In this passionate and stirring speech, Andrew Rosindell MP delivers a heartfelt defence of the British Constitution with emphasis on the role of hereditary peers in safeguarding the integrity of Parliament.
Our constitution is not something that can be redrafted by modern committees or re-imagined for political expediency. It is a priceless product of generations, shaped over a millennium, reflecting the values and way of life of the British people. He warns against reckless attempts to modernise the system, particularly by removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords—a move that he describes as an act of "constitutional vandalism."
Looking at the other side of the Chamber, I see the coat of arms of our late, dear friend Sir David Amess, who was murdered exactly three years ago today. He was a staunch defender of our traditions, our conventions and our British constitution. If he were here, I have no doubt he would argue to protect the institution of the House of Lords. I will be doing the same, and I am proud to do so.
The English constitution is not something that can be drafted today by a 21st century-style committee of experts. If we were to establish such a body, its product would be alien to us and offer far less respect and admiration than what we have today. Indeed, our English constitution—[Interruption.] Our British constitution is our birthright and the envy of the world. It is like a fine, intricate oil painting, with brush strokes meticulously painted by generation upon generation over a millennium. Our constitution depicts a priceless image of the values, the character and the way of life of the British people. I believe we must cherish and defend it, not discard it so easily without careful thought and attention to what we are doing.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
The hon. Gentleman talks movingly, comparing our evolving and changing constitution to art, but are the measures set out in the Bill not just the latest in the evolution of that changing constitution, which will make it ever better?
Josh Fenton-Glynn M.P., Member of Parliament for Calder Valley
If we are to change our constitution so radically—I believe the Bill creates a radical change—then that should be done with thought, care and attention, as well as consultation and careful consideration. As I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) earlier, I do not think this is an issue on the doorstep anywhere. During the general election campaign, I do not think anyone raised the issue as a serious matter they wanted us to deal with. There are so many other issues, yet we are rushing to make a major constitutional change without giving it due consideration.
We share a deep intergenerational responsibility in this House that rests heaviest on the Government of the day. We are the custodians of our nation and all that belongs to it, and not its master. We have a responsibility to preserve our nation and its constitution—an obligation between those who have passed on, those who are living and those who are yet to be born. That is the importance of the hereditary principle, something that Members on the Government Benches, and indeed some on the Conservative Benches, fail to appreciate.
Tony Blair’s new Labour Government took a three-inch-wide paintbrush to remake this great work of art of generations in their own image. They started a programme of thoughtless destruction, from the removal of the law Lords from the other place, with the creation of the Supreme Court, a notion alien to our constitutional heritage, to the culling of independently minded—I say those words clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker—hereditary peers and the appointment of partisan placemen.
It is no good for our constitution and it adds nothing to the work of our Parliament. It now appears that today’s Labour Government have recklessly come to finish the hatchet job on an ill-thought-out constitutional revolution in the name of so-called modernisation.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
The hon. Gentleman just made the point that the hereditary peers are a bastion of independence, and the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) said that many of the Conservative peers are long-serving Members of his party’s Front Bench team. How can those two things be reconciled?
Gareth Snell M.P., Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central
I have worked with Members of the House of Lords over many of my 23 years in Parliament. They are not seeking re-election, preferment or title. They are here to serve our country and to assist this place in making better laws. All the hereditary peers and life peers—from all parties—with whom I have had the privilege to work have always been there to serve. To discard that so easily without serious long-term consideration to the effects of doing this is reckless.
Our constitution is the most vital part of our shared British heritage, and the hereditary peers are an integral part of that, which cannot be replicated by modern means. Yet the argument in defence of hereditary peers cannot be based solely on history, however important that may be. From the Duke of Wellington, who has been mentioned, and the Duke of Norfolk, to the Earl Attlee, the Lord Northbrook, the Viscount Craigavon, who was also mentioned, and the Lord Bethell of Romford, the hereditary peers bring a wealth of intergenerational experience and knowledge to our Parliament. They have an inherited obligation and a duty to serve. They are also invaluable to our parliamentary democracy, holding the Government to account, scrutinising legislation and raising often forgotten issues of national importance. Many hereditary peers are shining examples of exemplary parliamentarians.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
If I follow the hon. Member’s argument correctly, is he saying that he would he be in favour of reversing the compromise of 1999 and going back to having more hereditary peers in the House of Lords?
