House of Commons

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 8 November 2023

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

On Monday, I officially opened the Constituency Garden of Remembrance in New Palace Yard. I thank those of you who have already planted Remembrance tributes. For those who have not yet done so, you, or a member of your team, are welcome to plant a Remembrance tribute before 4 pm on Thursday. At 1 pm today there will be a wreath-laying service at the Recording Angel Memorial under the stained-glass window at the St Stephen’s Entrance end of Westminster Hall. This is the main memorial to Members and staff of both Houses, including police officers, who died in both world wars. All are welcome to attend.

I also draw to the House’s attention the retirement of Peter Barratt, who served the House of Commons for more than 32 years, including 10 years as the Speaker’s Assistant Secretary and eight years as the Speaker’s Secretary. His commitment, loyalty and professionalism will be missed, and I would like to thank him personally for everything he did during his time here. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me when I say that we wish him all the very best for the future. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Pakistan: Evacuation of Afghans

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

11:35

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the evacuation of Afghans from Pakistan.

[The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question.

The Government have reacted decisively and swiftly to relocate people to safety in the United Kingdom following the collapse of Afghanistan the year before last. The UK Government remain committed to relocating eligible Afghans and their families under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, and we will continue to honour that promise. The Government’s policy, rightly, was to ensure that eligible Afghan families had secured accommodation in the UK before travel was facilitated for their relocation. We wanted to give them the best possible start to their new lives, to provide the best value for money for the taxpayer, and to ensure Afghans were integrated into UK society in the best manner available.

However, developments in the region have impacted our security assessments and previous assumptions. That has led to the Government’s removing the need for settled accommodation for individuals eligible under ARAP prior to relocation to the United Kingdom. The safety and security of ARAP-eligible Afghans has always been of paramount importance and we make no apology at all for changing the policy to react to the changing context.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence continue to work to ensure that eligible individuals under the ARAP and the ACR scheme are supported in Pakistan. The safety and security of ARAP and ACRS-eligible Afghans is paramount in our minds. The MOD continues to monitor the security assessments in that country, but following this cross-Government decision the Prime Minister has asked me to co-ordinate across Government to support the MOD in developing a new relocations plan for ARAP-eligible persons. As Members know, previously the policy was that only those who had secured accommodation in the United Kingdom would travel to the United Kingdom. We are changing that policy as a result of changing conditions on the ground.

The MOD has worked hard to stand up a total of more than 700 service family accommodations for mixed purposes, or transitory and settled accommodation. I pay tribute to the Minister for Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), for his work on that. Our new plans will see approximately 2,800 ARAP-entitled personnel moved from Pakistan to the United Kingdom by the end of December 2023. Entitled personnel may move straight into settled accommodation on the MOD. Where service family accommodation is unavailable, families will move into transitional accommodation as a first step. Where SFA is not suited to the needs of ARAP-entitled personnel, alternative accommodation will be procured.

This Prime Minister and this Government are determined to see through our commitments to those who served with the UK forces in Afghanistan. I commend this statement to the House.

[Alison Thewliss]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

I am afraid that the Minister’s answer gives no reassurance whatsoever to constituents who have contacted me in a state of extreme panic over the last few weeks. Members have had no information on what is currently happening. It has been clear for some time that Pakistan aims to expel Afghans, who went there for safety, back to Afghanistan. I have been trying to get clarity on how many people there are in Pakistan to whom we have a duty and an obligation, and who are waiting for the UK Government simply to process their paperwork so that they can leave and come to their families here in the UK. I have not had those answers from the Minister.

One constituent contacted me whose sister and her five children have been threatened with imprisonment in Pakistan if they do not leave. Her other family members—her parents, her brother and her cousin—have been returned to Afghanistan, and she cannot contact them. She does not know where they are or what has happened to them. Given that they fled from the Taliban in the first place, she is terrified for them. She has been given very unclear advice by UK officials in Pakistan on what exactly they are entitled to and whether they will be able to get on a flight at all.

Another constituent, a gentleman, contacted me on 25 October after seeing the news that there will be charter flights from Pakistan carrying Afghans who have been processed. He has been trying to get answers on the status of his family, including whether they have a valid application, whether they can get on a plane and whether they can come to safety with him. He was stuck there with his family at the fall of Afghanistan, and he is extremely distressed about the situation. Again, I have been asking questions of various Departments and have had no answers whatsoever. What advice should I give to my constituent?

There have been no updates to MPs, despite there being reports in the news of charter flights and of people coming. We have also heard on the news that people in Islamabad—people who are entitled—have been warned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to hide indoors. The British high commission has apparently warned people in hotels in Islamabad not to go outside due to the risk of arrest and deportation, so who is eligible for these charter flight? Is it people on the ARAP and ACRS schemes, people with valid family reunion paperwork or people who are still waiting for their paperwork to be done? We do not know, and I have families in my constituency with four of five members who have been processed and one who has been left behind. Can the Minister tell us exactly how many people in Pakistan are waiting for the UK Government to process their paperwork so that they can finally come to safety? We have a duty to these Afghans, and we are failing them yet again.

[Johnny Mercer]

I must be completely clear to the House that this is not an issue of delayed paperwork. Afghanistan collapsed, and the UK conducted Operation Pitting to retrieve Afghans from Kabul and bring them to the UK. They went into hotel accommodation because we did not have enough housing. That was the right thing to do at the time.

