Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentChris Philp

    Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

    We—in common, I hope, with everyone in this House—fully and unequivocally support the right to peaceful protest, including on issues in the middle east, whether the hostages who remain captive or civilians in Gaza, whose plight concerns us all. However, in exercising that right to protest, violence is never acceptable. Palestine Action has committed deliberate criminal damage against various premises, used a sledgehammer to attack a police officer, and deliberately sabotaged RAF planes. No matter how strongly people feel about an issue, and whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, using violence to advance a political agenda is never acceptable. It is not how we do things in this country; we settle things through debate and elections. The Security Minister has given the House assurances about the necessity of this measure. I have not been briefed, or been offered a briefing on that, but the Minister commands widespread respect across the House, and Members will take his assurances seriously. Will he give an assurance that the police are taking all possible preventive action against Palestine Action where it may be planning future attacks against premises, or future acts of violence, including using the offence of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, under which the police have wide-ranging powers? I join the Minister in extending my thanks to the police for the difficult work they do keeping us safe. Finally, I will use this opportunity to express my support for a protest that took place on Sunday in Parliament Square, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism march, which I addressed. It was regrettable that neither the Home Secretary nor a senior Minister addressed that march, so will the Security Minister take the opportunity to express the Government’s resolve to combat antisemitism wherever it is found?

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentChris Philp

    Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition

    Let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing the urgent question and The Sunday Times on its reporting. As the Minister said, 9/11 was one of the most sickening terrorist atrocities of our lifetime, committed by Islamist extremists. Yesterday’s piece in The Sunday Times raises serious questions about the case of Omar al-Bayoumi. It appears that the UK police and the FBI had clear evidence that Omar al-Bayoumi assisted terrorists and had close links to the Saudi Government—or elements of the Saudi Government—and indeed was their agent. It is not me saying that: just last week, US district court judge George Daniels sitting in New York found there was “reasonable evidence” that two Saudi citizens—one of whom was al-Bayoumi—were sent by the Saudi Government to assist the hijackers. That raises some extremely serious questions that I would like the Security Minister to answer. I gently say to him that the ongoing civil proceedings in New York by no means preclude him from answering; I ask him not to hide behind that. First, why did the UK police release al-Bayoumi so quickly when they held other suspects, including someone in an adjacent cell, for extended periods—in that case for five months? Secondly, did the Saudi Government or the US Government pressure the UK Government to release al-Bayoumi early and not pursue the matter? Does the Security Minister agree with the judge that al-Bayoumi assisted terrorists and that he was sent by the Saudi Government to do so? Will the Security Minister release all the relevant documents, including those held in the National Archives? Will he look into this matter and report back to the House? Finally, does he agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should urgently investigate this matter?

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Defence Investment Plan

    On Friday, I visited Paragraf, a local business in my constituency. Founded by Simon Thomas, it is a hugely successful spin-out from Cambridge University, developing and manufacturing next generation electronic devices using graphene. These products provide solutions in a range of industries, from quantum computing to diagnostics. As one can imagine with a world-leading technology, there is a huge array of potential military applications. Indeed, the company has already been contacted by our NATO allies. May I invite the Secretary of State and the new procurement Minister to visit Paragraf, meet CEO Simon Thomas and look at how we can seize the initiative in defence with an innovative and world-leading technology, and a real British and Huntingdon success story?

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Defence Industrial Strategy

    I place on record my excitement at seeing RAF Wyton in my constituency directly mentioned in the defence industrial strategy. Last week, I was at RAF Wyton for a hugely successful discussion on its future as a defence technology cluster, with senior officers from the cyber and specialist operations command, the leadership of Huntingdonshire district council and planners from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority. I invite the procurement Minister and the Defence Secretary to visit RAF Wyton—I believe they may be due to anyway—not only to see the tremendous work that defence intelligence does, but to see its suitability as the defence, energy and capability resilience centre of excellence. That would address my fears that the land may be sold off for housing by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation by accident in the interim. I also invite them both to the Huntingdonshire defence showcase right here in Parliament next month.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentAndrew Rosindell

    Renters’ Rights Bill

    I rise to speak to Lords amendment 11 and on the wider issue of pet ownership, which many other Members have spoken about. Pet ownership in rented accommodation is an issue on which I have campaigned for many years in this House. Some Members will remember the Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection) Bill, otherwise known as Jasmine’s law, that I introduced to the House in 2020. It supported the principle of a pet in every home. The British people care deeply for the welfare of animals, especially in my Romford constituency. We all understand how important animals are to the lives of human beings. As the owner of two Staffordshire bull terriers, Buster and Spike, who are sadly no longer with us, I know just how important the companionship of pets is to so many people, especially those who live on their own. Owning a dog or cat, or any kind of household pet, improves both physical and mental health, provides vital companionship and helps to tackle loneliness. In fact, pet ownership is estimated to save our NHS around £2.5 billion a year by reducing the number of GP and hospital visits. Despite those clear benefits, housing issues remain the second most common reason for animals to be relinquished to animal shelters and sanctuaries such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which I was privileged to visit only a few weeks ago. I have had many links to that charitable organisation over the years, particularly during my time as shadow Minister for animal welfare some years ago. With growing numbers of people renting, it is absolutely essential that the Bill works in support of responsible pet ownership in rented homes, rather than putting further barriers in the way. That is why I must express my opposition to amendment 11, and any clause that makes it harder for tenants to keep pets. The introduction of large up-front deposits will only serve to price many people out from owning pets, especially in the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be prevented from owning an animal that they love and want to be with because of this situation. The law needs changing, as I have argued for many years, including with Ministers in the previous Government, whom I had to go and see before they eventually agreed that this policy was the right one. I hope that my shadow Front-Bench colleagues will reconsider their stance. I commend the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all their comments on this issue. What should have been a Bill to unlock pet ownership for those in millions of homes now risks excluding them altogether, entrenching the idea that pet ownership is a privilege for homeowners only—that cannot be right. I do not believe that is what the Government intended. Earlier proposals on pet insurance—I know issues to do with that have been raised today, but they can be overcome—provided a fairer balance between the concerns of landlords and the ability of tenants to meet the costs. Insurance spreads the expense more evenly across the year, and avoids the burden of large, one-off deposits. It is disappointing that that approach appears to have been set aside by the Lords amendment. Finally, I urge His Majesty’s Government to work closely with animal welfare charities, and the animal welfare sector in general, when developing the guidance that will accompany the Bill. I speak as an honorary member of the Kennel Club—perhaps I should have declared that at the start—and a supporter of the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats home, and of course Cats Protection; it is important always to remember our cats. We need a clear definition of what constitutes unreasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse a tenant’s request for a pet. That clarity will help landlords and tenants alike, and avoid unnecessary disputes ending up before the ombudsman or courts. Jasmine’s law has always been about the simple belief that people should not have to choose between a home and a beloved companion. We must not let the Bill, through the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 11, undermine that vital principle.

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentVictoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    May I join the Secretary of State and everyone across the Chamber in thanking the fire services, farmers and rural communities for their hard work and bravery in tackling the wildfires that we have seen this summer? I am heartened to discover the Secretary of State’s new fondness for farmers. We will all be listening carefully to his answer to the next question. With 89% of farmers saying that they have paused or delayed investment because of the Budget, and with food prices rising, record farm closures under his watch, and Labour’s own think-tank admitting that the family farm tax needs changing, will he finally do the right thing, put rural communities above his own ambitions and axe the family farm tax?

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentVictoria Atkins

    Topical Questions

    I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but I suspect I have spoken to far more farmers than he has in the past 12 months. They do not believe a word he says, because he betrayed what he said to them before the election about the family farm tax. As for this road map, if farms continue to close—more than half of farmers are thinking of giving up in the next five years because of this Government’s plan—it will be a road map to nowhere. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee that the rise in food prices was due in part to measures in the last Budget placing higher costs on food businesses. In light of that and the terrible summer harvest, will the Secretary of State do farmers a favour for once and rule out a new wealth tax on farmland in the next Budget—yes or no?