Shaun Davies M.P., Member of Parliament for Telford
I do not object to the hereditary principle. I believe that hereditary peers play a vital part in the overall mix of the British Parliament. Indeed, the hereditary principle is enshrined in our constitution via the monarchy itself. In fact, our Parliament is made up of the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Those who argue to discard the hereditary principle should beware that the Crown itself is in peril if we continue to go down this road—[Interruption.] If I may continue, Madam Deputy Speaker, the removal of hereditary peers would be a grave loss to our Parliament and our country. It would be a purge of many substantial, independent voices that are immune to political patronage and work solely in the public interest for King and country. They do not seek to be popular or to win re-election; they exist to serve our nation.
It has been said that a fence should not be removed before we know why it was put up in the first place. Labour would have done well to heed this lesson from its last period of governance. Rushing to change our tried and tested system without considering the full consequences of its actions would be to commit an act of constitutional vandalism.
Why are the Government embarking on this action? What in God’s name motivates them? Is it simply to eradicate dissent in the other place? If so, this can be described only as self-serving political radicalism. Not content with a simple majority of 157 in the House of Commons—although I think that figure has gone down now as the number of independents has risen—this Government seemingly aim to eradicate dissent in the upper House through this damaging legislation.
The Bill entails the removal of Conservatives, Cross Benchers, Liberal Democrats and non-affiliated peers—but only a small number of Labour peers—who often provide the most substantial dissent to and constructive criticism of the Government’s legislative proposals. Worse still, I fear that the removal of the 92 hereditary peers is only the beginning. The next step would be the introduction of an age cap for membership, provoking an even more numerically significant second cull of dissent, enabling Labour to pack the other place with political appointments and abolishing any form of effective Opposition in the upper House.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
The hon. Gentleman seems to be operating on the premise that all hereditary peers are Conservatives. Why does he think that people with entrenched privilege are naturally Conservative?
Sam Rushworth M.P., Member of Parliament for Bishop Auckland
Order. Interventions are made by colleagues who have been contributing and spending time in the Chamber and not just wandering in; the hon. Member got very lucky just then. Mr Rosindell, please go ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Ms Nusrat Ghani M.P.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite the opposite. There are many Members of the House of Lords—life peers and hereditary peers—who take the Conservative Whip but who frankly act like independents, doing what they believe is in the interests of our country. That can be said for many on the Labour side as well. He will find that there are many more rebellions and people voting in different ways in Parliament in the Lords than in the Commons, because they are there to serve and they do not face re-election. For that reason, they are not subject to the usual pressures —lobbying, the Whips and all the rest of it—that we are all subject to, and that is why having that element is so important and is part of the mix that makes up the success of our Parliament.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving in to my indulgences. This is an argument that could quite easily have been made during the passage of the original 1999 legislation: that the expulsion of the hereditaries would lead to a complete collapse of our scrutiny processes. Is he suggesting—I do not believe he is—that since ’99 and the removal of the other hereditaries, the House of Lords has not been fulfilling its function properly? That is certainly not how I would see the current House of Lords. If he does not believe that, surely removing the existing 92 will not have an impact on the scrutiny that he and I think is so important.
Gareth Snell M.P., Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central
We cannot turn the clock back, but very many good people were ejected in that first legislation under the Blair Government. The compromise was to keep the 92 there. I think that is a good compromise and I do not really understand the rush for change; we should keep things as they are.
It is patently obvious that the Bill is a precursor for a wider and scandalous programme to weaken Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account and ride roughshod over our tried and tested constitution. Not only does the Bill open a slippery slope towards dissent-quelling, but it is an attack on the merits of the hereditary principle, which logically and inevitably leads to a fundamental undermining of the primary constitutional role of the monarchy itself. Maybe there are some Members on the Labour Benches who would like a republic, but I think the vast majority of British people would not want that, so to discard the hereditary principle is a very dangerous road to go down.
I urge the House to consider with the utmost seriousness the weight of intergenerational custodianship upon our shoulders when we vote on matters such as this, which are of grave constitutional significance. The removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords would eradicate from the proceedings of Parliament some of the wisest and most dutiful servants of this great democratic institution. I believe the House should oppose this act of constitutional vandalism and continue to uphold the good and great conventions and traditions that have provided our cherished island nation with stability, continuity and wisdom for so many generations.
Andrew Rosindell M.P., Member of Parliament for Romford