Since then, it has become clear that it is entirely unsuitable for these families to be in hotel accommodation for long periods of time. They were therefore held in Pakistan, and rightly so. The situation in Pakistan has now changed, and we will now accelerate the process and get them into SFA accommodation in the UK so that we meet our duties.

I do not want to see anybody detained or deported from Pakistan if they are entitled to be in the United Kingdom, and I will work to achieve that outcome. I caution against spreading rumours of things that I am not seeing on the ground. It is an extremely challenging environment but, ultimately, we have a commitment to these people and I am determined to see it through.

On the Afghan population in hotels, I have heard the same questions, demands and allegations that we would not be successful before, but we were. I hear the hon. Lady’s questions, but the situation has changed. We have now changed our response, and we will relocate these people back to the United Kingdom.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is reassuring to hear that this is not a paperwork issue, because it has now been more than two years since the fateful airlift. It was also particularly problematic to find accommodation for Afghan families because they tended to be large families and the accommodation was not available.

I am more worried about the change of policy in Pakistan and the influences on and within the Pakistani Government. What conversations are Ministers having with the Pakistani Government about the aid we pay to Pakistan, some of which is to cover the many Afghan refugees who fled into Pakistan, to keep them safe and out of danger until we can take those to whom we have a duty? Surely that should be a subject of conversations with the Pakistani Government.

[Johnny Mercer]

My hon. Friend is right that those conversations are paramount in our mind, given the shift in policy from the Pakistani Government towards Afghans. We are driving through protection for those to whom we have a duty, where they have been approved to come to the UK. We must ensure that we continue our existing agreements with Pakistan, and the Foreign Office is working hard to do that. Now that we have an accelerated plan, I hope that those in Pakistan who are eligible to be in the UK are protected from any of those policies, that we look after them and that we bring them back to the UK, as has been our promise from the start.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

We owe many Afghans a debt of gratitude for supporting British aims in Afghanistan. In the summer and autumn of 2021, the UK Government rightly promised to honour that debt by offering those Afghans resettlement in the UK. However, the Government’s Operation Warm Welcome fast became “Operation Cold Shoulder”. Of those Afghans who made it to Britain, 8,000 were crammed into hotels over a two-year period. They were then evicted, without consultation with local authorities, leaving many Afghan families facing homelessness this winter.

Worse, the Prime Minister last November personally gave instructions to Ministers that no more flights should be chartered from Pakistan to bring Afghans who have a right to resettlement here to the UK, despite more than 3,000 Afghan refugees being stuck in hotels in Pakistan, when the British Government had promised those very individuals refuge in the UK through the ARAP and ACRS.

Keeping those loyal-to-Britain Afghans in limbo was shameful enough, but even more disgracefully the Prime Minister changed tack only when the Pakistani Government started threatening to send those loyal-to-Britain Afghans back to Afghanistan to meet their fate at the hands of the Taliban. In short, the Government of Pakistan have strong-armed our weak Prime Minister into delivering something that it was our duty as a country to deliver in the first place. That is a truly shameful and humiliating state of affairs.

What we now need to know from the Minister is: how many flights has he chartered? When will they be running from and until? What assurance has he received from the Pakistani Government that they will extend the deadline for Afghans who are to be expelled back into Afghanistan until after all the UK flights have been completed? Are the Government aware of any cases of Afghans eligible under ARAP or ACRS who have been forcibly returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan? If so, what steps are the Government taking to bring those people to safety as a matter of urgency? Finally, what progress has he made on clearing the record high asylum backlog and securing accommodation for these Afghans, whom we desperately need to get out of Pakistan as rapidly and urgently as possible?

[Johnny Mercer]

It is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously when he comes out with statements that are demonstrably untrue; I know that he would not want to mislead the House, but he mentions engaging local authorities and I literally drove round engaging them. As he well knows, this stuff is not correct. Having served in Afghanistan and, during the summer, having driven round every hotel to visit Afghans personally to ensure that none of them slept homeless and that we saw through our duty, I will take no lessons from anybody about how we feel towards this Afghan cohort. Clearly, I will not go into the details of which flights are taking off when.

This Prime Minister and this Government are clear that as the situation has changed we are seeking to get guarantees from the Pakistan Government that those entitled to be here will not be deported from that country. If that does happen, the hon. Gentleman will be able to recall me to this House and I will have failed, but that is not going to happen. This is much like my promise on homelessness; he spent the entire summer saying that something would come to fruition but, again, it never did. On this side of the House we have to govern in the real space, where we deal with operational decisions on a daily basis; we cannot whip ourselves into a lather to try to score points off some of the poorest people in the world. We are determined to see through our commitments to the people of Afghanistan and I look forward to his working with me in that pursuit.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The situation with Pakistan expelling more than 1.5 million Afghan people from its borders is deeply worrying. I am glad that the Veterans Minister is here today and is going to focus on the very small number of people who may be entitled to come to the UK—it will be just a few thousand. Many hundreds of thousands face the threat of needing to go back into Afghanistan, into the hands of the Taliban, where the economy is in a dreadful position and the country is reeling from the earthquake. These people fear for their lives. What representations are the Foreign Office and our allies making to the Pakistan Government to ask them to think again? What support are we giving to those stuck in a humanitarian crisis on the border?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will be honest with my hon. right hon. Friend that there are clear distinctions in my role to deal with those who were in Pakistan who are entitled to be in the United Kingdom. Wider Pakistan engagement is a job for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which is busily engaged in that. My priority is to ensure that those who are entitled to be in the UK—those who have been approved to come to the United Kingdom—are not subject to wider Pakistan policy in Afghanistan, but that wider policy is being influenced by the Foreign Office, which is working on that every day. The situation has changed and we are reconfiguring ourselves to deal with that, to ensure that we honour our promises to people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Although I welcome the decision, may I say to the Minister that it would have been much better to tell the House about it in a statement rather than an urgent question? We all know the huge pressures on accommodation in the United Kingdom and on local councils, so can the Minister say what engagement has taken place with local councils? What does “transitional accommodation” mean and how does it fit with the Home Office policy of not using hotels?

[Johnny Mercer]

The policy of not using hotels is absolutely right and remains. In the summer, there was a huge effort to try to remove that barrier to settling into the United Kingdom and the policy remains. However, in extremis, that will not be a barrier to people coming to the UK where they are at risk of deportation. We are going to keep those people safe. As we speak, we are working up our policy on how to ensure that we integrate this cohort, much as we did in the summer. Discussions with different Departments are ongoing. When we have agreed the policy, I will come to the House to share it with everybody. I hope it will be along similar lines to previous policy, but it requires collective agreement. We will work hard and go around the houses to ensure that the Afghan families who are in Pakistan but entitled to be here are given every opportunity to settle in the UK. We have a good record on this and I am determined to keep that going.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

As the Minister will know, it was my pleasure to work on the removals around Operation Pitting with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence and the FCDO. I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken to finally move many of those people out of hotels. It is no secret that, back in late 2021, I expressed concerns about just putting people into hotels and hoping offers of accommodation would come forward. Anyone with any knowledge of housing supply knew that the size of the families involved meant that would take some time, so I congratulate him on what he did this summer. Will he reassure me that we are thinking through what would be suitable family accommodation for the people we are bringing into this country, and that we will not just be sticking people in hotels intended for businessmen to stay in for a couple of nights rather than for families to live in for months? What type of accommodation does he have in mind for this cohort?

[Johnny Mercer]

We will divide up the cohort. Some of the families are exceptionally large and not what we are used to in this country. To deal with that, the funding was designed specifically so that we could do really pioneering work, such as knocking through adjoining properties to create properties big enough for Afghan families. There is a challenge with large Afghan families, but they are not the majority of the cohort. We can accommodate the majority of the cohort in service family accommodation, but where we cannot do that I am hoping to design schemes that will allow us to use funding in a flexible manner, to ensure that these people are accommodated correctly, in line with the promises we have made to the people of Afghanistan.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

There are still outstanding issues with regard to the processing of Afghan cases here and I want to use this occasion to make a special plea to the Minister. I have a constituent who is a former senator in Afghanistan. The processing of his case is still being delayed, partly because of some problems about location that we have tried to deal with. I met him this week and I think he now has serious mental health problems as a result of the stress he is under. I will write again to the Minister and I would welcome his personal attention on this case.

[Johnny Mercer]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to all hon. Members who have personal cases to email me as I am happy to take them over. I have been brought in very recently and I will do what I can to get answers in those cases. A lot of cases are not simple—they are not black and white. As everybody across the House knows, I will always be honest about the challenges and we will do everything that we can to look after these people.

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

In the interests of impartiality, I will quote from The Guardian, which puts the figure of Afghans currently stranded in UK-funded hotels in Islamabad at 3,000. Indeed, according to reports, those hotels have been raided by Pakistani authorities. What assessment does the Minister make of that figure and of what has been happening? Furthermore, what discussions has he been having with our high commissioner in Pakistan and his opposite number in the Pakistani Government?

[Johnny Mercer]

This is a cross-Government effort, so people from the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are in contact with the high commissioner in Pakistan every day. We are well aware of this challenge. There are two separate issues here: one is the wider Pakistani policy towards Afghans, which is not part of my work in this space; and the other is that being applied to those who are entitled to be in the UK and have been pre-approved to be in the UK. It is the latter that I am concerned about. We are determined to get assurances on them and we will keep working until we do. I have already made a commitment that if a single one of them is deported back whence they came, I will have failed, but we will make sure that does not happen.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on securing this urgent question, particularly as it has given us some clarity today. The Minister has talked about accommodation. What I am hearing from my country contacts through the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls is that the focus seems to be on families, and that only families are being evacuated. That means that single women, many of whom have worked in politics and teaching, and those from the LGBT+ community are feeling particularly vulnerable, and they are most at risk of reprisals if they are deported back to Afghanistan. Can the Minister clarify what is happening for those single applicants?

[Johnny Mercer]

There is no de-prioritising of single applicants. Often they are easier to reintegrate and to accommodate in the United Kingdom because they are not a wider family. There are lots of stories going around the people in this cohort because they are very scared and vulnerable. Obviously, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this with me, but that is not something that I have seen. None the less, I will go back and look for it.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for Hazaras and, since the Taliban took over, Hazaras in particular face increasing risk of targeted killings, discrimination and persecution. What specifically are the UK Government doing to help the Hazaras stranded in Afghanistan so that they can resettle in a third country, or indeed in the UK, and start a better life?

[Johnny Mercer]

I completely recognise my hon. Friend’s passion in this space, but I have to be disciplined about what is in my remit and what is not. That is a question for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and I know that it is engaged on that issue. The Foreign Secretary will have heard his question today. If not, I will make sure that he has seen those remarks and that my hon. Friend gets an answer.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I am assuming from what the Minister is saying that, since this egregious change in policy, he and his colleagues in Government are having regular discussions with the Government in Pakistan. During those discussions, have he and others sought any assurances that people in Pakistan who have live applications to come to Britain will not be deported back to Afghanistan?

[Johnny Mercer]

The entire strategic objective that we are trying to achieve is to make sure that those who are entitled to be in the UK, who have served with UK forces, who are part of the ACRS pathway and who are part of the cohort that we are talking about are not deported back to Afghanistan. We are working night and day to get those assurances. I am determined that we will get them and that we will look after those people properly.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s comments and the work that he has done on this topic over the past few years, but I am trying to understand the resources that he has available to him. It would be helpful if he could update the House on that point. May I also ask whether any proportion of the aid budget is likely to be allocated to him for this specific issue?

[Johnny Mercer]

At this moment, funding on this issue has not been agreed. Certainly, when I was doing this programme in the summer and clearing the hotels, the budget and resources were not a constraint. We had a bumpy start and the task was challenging, but we got there in the end: all those hotels were cleared and people were put into accommodation. The Prime Minister is committed to that, and I know that we will do the same over the next few months.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I have raised before in this Chamber the case of a very talented Afghan man who worked for the British Geological Survey, which has a base in my constituency. He fled to Pakistan with his daughters, fearing for their lives, but now he has lost all hope. He was accepted for Pitting but did not make it to the airport, yet he has been cruelly rejected for ARAP, despite having worked for a Department for International Development project. He kept the British team safe in Afghanistan, and I want to know why we cannot include him and his daughters in the evacuation, before he is handed over to the Taliban.

[Johnny Mercer]

To be candid with the hon. and learned Member, I am happy for her to write to me about this case, but staff and civil servants are dealing every day with heartbreaking cases of people who fall either side of the line, and there is no deliberate decision to exclude anybody. We are trying as best we can in an incredibly difficult environment to respond to the applications and ensure that those who are eligible to be in the United Kingdom are here. If that individual is eligible for the ARAP scheme, that scheme is still open and he must apply to it. I am aware that some in the 333 and 444 communities in Afghanistan have been rejected and they are not entirely sure why. We are re-engaging in that process to ensure that it has integrity, and I am happy to look at the hon. and learned Member’s case again.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Just 66 people have been resettled in the UK under ACRS pathway 2, and eligible applicants who have the support of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Pakistan are still waiting for their paperwork to be processed, including the mother and brothers of a constituent of mine, a courageous female journalist who has been granted asylum. Their lives are at demonstrable risk from the Taliban and they now face the horror of deportation. I have written to the Home Office repeatedly about this case. They meet all the criteria. They would have a place to live if they were able to reach here. Will the Minister meet me about this case to see what can be done?

[Johnny Mercer]

Sure. There are three different pathways to ACRS, and clearly some of them are larger than others. The latest immigration statistics show that by the end of June, 9,800 people had been granted settled status under ACRS. I accept that there are pathways where we could do more in this space, but the idea that we have only relocated about 60 people is not chiming with the data that I see every day. I want to ensure that everyone who is entitled to be here is here. I will go out and make the case for who is entitled and who is not, and we will do everything we can to ensure that those who are eligible are here. I am happy for the hon. Member to write to me about that case, and I will look at it personally.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me try the Minister with this one, because he says that he wants to ensure that no one who is entitled to be in the UK is deported. My constituent is a British citizen whose children and wife are currently in Pakistan, threatened with deportation to Afghanistan. They were invited to the Baron Hotel. An explosion meant that they were unable to get there. Mr Ullah is terrified because he worked with the allied forces, but because he is a UK citizen his family are not eligible under either ARAP or ACRS. Family reunion visas would cost more than £20,000. Return to Afghanistan means certain danger. He is penalised by his status as one of our citizens. In the light of his bravery and service to our armed forces, will the Minister use the budget that he says is not a problem to waive those fees and bring Mr Ullah’s family here to safety?

[Johnny Mercer]

Immigration policy in this country is very clear, and the immigration policy outside ACRS and ARAP, which are what I have been asked specifically to deal with, is a matter for the Home Office, as the hon. Member knows. I recognise her question—I genuinely do—but it is a question on immigration policy for the Home Office. I will work night and day to ensure that everyone who is eligible under ARAP and ACRS is returned to the United Kingdom, in line with our promises.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Minister has said a number of times that the Government have sought assurances from the Pakistani authorities that they will not target those Afghans who are eligible to come here. Has he received such assurances? If not, and if he does not, what is he going to do about it?

[Johnny Mercer]

I can confirm that I have received verbal assurances from the Pakistani authorities that those individuals are not going to be deported. I have to work night and day to ensure that that line is held, and I have made it clear to this House and to the country that we do not want to see any one of them deported. As I have said to the right hon. Member, and to others, I do not want to see that line crossed. If it is, I will return to the House and make a statement on it.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Hazari family of my constituent, a minor brought here under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees scheme, have had to flee Afghanistan and they have been waiting and waiting for their ACRS application to be processed. When can they expect that to happen, and when can they expect to be brought safely to the UK?

[Johnny Mercer]

I obviously cannot comment on an individual case, but if the hon. Lady writes to me today, I will personally look at her case and write back to her.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad that the Government are now acting on Afghans who have been in limbo for a number of years in Pakistan—an issue I raised with the Minister on 19 September. May I ask about the service family accommodation that he is intending to use for those Afghans? We know that there is a real crisis in the quality of service family accommodation, so can he guarantee that none of the service family accommodation that the Ministry of Defence is providing will have broken boilers, leaky roofs or black mould, which plague so much SFA that we have put our troops and their families in?

[Johnny Mercer]

This Government have put £400 million of extra spending into SFA; I recognise the problems with the quality of that SFA, which have been a challenge over many years. I do not want anybody coming back into the UK and living in service family accommodation that is not suitable for them. The Ministry of Defence is bending over backwards, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister for Armed Forces, to ensure that this stuff is online and suitable. Investment is going in, but I am determined that individuals will live in housing that is suitable for them, and I will personally be visiting them to make sure that they are.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been trying to get a group of interpreters trained by the University of Leeds from Pakistan to here for the last two years. It would be useful if the Minister could let me know who is eligible for the flights and how they will be contacted. The Minister also said that he had visited every hotel in the country. I have a hotel in my constituency and I do not remember him informing me that he was coming, but I would welcome him coming to that hotel, because everybody now has to be in a shared room and the facilities are not good.

[Johnny Mercer]

I would be interested to learn which hotel that is, because I do not want to see people in shared rooms, so I will speak to the hon. Gentleman after this urgent question. If he writes to me with the specific details of those interpreters, I will assess his case and determine which pathway is best to apply for and their certain eligibility to do so. However, I am particularly interested in the hotel and, if that situation is ongoing today, I will sort it out.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by multiple constituents who arrived in the UK via the ARAP scheme. They are extremely worried about their relatives, the hardship they have experienced and the threat of danger with the recent events in Pakistan. These cases range from somebody who worked for the British armed forces for eight years, a family member who is pregnant with two children, and a judge who has previously been in prison under the Taliban. Will the Minister agree to look at those cases, and will he also say whether he has the resources to resolve these matters urgently?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will look at every case. There is no policy decision to block those who are entitled to be in the UK from being in the UK. Many of us take this personally, and we will see this duty through. Of course I will look at every case and ensure that a decision is made fairly. There are individuals in the Ministry of Defence who are under extreme pressure and working incredibly hard to try to meet this challenge. It is very difficult. I am more than happy to look at cases again, but I do not want people to go away thinking that there is some blanket decision to reject these applicants and not to allow them the protections we promised then. That is categorically not the case and I am more than happy to look at individual situations.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

My constituent’s parents fled Afghanistan for Pakistan. On appeal, they were granted adult dependent relative visas to join their family here, but before that decision was made, their Pakistan visa expired and they were forced to return to Afghanistan. Due to their being Hazaras, the fear of travel, their disabilities and medical needs, and the policy of the Pakistan Government, they cannot return to Pakistan to collect their paperwork to travel to the UK. Will the Government consider issuing some form of digital visa or travel document, so that they can fly to the UK and join their family here?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am more than happy, as I have said, to look at individual cases. We are dealing with competing pressures here of UK visas and Pakistan visas running out, but I can only reiterate what I have said: where there is a duty to these people, we will see it through, and I will work night and day to achieve that endeavour.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers to our questions. Last time, I asked him about a specific family, and we sent the information through. I want to reinforce the point about the forced deportation of that gentleman and his family, who are also Hazaras. In his job, he assisted the British Army for seven to eight years. For 18 months, I have been endeavouring to get them into the United Kingdom because of the risk of harm to them as targeted attacks continue. Just this morning, it has been reported that there was an attack on a bus taking people from Pakistan back into Afghanistan—it was blown up. The danger is clear—for me, anyway; I see it very simply. This cannot continue for that gentleman, his wife and their four children. We have a job for them, a house for them and a future for them. We just need the Minister’s help. Will he help me?

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Gentleman has already written to me about a case, which I think we have resolved. As I said, I am more than happy to look at individual cases. The eligibility criteria in these pathways are clear, and officials are working hard to ensure that they are as inclusive as they can be, but I will always look at personal cases and I look forward to receiving an email from the hon. Gentleman.

British Steel

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

12:11

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if she will make a statement on the announcement made by British Steel on 6 November, and provide an update on the negotiations between British Steel and the Government, and on the Government’s position on virgin steelmaking in the UK.

[The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Steel is vital to the UK economy. I fully recognise the importance of British Steel to local communities, particularly in my hon. Friend’s Scunthorpe constituency, where the company is a major contributor to local economic growth, and where she campaigns incredibly hard for steelworkers.

Global conditions have been tough for steel companies around the world. That is why we have changed the competitive landscape for British Steel and other energy-intensive industries by announcing the British industry supercharger—a decisive package of measures to reduce the long-term electricity price gap that exists between UK energy-intensive industries and competitor countries. That support will mean that strategically significant UK industries, such as steel, are safeguarded against the high industrial electricity prices that they have faced in too many recent years. We have also provided over £730 million in energy costs relief to the steel sector since 2013, in addition to the energy bill relief scheme. Steel producers will continue to receive support until 31 March 2024 through the energy bills discount scheme.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government made an extremely generous offer of support to British Steel earlier this year to help it to invest in a decarbonised and sustainable future. We have continued to work intensively with British Steel since then and will continue to do so. However, she will also understand that the detail of those conversations remains highly commercially confidential and that any public discussion risks undermining talks.

I know that this must be a deeply concerning time for British Steel employees and others in Scunthorpe following the company’s announcement on Monday of its plans for future operations. I can very much assure my hon. Friend that we will help affected workers and their families, and that we are committed to finding solutions to enable the ongoing sustainable and decarbonised production of steel. Just last month, for example, we announced a £1.25 billion joint-investment package with Tata Steel to secure a decarbonised future for steelmaking in Wales. That has the potential to safeguard several thousand jobs across the UK. In 2020, the Government provided an emergency loan to Celsa Steel to help it continue trading during the covid pandemic, saving over 1,500 jobs, with a further 300 jobs created since the loan was made.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

I stand absolutely unapologetically with steelmakers and my community today, and I do not support these moves. In this Chamber on 18 September, I asked the Minister for Industry whether she agreed that we need to retain a virgin steelmaking capability in the UK for strategic reasons alone. She said

“obviously, we need a place for virgin steel”—[Official Report, 18 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 1125.]—

and that that place was Scunthorpe. That was reiterated the very same day by the Secretary of State, and so pleased was I with the comments that she made that I took contemporaneous notes of that conversation.

British Steel is a private company and can make business decisions as it sees fit, but I am clear that if it is seeking hundreds of millions of pounds of public money, the Government must leverage that money to protect steelworkers’ jobs and maintain our sovereign capability to make steel in the UK. Electric arc furnaces melt scrap; to make virgin steel from scratch, we need blast furnaces. Can the Minister tell the House how the UK will make virgin steel if all our blast furnaces are decommissioned? Can she tell us how many countries in the G20 are unable to make their own virgin steel? Would the Government be comfortable with us being entirely dependent on foreign imports for the virgin steel we will continue to need in this country?

Will any financial support offered to British Steel seek guarantees on steel jobs and lock in, as a minimum, an interim period of blast furnace production to allow us to explore green options to run them? Did the Government know that this announcement from British Steel was imminent? When will I get a response to my letter of 29 September to the Secretary of State? Why did the Department not contact me until 5 pm on Monday, when I was sent simply a short text message? What support is the Minister offering our excellent North Lincolnshire Council, which is proactively working with British Steel to bring additional green jobs on to the site? This Government have a good record on steel—they have paid workers’ wages. Can the Minister confirm that steel remains high on the Government’s agenda?

I have 3,500 of the world’s finest steelmakers in my constituency. It is my privilege to come out and bat for them today. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question.

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend makes lots of very credible points—there is very little for me to disagree with. She does indeed make representations at the highest levels of Government, and her priority has always been steelworkers; she has never played politics with that role. I put on record my apologies if I have not done due diligence and provided the public service that she should have received by being contacted much sooner on that particular day. There is nothing she could say that I would not be telling myself off for even more, and I hope I will not fall short in communications going forward.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: I did indeed say at the Dispatch Box that my personal opinion is that there is a strong place for virgin steel production in this country, and that, of course, is in her constituency. We are in the middle of live negotiations, and any decision taken by British Steel is a commercial decision. My hon. Friend is also right that we are able to carry out due diligence on any support we provide; it is taxpayers’ money, and our primary focus is to safeguard the sector and jobs, including in her constituency.

My hon. Friend is right to note that we have prioritised the UK steel sector, and we will continue to do so. We need to provide it with support as it transitions, because that is also a choice being made by manufacturers, customers and consumers who are looking for greener steel going forward. Any decision we take and any support we provide will be to ensure that the sector is sustainable and competitive. We want the sector not just to survive, but to thrive.

My hon. Friend spoke about the support we have provided to the sector to date. We have provided hundreds of millions of pounds of support to British Steel to deal with its emissions, and over £730 million in energy cost relief to the steel sector since 2013. We have put the supercharger in place, as well as the steel procurement policy note, which does its very best to ensure that we procure more steel here in the UK. We have provided support to Tata to ensure that that part of the country can continue to make steel and to protect those jobs, and we have provided support to Celsa. My hon. Friend talked about the support we are providing to North Lincolnshire generally—there is a huge amount of support there. Since 2018, the Government have committed over £200 million in investment in the north and north-east Lincolnshire area.

I cannot say much more at this time because we are in the middle of live negotiations that are commercially sensitive. When British Steel put out its press release, that was the first time I saw it, but we must recognise that it was a proposal; many things have to fall into place for such proposals to become accurate plans—not only will there be issues around planning, but our negotiations have to conclude as well. I do not doubt that I will continue to lean on my hon. Friend, and that she will continue to champion steelworkers in her constituency and across the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this urgent question, at what will be a very difficult time for her constituents.

The Labour party supports the transition to green steel. We recognise, as the Government have now conceded, that a blend of public and private funding is necessary to do that. We believe electric arc furnaces are part of the solution, but we do not believe they can be the only solution. Specifically, we believe that the retention of primary or virgin steelmaking in the United Kingdom is a matter of economic necessity and of national security. While we all welcome the return of steelmaking to Redcar, which should never have been taken away to begin with, this will clearly mean very significant job losses at Scunthorpe. I therefore have major concerns about this announcement, coming, as it does, just after the Government have confirmed a deal to also close the blast furnaces at Port Talbot.

First, the Minister said in her answer to her hon. Friend that talks are ongoing. I have to say that that is not my understanding of the current status of this deal. Could she confirm that, please? Secondly, is it true that carbon capture technology could not be pursued at Scunthorpe because of delays from the Government to the necessary infrastructure over the last 13 years and uncertainty about a future business model? In addition, is it correct to say that a DRI—direct reduced iron—solution could not go forward because of uncertainty over the Government plans for green hydrogen, which would obviously be essential for a DRI business model? Thirdly, do the Government recognise the figure of 2,000 job losses, and will the Minister confirm that this is the net figure covering Scunthorpe and Redcar—in other words, that once recruitment at Redcar is taken into account, job losses in Scunthorpe will likely be in excess of 2,000? Finally, will she confirm how much public money this announcement involves?

Most of all, I reiterate to the Minister that decarbonisation cannot mean deindustrialisation; we cannot simply outsource our emissions to other countries, call that progress and expect public support for the transition. A real plan for green steel must be open to all technologies, it must be industry-wide, and it should be a story of new jobs, new opportunities and British economic strength. Sadly, this announcement seems very far from that.

[Ms Ghani]

Negotiations are indeed ongoing, which is why I am limited in what information I can put out in the public domain; information is of course incredibly sensitive. British Steel will make commercial decisions, but if it is hoping to secure Government support, we need to make sure that we are getting value for money for taxpayers.

The hon. Member asked why decisions have been taken on the electric arc furnace compared with other technologies. It is because the other technologies just cannot come up to speed fast enough. In particular, the hydrogen-based direct reduced iron equipment just cannot enable furnaces to transition at the speed at which they need to. He is very much aware of that, and this is also a challenge in Europe, not just in the UK.

Fundamentally, there are a number of challenges for the global steel sector. First, there are energy costs, which we have done everything we can to provide support for, with the hundreds of millions of pounds to cover energy costs and now the supercharger. Secondly, we have to ensure that we get more UK steel into the UK economy. That is why the public procurement note was incredibly important for us to do, and we will be able to secure millions of pounds for more UK steel projects. Thirdly, there is a major challenge in that advanced manufacturers, customers and consumers are looking for greener steel, and a lot of companies are trying to reflect on how they can provide a green steel option. Having said that, it is a particular kind of steel; as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for me that means a mix of virgin steel in the market as well. Of course, these are commercial decisions, but we need to make sure there is a mix to deliver for the UK market in particular.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) talked about the environmental issues and about hydrogen. We export a lot of scrap steel, and that also has a carbon footprint, so for us to have the capacity to turn that steel into products we can use will be incredibly useful. The positive news is that we are the eighth largest manufacturing country in the world. We are going to need more steel, not less, but there will also be demand for more green steel, not less, and we are trying to ensure that we provide support to the steel sector so that it can meet those market needs.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Many of my constituents work at Scunthorpe, and we are all obviously deeply concerned about them, but the whole House must be concerned about the Minister’s statements in terms of our national security. There is no other major developed country in the world that is giving up its traditional blast furnaces—the only way we can make virgin steel. Frankly, the Minister did not bother to answer a single one of the brilliant questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). Will she now make it clear to the House that this Government are committed, as a major economy, to go on making virgin steel? Do it now.

[Ms Ghani]

As I have said repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, I fundamentally believe we need to have virgin steel capacity in the UK, but these are commercial decisions, and negotiations are continuing. These are incredibly commercial decisions, and we are doing our very best to support electric and virgin steel capacity in the UK. We are very much aware of the challenges we have in importing steel and with the global markets when it comes to the price of steel, and that is why we need to make sure we have a mix. These are commercial decisions, which is why negotiations are ongoing. Fundamentally, the announcement by British Steel was a proposal—nothing is done yet. We are still in the middle of negotiations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

May I begin by expressing my concerns on behalf of the 2,000 workers who are likely to be affected by this announcement? Also, I re-emphasise, as other contributors have, the importance of virgin steelmaking, not just in terms of security, but in meeting demand in the construction industry, where inflation is already racing ahead and our ability to build things will not be helped by being further away from the supply chain and reducing domestic capacity in steelmaking.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think-tank has said:

“Ageing blast furnaces need to be replaced and upgraded to produce greener steel…electric arc furnaces have a role in recycling steel”,

but

“failing to invest in modern hydrogen furnaces belies the government’s promises to invest for the longer term.”

Just as in the oil and gas sector, what plans do the UK Government have for a just transition for the steelmaking workforce? What support will the UK Government be giving to the development of hydrogen furnaces in the UK? What challenges will they put constructively to British Steel over these plans? Given the Government’s high-profile retreats on other climate measures, such as the date for banning the sale of internal combustion engine cars, how much faith can the industry have in any guarantees that the Government do make?

