welcome more expert scrutiny. We have seen from the behaviour, attendance and work of hereditary peers that they are an intrinsic part of that scrutiny, so it is highly suspicious that the Labour party should seek to remove them. Indeed, if we set the precedent that the Government of the day can remove Members of one House because they do not agree with them, where will it end? Those Cross Bencher hereditary peers who will be axed by the measures have, as far as I can see, done an excellent job, yet they are not being given another way out such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend.