Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

   My right hon. Friend is right. Our national story has brought us to a place where this House is rightfully dominant among the three parts of Parliament in exercising the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, but we should be careful of the wholesale execution of one of those arms. Let us be clear: that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do. The other place without them is no more a House of Lords than my terraced house in Sunninghill is. A Cromwellian purge, it would leave that place the preserve of political cronies and failed advisers. Is that what we want? Is that progress? The House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. This place has the attention span of a TikTok-addled teenager, as we jump to half-hourly news cycles driven by Twitter and rolling news.

   Hansard source
2. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

   My hon. Friend’s point is right, and I thank him for it. We walk through the Division lobbies, directed by the Whips, often having had no time, because of the impossible juggling act, to develop real knowledge of the topic in question or to think through properly the implications. Some of the stuff that leaves this place with a massive majority might have well been written in crayon. Thank God for the other place. Do not remove long-serving public servants and outstanding legislators. Do not pick at the threads of our constitution. The other place is one of the parts of our constitution which works best. We should retain Lords amendment 1 and 8. I talked of a tension, a conflict in my thinking. I have tried to articulate a deeply conservative instinct, but I also feel excitement, as I will explain. My view is that the British state is way off course, dangerously off course. It needs deep and radical change. To take one issue, immigration, almost nothing is now too radical to consider. Whether we look at the asylum system or legal migration, the radical change that the country needs will be of significant scale. None of that will be possible in the Blairite constitutional straitjacket that is at direct odds with our historic constitution.

   Hansard source
3. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

   That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds—

   Hansard source
4. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jack Rankin

   House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

   Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make to those on the Government Benches is that if a Government can expel their political opponents from the other place because the majority in this place says they are not elected, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister’s patronage, so can a new Government—so take the compromise. Be careful what you wish for.

   Hansard source
5. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Helen Grant

   People Smuggling

   I completely disagree with what the Solicitor General has said about the previous Government’s record in this area, and it is a bit rich in view of her Government’s record over the past 12 months. Reports reveal that Ministers will soon replace immigration judges with professionally trained adjudicators. We are told that is to tackle the 51,000 case appeal backlog, which will of course involve cases of people smugglers. Can she please confirm how long it will take to put that in place and whether it will require primary legislation?

   Hansard source
6. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Helen Grant

   People Smuggling

   Figures are going up and up and up, and the Solicitor General knows that. Can she confirm who these adjudicators will be—it would be lovely if she would answer the question—and will existing first-tier tribunal judges of the immigration and asylum chamber be eligible to apply?

   Hansard source
7. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Sustainable Farming Incentive

   After the elephant in the room that is the farm-destroying family farm tax, the No. 1 issue that is raised with me by Mid Buckinghamshire farmers—not least at the Bucks county show last week—is the uncertainty over the future of the SFI. I do not think it is going to cut it with farmers to say that further details will be provided in due course. They need certainty and they need it now, so will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and put a firm date on when farms will have that certainty, as well as assuring them that the new SFI will have food production at its heart?

   Hansard source
8. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Early Education and Childcare

   Today is my youngest child’s first day at school, so may I put on record my thanks to Chearsley and Haddenham Under Fives for providing exceptional early years education to both my sons, Charlie and Rupert, over recent decades? I mean years—it feels like decades! There is much to genuinely welcome from the expansion of the childcare revolution that the Minister has outlined today, which was started by the previous Government. However, coalface reports from providers like the Big Top Nursery, which has sites in Waddesdon and Berryfields in my constituency, say that Government funding only just covers or does not quite cover the full cost of them providing the exceptional care and education that they do. The double whammy of the national insurance jobs tax increase makes that all the more difficult, so may I urge the Minister, who has met me before to discuss this subject, to really look at the true cost of providing exceptional education to children in Mid Buckinghamshire, and make the case to the Treasury that the funding needs to be higher?

   Hansard source
9. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   Household Water Bills

   The future of Thames Water is in sharp focus again, affecting millions of people and potentially the wider UK taxpayer. Bizarrely, the third party—along the Benches to my left—led legal action that could have sunk the company. Reform UK is also happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to a cost of billions and pushing consumer water bills through the roof. This Labour Government, in the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, repeatedly blocked our Conservative amendment that would have enabled limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by water companies. As we reach a precipice with Thames Water, and given the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, will the Government rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer?

   Hansard source
10. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Future of Terrestrial Television

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. We are here to debate a hidden threat to a vital service that most of our constituents use every week, and that service is digital terrestrial TV, commonly known as Freeview. So that we are absolutely clear what we are talking about, it is a TV signal that is picked up through the aerial on our roofs. It lets us access broadcast TV channels from the likes of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, including ITV Border in my constituency, STV in the rest of Scotland, and S4C in Wales, as well as over 100 more channels serving a range of interests. Freeview is a universal service reaching 98.5% of the UK population, including those in remote and rural areas. It is available at no additional cost over and above the licence fee. This is a crucial point: people do not need to pay any additional monthly bills to watch terrestrial TV; all they need is a TV set and an aerial. The options for watching TV have broadened in the last few years, with the arrival of TV streaming over the internet, or IPTV, as it is known. Many of us enjoy those services, but the fact is that to do so, someone needs a high-speed fixed broadband subscription of sufficient speed and reliability, and not everyone has that.

    Hansard source
11. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Future of Terrestrial Television

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and throughout my speech I will make the point that nobody should be required to pay to watch television. As he said, it is particularly an issue in rural areas, where broadband services can be extremely patchy and speeds highly variable. In more urban and suburban areas, broadband outages are also far from uncommon. Terrestrial TV has a reliability of close to 99%, which broadband does not. Almost half—45.1%—of broadband customers experienced an outage lasting more than 48 hours in the past year. Indeed, Biggar and the surrounding communities in my constituency experienced an outage of 36 hours. Even as high-speed coverage increases through initiatives such as Project Gigabit, take-up is entirely a different matter. Research from the consultancy EY estimates that by 2040, some 5.5 million premises will not have taken up a high-speed fixed broadband subscription. Today, some people cannot access fixed broadband because the signal where they live is not fast or reliable enough. Other people simply cannot afford to pay for fixed broadband subscriptions on top of other bills. Millions of people are relying exclusively on mobile for access to the internet. Indeed, data from Citizens Advice suggested that, in 2022 alone, up to 1 million people cancelled their broadband subscription because of the high cost of living. That is why terrestrial TV remains essential—because it is universal. Indeed, it is the guarantee of universalism in British broadcasting, and that is a priceless asset. For terrestrial TV to provide that bedrock guarantee of universal access, complementing internet streaming, gives the UK the best of both worlds. It is a hybrid model that is so much more robust than putting all our eggs in one basket and relying on a single point of failure. In addition, the service remains hugely popular and widely used. More than 80% of BBC and ITV content is watched on linear broadcast TV—that is, live on channels such as BBC One or ITV2. Of that viewing, about half—a huge amount—is through terrestrial TV. Indeed, it remains the main way TV content is consumed in the UK. The reason why we are having this debate today is that despite being a widely used and, in my view, essential service, it is currently under threat of being switched off within a decade. The licences that support terrestrial TV expire in 2034, and the Government have so far not provided a long-term commitment. Yet there is no need to consider switching off terrestrial TV in the mid-2030s, be that for political, technological or financial reasons. The Government have the opportunity to announce that they support terrestrial TV’s role for the longer term. Nobody, or not very many people, is suggesting that the BBC should be switched off when its current charter concludes in 2027. The projections suggest that terrestrial TV will continue to make a crucial contribution and serve millions of viewers well past that date. However, there are some voices calling for an end to terrestrial TV by the mid-2030s and a transition of all viewing to online streaming only. The BBC director general, Tim Davie, recently said as much, and there are those in parts of the broadcast and telecoms sectors who would certainly welcome it. Ministers have a decision to make, and I am delighted to see this Minister with us today to respond to the debate. I know she encourages debate and discussion on this issue, and I particularly congratulate her on tackling the issue head-on with the forum that she has convened on the future of TV distribution. I hope that, in her remarks later, she will be able to tell us more about the work of the forum and how it will feed into her decision making, as well as about the timescales she anticipates for that. I know from my meetings with ITV and Sky that broadcasters are eager to hear from the Minister too. This issue has flown a bit under the radar so far, and any decision could have profound consequences for people across the UK. Indeed, the principal reason why we are having this debate is to raise awareness about the potential end to terrestrial TV, which is too little understood. Recent research from the Digital Poverty Alliance, which I commend to Members, revealed that 69% of the public were completely unaware that the future of terrestrial TV was under threat at all, and 73% of people polled believed that terrestrial TV should be protected well beyond 2035. That is really my message today—any talk about a switch-off of terrestrial TV in the 2030s is completely premature and unrealistic. The Government have the opportunity to take that possibility off the table and give certainty for the service into the 2040s. We could use various analogies to exemplify the point about a hybrid model of delivery being best. I would make the analogy with the debate about access to cash, on which I have long campaigned. The creeping withdrawal of banks and free cashpoints, especially from smaller towns and more rural settings, means that we are sleepwalking to a cashless society. Many people value the ability to make cashless transactions, and no doubt the convenience of digital payments will continue to expand, but the fact is that many people still want to be able to access cash, and the Government rightly stepped in to provide a guarantee that cash would remain available. Exactly the same argument applies in respect of terrestrial TV. Indeed, it is an even stronger argument, because the viewing rates for terrestrial TV are far higher than the rates of use of cash. Even as more of us stream more content online, it is terrestrial TV that guarantees universal access and that is there when fixed broadband fails. The same research I cited earlier revealed that 70% of the public feel reassured by knowing that terrestrial TV is available as a fall-back option, even if they do not use it on a daily basis. I am sure that we will hear during the debate about a range of factors that Ministers need to consider as they make decisions about the future of terrestrial TV. What cannot be denied is that any move to switch it off would hit the most vulnerable people the hardest, including those struggling with the cost of living, many older people, people living with disabilities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) highlighted, those in remote, rural and island communities. They all rely on terrestrial TV to stay connected and, in many cases, do not have the choice of simply switching to streaming. Debates about broadcasting are often dominated by perspectives from what might be called a media elite, by which I mean those who tend to be in and of the big cities—London, but not just London—and a bit more middle class and a little younger. That is no criticism of those individuals, but we have to be aware that not everyone sees things from their perspective, and we, as legislators, need to be focused on ensuring that we serve the whole country, including those whose lives are quite different. When the Minister is being told by broadcasters and others that the direction of travel is away from terrestrial TV, cash payments or many other things, I urge her to bear in mind, as I am sure she will, that so many of the people we represent see things differently. Some may argue that we just need to accept that more and more services are moving online. Some in the industry have even suggested that the threat of losing access to TV is a good way of forcing people who are not online to get online. However, as Elizabeth Anderson, the chief executive officer of the Digital Poverty Alliance, has said: “What would be unconscionable…is to use any threat of the removal of the terrestrial TV service as a coercive stick with which to force people to take on new and unwelcome financial burdens simply to continue being connected to shared televisual experiences. The millions of people who watch terrestrial TV every day as their preferred mode of TV viewing deserve more respect than to be treated in that way.” It is simply a fact that a large category of people who today enjoy accessing TV through the terrestrial service would be excluded if the service were switched off in the 2030s. Let me be clear: guaranteeing the long-term future of terrestrial TV is by no means anti-digital, as some may claim. In fact, protecting the future of terrestrial TV is what makes our media industry one of the most digitally diverse globally. Losing terrestrial TV could damage the viability of UK-wide broadcast networks, which are relied on by a range of other sectors, including radio. I expect that the Minister will refer to the financial viability of the service. In fact, terrestrial TV represents a very modest cost to broadcasters right now—less than 3% of the licence fee to fund a universal service. Indeed, research by the consultancy EY indicates that the costs of terrestrial TV could be reduced substantially in the future if it has the certainty of a longer life span to justify investment. The financial implications of any switch-off also need to be factored in. As I have already explained, there would be new costs for viewers who would need to take out high- speed fixed broadband subscriptions; on average, the cost for them would be an extra £214 a year. It would also mean new costs for the Government, who would potentially have to fund the upgrades necessary to make the internet infrastructure suitable for a huge surge in demand. EY estimates that that cost would be £1 billion annually as an ongoing—indeed, permanent—subsidy. In reality, there would be a shift in the cost burden of TV distribution, away from the broadcasters and on to the shoulders of viewers and taxpayers. As things stand, we would lose a vital service and we would all pay more for less. Clearly, that looks like a good deal for the BBC and other broadcasters; what is less clear is whether it would be a good deal for my constituents and those of other MPs. Broadcasters should be careful what they wish for. As I have already said, the reality is that only a tiny percentage of the licence fee goes on paying for terrestrial TV. For the price of the licence fee, the BBC guarantees universal, free-to-air access to broadcast TV content to virtually everyone in the UK. Without that universality, it might be a lot harder to make the case for the licence fee as a flat tax on TV ownership. I say again that we should get some clarity from the Government and that the possibility of losing terrestrial TV in the next decade should be taken off the table. Instead, let us give viewers the guarantee of universal access to Great British broadcasting through the best-of-both-worlds model that we have today, retaining it well into the future.

    Hansard source
12. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Future of Terrestrial Television

    I commit to concluding my remarks when the bell tolls. I particularly thank the Minister for getting in a very full response before we have to conclude proceedings. It was very telling that when she read out the research that has been conducted, it was entirely in tune with what hon. Members had been saying throughout the debate—about the vulnerable, those who are remote and rural, and those who do not have good access to broadband. While I would never want to characterise my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) as a member of the media elite, and I am sure that Sky Glass is an excellent product, I must point out that many of my constituents are unable, either practically or financially, to access it. That is very much what this debate is about: we have to focus on the people who are not in a position to do that. The Minister can look back at the digital switchover, which was trialled in my own constituency a long time ago —the first switchover took place there. People who switched from analogue to digital were not then asked to pay a broadband subscription. The television service that they had was essentially changed, but they were not asked to pay anything for that to happen. Although the exercise was well managed, the analogy is not quite complete.

    Hansard source
13. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Future of Terrestrial Television

    Well, we could go into the detail, because not everybody required a set-top box, but we are not going down that route. What we can agree is that, when that change was made, there was a huge intervention to allow it to take place smoothly. I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) emphasised how much television helps wellbeing and reduces loneliness. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) hit the nail on the head when she said that for many people, the television in the corner is a companion. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made very good points about the infrastructure behind television services and supporting local retailers. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) set out the practical issues in relation to the transmitter network. I have seen the transmitter in his constituency many times—it is often a beacon on a dark night in central Scotland—and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to visit it. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) set out many of the same issues as I face in my large rural constituency. We must keep our focus on the people living in such areas. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) asked very clearly, “Who is going to pay for the switchover?” That, too, is very important. The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), bringing to bear his experience, made really important points, particularly about scheduling and all the things that terrestrial television brings as the core of the network.

    Hansard source
14. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Future of Terrestrial Television

    Well, I would not want to leave without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his important contribution. Thank you, Mr Twigg.

    Hansard source
15. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Gretna Green in my constituency as not just the wedding capital of the UK, but the wedding capital of Europe? It is particularly popular with couples from the north-west, and obviously, any MP who is still looking to be wed would be made most welcome there. However, many of the rules and regulations around civil ceremonies are arcane and bureaucratic. While there must always be proper checks, surely simplicity, spontaneity, innovation and joy must also be important. As such, will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate on modernising marriage laws?

    Hansard source
16. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Early Education and Childcare

    There were five major expansions of early years education and childcare entitlement under the last Government; what the Minister has announced today would have been our sixth. But since we formed this policy, the new Government have made a massive increase in the tax on jobs. When will Ministers next publish their assessment of the economics of running a nursery and of how they ensure that there will continue to be adequate supply of high-quality places, in places like Alton, Petersfield and Horndean?

    Hansard source
17. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Moorland Protection

    I join the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) in paying tribute to the firefighters, farmers, gamekeepers and everybody who has taken part in fighting the moorland fires in North Yorkshire, just over the border from my constituency. Does the Minister agree about the huge importance of managing moorland? Managed burning of moorland not only improves the ecological status of the moorland, but reduces the threat of wildfire.

    Hansard source
18. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Business of the House

    Charlie Dodds from Driffield in my constituency is just one year old and suffers from a rare mitochondrial condition. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to his parents, Harrison and Ellie, for the £35,000 they have raised for research into this condition? Will she commit Government time to a debate on NHS funding for rare conditions?

    Hansard source
19. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    Order. Mr Wishart, we are debating the amendments, not your vision for the future of the House of Lords. Perhaps you should stick to the amendments.

    Hansard source
20. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    Just to be entirely clear, it was the property rights element of the hon. Member’s contribution that I thought was beyond scope. I think all Members—the House will be conscious that I have not been in the Chair very long—might like to stick to the scope of the amendments and what we are actually debating this afternoon.

    Hansard source
21. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have plenty of respect for it.

    Hansard source
22. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Grooming Gangs

    11. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to prosecute people for grooming gang offences.

    Hansard source
23. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Grooming Gangs

    I welcome the fact that the backlog of those cases will be examined again, and that historical cases will be looked at, but one of the challenges is that whistleblowers in local authorities were sacked under non-disclosure agreements. What advice is the Crown Prosecution Service providing to ensure that those NDAs are removed so that we can get to the truth of what happened with those terrible crimes against young girls?

    Hansard source
24. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for next week. She will know that 50 Back Benchers were frustrated on Monday that they were not able to debate transport inequalities. Obviously there were important statements—we understand that—but will she consider giving that debate protected time next week, so that all those who wish to contribute can do so, rather than being confined to about 30 seconds each if the debate is squeezed in next week? In addition to business in the Chamber, there will be a debate on the hydrogen supply chain next Tuesday in Westminster Hall. On Thursday 11 September, there will be two debates: one on improving regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments, and one on consumer affairs. On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I ask for early notice of the business we will be allocated in the week when we come back after the conference season, so that we can allocate time for many of the debates that are waiting. Next week the London underground network is likely to grind to a halt, as the trade unions are calling out individual sections throughout that week. The last time the unions went on strike, the Labour Mayor of London had to find £30 million to buy them off. The Transport Secretary has long experience, having been Deputy Mayor for Transport in London, but as far as I am aware, she has not uttered a single word about what will happen next week. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Transport Secretary to come to the House and let us know what will happen in London next week if the strike goes ahead? I know we have Transport questions next Thursday, but frankly that is too late.

    Hansard source
25. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    Business of the House

    The Leader of the House will be aware of the outrage across the country regarding illegal immigration, asylum hotels and now the huge increase in the number of houses in multiple occupation. This is happening on a large scale in Romford, with a massive boom in HMOs. My constituents want to see an end to illegal immigration and the housing of asylum seekers in local hotels. However, transferring the problem to roads and neighbourhoods, and putting families and children at risk in residential streets, is not acceptable. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate on the Floor of the House on the need to adopt an urgent strategy to end the use of hotels and HMOs for this purpose?

    Hansard source
26. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I commend the Father of the House for everything he is saying; he sums everything up perfectly. This is constitutional vandalism, and it is destroying the continuity that has made this place so effective and so special for so many centuries. This is clearly being done with a political motivation, which I think is thoroughly wrong. If we make a constitutional reform, at very least the British people should have a say in a referendum.

    Hansard source
27. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hereditary principle is wrong and that no one should be in this Parliament by dint of DNA, surely he is saying that we should abolish the monarchy. The Crown is part of this Parliament and Royal Assent is part of the legislative process. If we go by his principle, the hon. Gentleman is basically saying that the monarchy itself is no longer relevant. Is that what he is saying?

    Hansard source
28. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    My hon. Friend is making the correct argument. The hereditary peerage in the House of Lords represents continuity in our country and wisdom throughout the ages. Most of the House of Lords is appointed, but that hereditary element is vital as part of the mix of our very successful parliamentary constitution.

    Hansard source
29. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    What I am puzzled about is this: how does the abolition of these great people who have come to this place with a duty of service that they have inherited and served the country benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent? How will our constituents benefit by this change to our constitution? Does the hon. Member really think that this country will be so much better for having got rid of our hereditary peers, who have such a great duty of service to our country?

    Hansard source
30. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    It is a small element.

    Hansard source
31. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Business of the House

    In a week when the Liberal Democrat-run Arun district council has been found to have the worst possible grading for its social housing provision—including more than half of its homes being without smoke alarms—it is alleged that two senior directors, including one responsible for housing, have left the council with redundancy payments totalling £350,000. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how best to hold the council to account in this place for the benefit of taxpayers in my constituency?

    Hansard source
32. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Privilege

    It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I thank him for being so generous in leaving so much time for others to speak. We absolutely support the motion that he has brought before the House. We are deeply concerned that anyone, least of all a public body, should be seeking to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration from laying reports before this House. As my hon. Friend has set out with admirable clarity, we have a long-standing and absolute right to be able to gather and examine relevant information for our inquiries and our work. The linkage between the ombudsman and the House is well-established and long-standing, and nothing should impede it. Legal proceedings should not be seeking to prevent the laying of a report before this House, so we strongly support that this House should reassert its ancient right to request and require papers and evidence.

    Hansard source
33. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    No I haven’t.

    Hansard source
34. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    It is a pleasure to debate this historic piece of legislation on an historic day; my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) reminds me that it is the 1,100th anniversary of Athelstan being crowned King at Kingston, and I know there are a great many celebrations going on there today. The monarchy lives on—even if His Majesty’s Government are making changes to our ancient Parliament. The Paymaster General accused the Conservatives of having been in hibernation, but it must be the Paymaster General who has been in hibernation, for he seems to have forgotten the fact that we are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the disastrous decisions that his Government have made—against the enormous damage that his party has done to our country in the short months it has been in power, and the worst Budget that we have seen in a very long time, which has caused 30-year borrowing to be at a higher rate than it ever was under the previous Government, or indeed the Government before. It is a truly terrible state of affairs, and economic experts say that we are heading towards an economic crash. It is already costing jobs in the constituencies of all the hon. Gentlemen across the Chamber every month. It is a serious issue—one that this Opposition called out at the Budget and will continue to call out. I hope that the Government see sense before disaster strikes. Before I move on to the specifics of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to the quality of debate, first in this Chamber at the outset of the legislation and then the sheer quality of debate in the Lords. It reflects just how significant our upper House is to our constitution in its ability to strengthen legislation through scrutiny. I particularly want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who has done so much to hold the Government to account as they have pushed these measures through. The Paymaster General has talked about the Conservatives seeking to block legislation in the Lords. I am absolutely delighted that we have been trying to block their terrible legislation, and I am very pleased that the Lords have sent the Bill back with a number of improving amendments that speak of the decent scrutiny that is being done in the other place. I agree with the Paymaster General at the outset that we accept the Government’s concession on powers of attorney. It is a sensible change, and I am glad that there is at least one issue on which we can find agreement. We are pleased that during the course of the debate the Labour party has made a number of significant and historic clarifications to its positions. It seems finally that the Labour party has agreed that an elected upper House would be a bad idea. I personally welcome that; I think an elected upper Chamber would totally disrupt the balance of our constitution. It would take away from the primacy of this House and often lead to constitutional deadlock. It has taken the Labour party about 100 years to reach that conclusion, but I welcome it joining the side of right. I am also very pleased that Gordon Brown’s disastrous plans for constitutional reform, which were published during the last Parliament, have been done away with. They would have caused utter mayhem had they been pushed through by this Government, so I commend those on the Front Bench for kicking Gordon Brown’s terrible ideas into touch. I was pleased to see that the Government have reneged on their manifesto commitment to kick out peers who are over 80. It was a terrible idea, and I am very pleased that they have seen good sense. There are a lot of excellent peers who are over 80, such as Lord Dubs and, by the end of this Parliament, Lord Blunkett, Lord Clarke, and Lord Heseltine—people who have added to the richness of the House, who bring their experience and who should not be barred on the grounds of age. I congratulate the Labour Government on having admitted their terrible mistake.

    Hansard source
35. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I fully accept that the Labour party has changed its mind, but in doing so it has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s. Let us be clear about what is happening. The Labour Government are now seeking to remove a whole group of public servants who have done nothing wrong—

    Hansard source
36. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    Sit down. Those public servants are in the Lords because the last Labour Government put them there as part of the deal that it struck on long-term constitutional change.

    Hansard source
37. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    The hon. Gentleman will understand that this legislation is not being blocked but improved. That is what Parliament does, and that is how the process of scrutiny works. He will see very clearly that the amendments make significant improvements to the faulty legislation that his party brought forward.

    Hansard source
38. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I do not recall us saying that it was a terrible idea. I distinctly remember many Conservative peers speaking in favour of it actually, but that is part of the joy of the independence of the upper House, which, as I will shortly explain, risks being undermined by this legislation. What the Government are now trying to do is remove a group of public servants who have done nothing wrong and who have simply served their country and continue to do so. The reason they are being removed is very clear: the Government cannot rely on their votes. Consequently, they are attempting to take a group of opponents out of Parliament by Act of Parliament. This is simply Cromwellian. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is a second Cromwell. Cromwell was a great man—a “brave, bad man” as Clarendon said—while the Prime Minister is just a man. I do not believe that the Government have Cromwellian intent. They are doing something clumsy and foolish, but—I mean this seriously—what they are doing will set a precedent. I do not believe it is a route that the Paymaster General would follow, but the people who come after him may be much more like Cromwell than he. [Interruption.] There is laughter from behind the Paymaster General, but I want us to think seriously about what future Parliaments might look like. If the precedent is set that political opponents can be removed by Act of Parliament, someone in the future, even if maybe not tomorrow, in two years or in 10 years, will point back to this—I guarantee it. It does not need to happen this way. We have a group of people already in the House of Lords and already doing a job. Take Viscount Stansgate, who is an excellent Member of the House of Lords and Deputy Speaker. As I am sure hon. Members know, there are 65 hereditary peers who sit on parliamentary Committees, so this change will be enormously and unnecessarily disruptive to the working of the House. It would be much better to leave them in place and let them do their jobs.

    Hansard source
39. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I am interested in my hon. Friend’s excellent point, and I hope the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks. What we will see is the removal of a group of public servants to make way for Labour placemen and Labour stooges—a huge act of patronage. I do not think anybody here believes that will improve scrutiny. It is just a numbers game. It is simply an attempt to give the Government a more compliant majority in the House of Lords, which they do not need. The Government will be able to get their business through the House of Lords anyway, so this is an unnecessary change that, despite the comments of the Paymaster General, belittles the contribution of the peers who already sit. It belittles their service, and it does not need to be done. I turn to Lords amendment 2, on pay. I was interested by the Paymaster General’s response and listened closely to the detail he set out. There is an important principle here. We ask people to serve as Ministers of the Crown, and I think most of our constituents would agree that those Ministers should be paid. Members of the House of Lords are on no salary. They can collect their £361 a day if they turn up, but let us assume that one such Member is an unpaid Minister in the Home Office. They will find that on many working days they will be expected to travel—perhaps to Northern Ireland, Scotland or the north of England—and they will not be able to collect their allowance. On top of that, for taking on that important, unpaid job, they will also, for understandable reasons, have to give up their outside interests. That means simply that many people in the House of Lords can afford to take ministerial jobs only if they are already of considerable means. I just do not think that the Paymaster General, in his heart of hearts, wants to see the perpetuation of that. If he does not agree with the Lords amendment, will he confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward comprehensive plans on that? I will correct the Paymaster General on one small point of fact. He said that if Ministers in the House of Lords were paid, we would need to reduce the number of Ministers in the House of Lords as only a certain number of Ministers can be paid.

    Hansard source
40. 4 Sep 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    I will let the Paymaster General intervene if he wants to provide clarity on that technical point.

    Hansard source