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentSir Roger Gale

    Business of the House

    Regardless of the fact that there is no legal requirement on the Government of the United Kingdom to transfer ownership of the British Indian Ocean Territories to Mauritius, the Government have challenged the Opposition’s figures about the cost of that exercise. Before the debate on Tuesday, will the Government place in the Library of the House of Commons detailed estimates of the cost to the British taxpayer?

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentSir Oliver Dowden

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I thank the Minister for his generosity. He frequently cites the Labour party manifesto, which did include this provision in relation to the abolition of hereditary peers. However, it also included a provision in relation to a mandatory retirement age. Why has he chosen to bring forward the abolition of hereditary peers but not wait until he has resolved the position in relation to the retirement age? Surely there is only one reason for that, which is that it benefits the Labour party politically to remove Conservative hereditary peers immediately, and it is of less political benefit to the Labour party to have a mandatory 80-year-old retirement age.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    Early Education and Childcare

    After that tough question, may I ask an easy one? Can the Minister explain to the House what the funding level is for the new places, and in particular whether it fully compensates for an average £18,000 increase in the bills that nurseries have to face as a result in the rise in national insurance contributions?

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I do not purport to speak on behalf of my party, but rather as an individual who has long had an interest in the positive role that the Lords play in revising legislation, which any elected and strongly whipped House would not be able to do. The Minister partly anticipated the point I want to make, when he mentioned the ability to appoint some of what would otherwise be outgoing hereditary peers to life peerages. That may be a way forward for people of good will to pursue, but given the quite high number of people who find themselves in quite responsible positions in the Lords, what sort of numbers does he have in mind to allow the parties that will lose a large number of hereditary peers to appoint as life peers?

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I do not expect the Minister to be specific about numbers, but can he at least tell the House whether he accepts the principle that a considerably larger one-off tranche would be needed to cater for this unique situation?

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely well, and I think that people with a mind to compromise would like to go down that road, but does he recognise that the usual handful of allocations will not be enough on this one-off occasion to meet the requirement that he has so ably outlined?

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    Just over four decades ago, I first became aware of the BBC Monitoring service, or BBCM. The year was 1982, and a very different Labour party, led by veteran unilateralist Michael Foot, was committed to abandoning the British strategic nuclear deterrent unconditionally. I was involved in a campaign against that, together with the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and a brilliant colleague of ours, Councillor—as he then was—Tony Kerpel. A fellow researcher handed me the transcript of a Radio Moscow interview with the national organiser of Britain’s leading disarmament campaign group, who was visiting the USSR, as one does. When asked why the official Soviet Peace Committee supported the Soviet Government—unlike her organisation, which opposed the UK Government—she revealingly replied: “Well, obviously, because the Soviet Government is in favour of peace, and this makes a big difference.” That was on Radio Moscow on 7 June 1982, for the historians among us. The source of such telling material was a publication called Summary of World Broadcasts, which was produced by BBCM and packed with invaluable insights into the propaganda campaigns of our adversaries and those who consorted with them. Founded in 1939 to give speedy access to foreign media and propaganda output, the monitoring service was funded for its first 70 years by an annual Government grant. This was as it should be: the Government were paying for a service for which they were the main customer and consumer. Certainly, there were periods of famine and feast. Reductions in the grant after the end of the second world war limited the frequency of the Summary of World Broadcasts, which resumed daily publication only in 1959, but the principle of the annual grant held firm and there was further Government investment in computerisation and new buildings at the Caversham Park headquarters of BBCM in the second half of the 1980s. For a time, the grant was split between the Foreign Office, the Defence Ministry, the Cabinet Office and the World Service budgets, but a 2005 report reinstated the single Government revenue stream. Cuts and redundancies nevertheless took place in 2006-07 under Tony Blair, with worse to follow under Cameron and Clegg in 2010. That was the year when the coalition Government decreed that the BBC World Service, and the Monitoring service too, would be funded in future from the corporation’s licence fee income. Eventually, direct Government funding for the World Service had to be restored, amounting to about one third of its annual income. BBCM, however, remains disproportionately dependent on the licence fee, plus a certain amount of income from its commercial contracts. Given that the BBC claims to have seen a 30% reduction of its overall income in real terms since that fateful year of 2010, it is hardly surprising that both the World Service and BBCM have suffered financially.

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    I could not agree more. May I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman again for the excellent debate on the BBC World Service, which he led on 26 June, if I remember correctly, and which gave me the idea to bring forward the subject of BBC Monitoring separately? Over very many years, BBC Monitoring had built up the closest conceivable relationship with its United States counterpart, known as Open Source Enterprise, or OSE. Indeed, the two organisations were based on alternate floors of the Caversham Park headquarters, dividing between them the coverage of global broadcasting to the enormous benefit of both countries in the transatlantic alliance. This was the nerve centre of world-beating open source intelligence, yet the BBC decided to evict OSE and sell the Caversham estate.

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    I am extremely grateful for that intervention. I am sure that the staff of BBC Monitoring, both present and past, will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he has rightly expressed for them.

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    Yes, indeed. If ever something encapsulated the concept of soft power, and indeed buttressed and underpinned some of the agencies that have to delve from more secret sources for information, this is an example of that.

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    I must say it is gratifying in an end-of-day Adjournment debate on a Thursday early evening to have so many people so keen to intervene, including the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    Absolutely. The only good thing to be said about the propaganda of one’s adversaries is that sometimes, unwittingly, it gives us an insight into their plans and a forewarning of their evil intent. Let us ensure that we preserve the crown jewels and that we do not rely simply on fluctuations in licence fee income for that necessary task. I have said that the Caversham estate was to be sold off, despite the amazing integration that existed there with the American counterpart of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which is now known more regularly as the OSE. It was therefore no wonder that the Defence Committee decided to entitle its December 2016 report “Open Source Stupidity: The Threat to the BBC Monitoring Service”. That was a pun on open source intelligence—and for those interested, it is HC 748, and it is still in print. The then Defence Committee Chairman, whom modesty prevents me from identifying, pointed out—this is a long quote, but it is worthwhile—that: “The Coalition Government was warned, in the strongest possible terms, not to leave the BBC Monitoring service unprotected by ending its ring–fenced annual grant and transferring this minor financial burden to the licence–fee payer. By doing so, it gave the BBC a free hand to inflict successive rounds of cuts, now culminating in the loss of the specialised and dedicated Caversham headquarters. The vast increase in open source information in the recent past makes it one of the few tools still left in the Government’s arsenal which can provide almost real time information and analysis on global developments. To allow the BBC to change and shape it in a different direction is in contravention of UK national interest. It is especially bewildering when you consider the annual cost of BBC Monitoring is around £25 million. The decision to evict BBC Monitoring’s US counterpart—Open Source Enterprise—from its UK base at Caversham Park and break the physical link between the two is short–sighted. The BBC’s strategy for BBC Monitoring will downgrade our contribution to open source intelligence sharing between the UK and the US at a time when European nations must demonstrate to President–elect Trump”— as he then was, for the first time— “that we are committed to paying our way in the fields of defence and security. As one of our witnesses said, ‘this is the height of folly’.” That was a long quote, but it was true then and it is true today.

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    I will give way first to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    I agree entirely, and before I give way for the next intervention, I will read what I had just been about to say. The report’s main conclusion was that the Government should reinstate their previous model of funding BBC Monitoring through a ringfenced grant in aid, rather than allowing the funding to come from the licence fee. As a non-partisan, cross-party body, I doubt if today’s Defence Committee would take a radically different view. Indeed, we have just heard from the Foreign Affairs Committee representative that that view still has a great deal of validity.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentSir Julian Lewis

    BBC Monitoring Service

    It is very gratifying to an old timer like me to see a fresh generation of serious-minded hon. and right hon. Members from all parties so united on this common theme in the national interest. I will have to race on a bit now so as not to cut into the Minister’s time too much. So far I have focused in large part on the negatives, as the House has heard, but all is not a picture of doom and gloom. Despite the substantial redundancies of 2016-17 after the reduction in licence fee funding and the closure of Caversham Park, an 11-year customer service agreement was signed with the Government, covering the period 2017 to 2027 inclusive. A business development team also succeeded in widening the commercial customer base and lessening, to some extent, the dependence on the licence fee. Those in charge at BBC Monitoring are in no doubt of the importance of their mission. They point out in a most helpful briefing document that they provided to me that in today’s environment of intensifying information warfare, weaponised narratives and global instability, the value of BBC Monitoring’s work is more crucial than ever. They note: “The global media landscape has undergone a profound transformation, driven by the rapid expansion of social media, the democratisation of content creation, and the accelerating capabilities of generative AI. These shifts have dramatically increased the volume and velocity of disinformation… In response, BBC Monitoring has evolved its editorial strategy, moving beyond translation and summarisation to deliver expert, evidence-based analysis. The introduction of data specialists has enabled the production of interactive maps, graphics, and other tools that help users navigate complex information environments.” BBCM has expanded its coverage of Chinese, Russian and Iranian media influence operations, of jihadism, of climate change, of water and energy security, and of migration—all issues that are central to our national interests and foreign policy. Its products underpin the work of BBC journalism, particularly when reporting on countries where direct access is restricted or prohibited. There is, in short, no question about the irreplaceable value inherent in the BBC Monitoring service. By securing this debate and sharing the contents of this speech in advance with the Minister, as I have, I aim to give the Government an opportunity to endorse its vital work tonight and perhaps shine a little light on some relevant aspects of that. First, on its budget, at the time of the December 2016 Defence Committee report, the annual costs of BBCM were known, as I said earlier, to be a modest £25 million. What is its budget today, and what percentages of its income derive from the licence fee and from each of its other main funding sources? If the Minister cannot be too specific this evening, I would be grateful if he might write to me in more detail. Secondly, now that the US Open Source Enterprise organisation is—most regrettably—no longer co-located with BBC Monitoring in the United Kingdom, what is the nature of the residual relationship between the two organisations? Do they no longer together cover the globe, freely exchanging their respective products, as in the days of Caversham Park? Does BBCM even see the OSE product? Does it have to pay for it and, if so, how much income does BBC Monitoring receive for supplying its output to the United States? Thirdly, I understand that BBCM has taken some strides in introducing artificial intelligence into its modus operandi. How far does it expect that process to go, and will human expertise and judgment remain integral to its monitoring work? Fourthly, while the restoration of an annual Government grant would be by far the most secure funding model, in the absence of that, is there any danger of BBC Monitoring being cut loose from the World Service organisation and farmed out insecurely to BBC Sounds, as has previously been mooted? Finally, with a new agreement having to be negotiated with the Government before the expiry of the existing one in two years’ time, will the Minister please undertake to set out specific details of the target quantities of actual monitoring outputs—not to be conflated with analysis—specified under the existing agreement, and the extent to which those targets have, or have not, been achieved? Only in that way shall we know if our vital open source intelligence operation truly has the resources it needs.

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentSir John Whittingdale

    Future of Terrestrial Television

    Thank you, Mr Twigg; I will do my best to keep to your limit. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on obtaining the debate. This is an important issue, and he is absolutely right that not enough discussion has taken place. Even though the potential for switch-off is a number of years away, it is an important issue that we need to start considering now. However, I will take a slightly different line from my right hon. Friend, although I will try not to fall into his category of media elite—I do not think I would include myself in that. Twenty years ago, I became Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the first report that we conducted was into analogue switch-off. Older Members may remember that there was a time when television was broadcast in analogue, and it was decided to switch off the analogue signal and move fully to digital. There was real concern about the consequences: blank screens would feature across the nation and reliance on the digital network was going to undermine the universality of the service. A lot of money and time was spent to meet that. Now, of course, nobody would ever suggest going back to analogue transmission of television. Internet protocol television is growing. Obviously, take-up of streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney is possible only through smart television sets that are capable of receiving streaming services. As we know from Ofcom, more and more people are turning to those services. Four years ago, I purchased a Sky Glass TV. I think it is still the only television that has no digital terrestrial television receiver in it at all; it operates only on IPTV and, without wishing to give too much of a plug to Sky, it is very good. I think that is where we will eventually head. Switching off the DTT signal and moving purely to IPTV is, I think, inevitable, but it is a long way off. For that reason, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s initiative in starting the discussion publicly now. There are benefits to switching off for consumers, and indeed for taxpayers. It opens up the possibility of using the existing DTT spectrum for something else. We can speculate about what that might be, but the spectrum is already under pressure from mobile services, the internet without things and all those things, so spectrum is a valuable commodity. It will save the broadcasters a bit of money, because at the moment they have to meet the cost of simulcasting on DTT and online. I think there will be advantages and, as Ofcom said, there will come a tipping point when it really becomes no longer economically viable to continue to maintain a DTT service. The other reason why I think a switch-off is worth considering is the future of the BBC. Fewer and fewer people each year choose to pay the licence fee, and we need to look at alternatives. Lots of people say, “Well, in that case, why can’t we just operate like Netflix or Amazon and charge people?” The reason is that the BBC cannot, unless it has streamed services with conditional access that allows people to choose not to receive it. That is also an important part of the debate. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are real challenges. The cost has already been referred to. In government, I had responsibility for Project Gigabit—the Minister will be all too familiar with that—and the initiative to extend gigabit broadband coverage across the country. We still have some way to go. It would be unthinkable to turn off DTT before we reach the point at which gigabit broadband is universal. In addition to reach, there is also the question of cost. We are reaching a moment at which it will be very difficult to operate without access to broadband because more and more services are going online. We need to look at all those issues before we decide to turn off. I personally think that the date that has been set as a guarantee for DTT continuing—2034—is about right. I would not want to go further than that; I am not saying that we should switch off in 2034, but it is still nine years away, and at that time the world may look very different. I think the moment will come when it clearly makes sense for broadcasting and for consumers that we move to pure internet protocol television.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentSir John Whittingdale

    Future of Terrestrial Television

    I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was actually the case that they were required to pay something. They had to purchase a set-top box, but the Government offered support to those who could not afford one. Perhaps that is an analogy we can follow in the future.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    The hon. Gentleman’s case, in essence, is that the only form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic legitimacy, but that does not square with the exercise of power in all kinds of other ways, does it? We do not elect our judges—some countries do, but we do not. We do not elect all kinds of people who exercise fundamental powers. Many kinds of legitimacy are not democratic legitimacy. Surely he acknowledges that, had the Government come forward with a proposal that allowed the hereditary peerage to wither on the vine, it would be hard for anyone in the House to disagree, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers who do not sit. I do not know the view of Members on the Government Front Bench on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid argument. If people do not attend, it is sensible that they should not retain their right to do so. If people are appointed to the House of Lords and then never turn up, there is a good argument that there should be a point at which they should be told that they no longer have that title. However, on the matter of retirement on the grounds of age, this is a very dicey business, given that we have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I want to inject some energy. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I am energetic about this matter. It is preposterous to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, on the basis that they give good service that, as I have already described, legitimately can be derived from a variety of sources. Many of them are disproportionately active in that Chamber. I accept that there is a manifesto commitment, but this could be done in a much more measured, sensible and moderate way. Is that enough energy for him?

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    Just to refresh my memory, which Government instituted the arrangement whereby a certain number of hereditaries stayed and the kind of election that the hon. Gentleman describes was introduced? Was it a Tory Government, or was it a Labour Government?

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is making the speech that he is, because he understands that, essentially, our system is an organic one. Constitutions are not written from a blueprint—they can be, but they are not in this country—and what he is describing is a blend of democratic legitimacy and the other forms of the exercise of power. What the Government are proposing is not a democratic House of Lords, but an appointed House. That in itself contradicts some of the speeches made by Labour Members.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    Just to get Cromwell right: it was Cromwell, rather like Boris Johnson, who ended the Long Parliament by walking into this Chamber, so the parallel is probably closer than the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest. Cromwell was a tyrant, really, in all kinds of other ways, who wanted his son to succeed him, so he believed in the hereditary principle. On the point of substance, the point about the House of Lords is that it is a check on the power of this place, and that is a helpful thing for Governments, actually, as sometimes Governments benefit from having to think again. The continuity that is being argued for from the Conservative Benches is part of a healthy constitutional settlement. If we sacrifice that settlement, I think we will get less good, rather than better, government.

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    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?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentSir John Hayes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    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.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    If the hereditary principle is so wrong, where does that leave the principle of an hereditary monarchy, which has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    Well, here we are again. The House of Commons and the House of Lords love debating reform of the Lords—we have been doing it for over 120 years. But we have made a bit of progress: at least, after all this time, we seem finally to have killed off the idea that the House of Lords should be elected. That is a great step forward, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in realising that that would just replicate the sort of system that they have in Washington and make it virtually impossible to have coherent government. I say well done; I think that we should give credit where it is due. The poor old Liberals have been dreaming about reform with elections for 100 years, but I am afraid that it is not going to happen. I will, though, take issue with the Minister for being a bit cruel about the Conservative party when he accused us of having been relentlessly negative for all these years. He seems to have forgotten that in the 1920s—we have heard about 1924—the Conservative party led the debate on making the House of Lords a genuine Parliament of the Commonwealth, and very innovative ideas were coming out of the Conservative party. He blames the Conservatives for endlessly blocking reform, but it was actually the unholy alliance of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell during the Wilson years that blocked the last real attempt at House of Lords reform.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    Our policy is very sensible: gradual evolution and reform. That is what the Conservative party is all about. This is an historic day, and it is a rather sad one. After the Crown, the House of Lords is the most ancient part of Parliament, and the hereditary peers are the most ancient part of the House of Lords Chamber. One can laugh at history and say, “This is all old hat,” but history is important. This all evolved from the Magnum Concilium, or Great Council, of England. The coming together of England into a single realm was through the witans assembled by the King, comprising nobles and prelates. Bishops, abbots, ealdormen and thegns came from across the land. It was not just their privilege but their feudal duty—it was all about duty—to give the King counsel and consent. It slowly evolved so that some peers sat in Parliament by their office, such as the Bishop of Lincoln, or by their hereditary title, such as the Earl of Arundel. I repeat this point: I cannot understand the contempt and hatred for people just because they have their office by virtue of heredity. The hereditary peers are the only people in the House of Lords who are actually elected by anybody.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    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.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    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.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I do not declare an interest. In a sense, that is already the case, as the Lords have suspended hereditary peer by-elections by amending the Standing Orders of their Chamber. Evolution rather than revolution—bending instead of breaking—is the usual method of British constitutional change. It has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work now. It is far wiser than overnight change. There is also the matter of optics and fairness. This, of course, is a partisan point by its very nature, but of the 86 remaining hereditary peers, 48 are members of Opposition parties—Conservative or Liberal—31 are independent Cross Benchers, and two are totally non-affiliated. Britons pride themselves on the spirit of fair play. It is not, frankly, cricket for a governing party to expel Opposition Members from the national legislature. As Lord Strathclyde pointed out, if any other country were doing this—expelling Members of Parliament primarily because they were from Opposition parties—we would be launching petitions against it.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    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.

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentSir Edward Leigh

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    No. The hon. Gentleman is a very good chap, but he has had a lot of turns. We all know that the real reason behind all of this is that the Government want to make space for more of their donors and cronies to enter the House of Lords, and that is entirely understandable. By the way, I think that there are sensible reforms that could be made in the House of Lords and that there has been a lot of abuse. I think that too many people have been appointed to the House of Lords—this is where the SNP has a good point—who are donors and cronies.

    Hansard source