[Ms Ghani]

Negotiations are ongoing and nothing is concluded. The statement made by British Steel was a proposal, not a conclusion. The steel that comes out of electric arc furnaces can be used for a variety of things, including construction and military-grade steel—it is incredibly nimble—but I fully appreciate that different types of steel are produced out of different furnaces. The hon. Gentleman spoke about hydrogen, and the Government have a substantial hydrogen strategy that we launched in May 2022. The net zero hydrogen fund is worth up to £240 million of capital co-investment out to 2024-25. That will support upscaled hydrogen production projects, allowing companies, including steel producers, the potential to secure supplies of lower-cost hydrogen. Ultimately, decarbonisation pathways for specific sites are commercial decisions for individual companies based on their own operational circumstances. In the case of Port Talbot, it was about timing for using a technology that can be commercialised at scale. At the moment, for that part of the country, it is electric. Hydrogen may no doubt be the next stage of technology that is used.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for her passionate support for steelmaking in her constituency? Just yesterday at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said that even when we get to net zero, we will still need to have oil and gas supplies. Does the same logic not apply to primary steel? We will still need that at net zero. Does that logic not extend to making sure we have the capability to make primary steel in this country to supply our needs in the future?

[Ms Ghani]

I agree on both points: first, on the incredible work that my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe does for steelworkers in her constituency; and secondly, that we cannot achieve net zero without a mix of steel being manufactured in the UK. We have a booming renewables sector, whether that is solar panels, blades for offshore wind farms, or electric vehicles. Much of that steel can be produced by electric arc furnaces, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is absolutely right that there is a space for virgin steel, too.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this urgent question. The Minister is in peril of presiding over the end of primary steelmaking in this country and the curtain falling on 300 years of Britain’s industrial history. The announcement comes at a time when an analysis shows that the Department’s budget is set for a 16% real-terms cut in the years ahead. Is it the policy of His Majesty’s Government that blast furnaces will stay in operation in our country and that we will not be dependent on imports of primary steel? When can we expect a conclusion to the negotiations and some safeguarding of the vital industry either at Tata or at British Steel?

[Ms Ghani]

I congratulate the new Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, of which I was previously a member. As I have made clear, these are commercial negotiations and they are ongoing. When the decision was taken on Port Talbot, discussions had taken place for several years—even decades. This will not take that long, but my point is that many Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box talking about steel and doing what can be done to protect and promote the steel sector in the UK. The negotiations are ongoing.

British Steel’s statement on Monday contained proposals and a plan—nothing is concluded yet. My focus, as our focus has always been, is on protecting the steel sector in the UK, protecting steel jobs in the UK and doing everything we can to procure more British steel in UK manufacturing. Of course, that continues. These are commercial decisions about how companies wish to continue their business going forward. I have made it clear that fundamentally there needs to be a mix of steel produced in the UK in the steel market, but the reality is this. First, steel produced in electric arc furnaces is far more nimble because of the technology, and it can be used for many more materials in advanced manufacturing than previously—that is a fact. Secondly, manufacturers, customers and consumers fundamentally want a cleaner, greener steel package. It is not just me saying that at the Dispatch Box; it is also the UK steel industry representatives who have put together a net zero strategy and are talking about having cleaner, greener steel going forward. We have a lot of scrap steel in the UK that can be recycled, and we have far more capacity to recycle that than we have for that steel to be used in UK manufacturing, but, fundamentally, we need to have a mix. I believe that that mix will continue as long as it can and should, but these are commercial decisions. We continue to negotiate with British Steel.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I have a simple question to put to the Minister; I hope that I will get a yes or no answer. Much of the arc furnace capacity is being moved away from Scunthorpe or not put in Scunthorpe because of a lack of grid capacity. That electrical grid capacity is due to be increased. If she were to accelerate the increase to 2025, we may save many more jobs in Scunthorpe. Will she seek to do that?

[Ms Ghani]

Unfortunately, there is never a simple answer to these questions. Access to the grid is a challenge for many industries, let alone for the steel sector. We have been doing everything we can to increase access to the grid. British Steel’s proposal—negotiations will continue—says that it has chosen two sites over one, with its key site at Scunthorpe and a second site at Teesside to be closer to its manufacturing work. That decision has been made for many other commercial reasons beyond access to the grid.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Yorkshire and the Humber is one of the great centres of steelmaking—in our area, there were more than 8,000 jobs in steelmaking, the last time that was counted—but how many jobs will be left when the Minister has finished with her cuts? Has she noticed that whenever the Conservative party is in government, it deindustrialises further? Unite the union—I declare an interest as a member—is saying that if the Government would commit to procurement of steel for all our relevant contracts, 8,000 further jobs could be created. What exactly does she make of that? Has she met representatives of the union to discuss that matter?

[Ms Ghani]

I meet representatives of the unions regularly, and I co-chair a steel council. The steel procurement policy note on increasing procurement in the UK was a personal ambition of mine. Previously, we did not calculate enough of the data on what was being procured and how we could continue to secure more contracts. Procurement has increased, with the value of contracts up by £97 million on the previous year. I want to go further; that is only the starting point. Earlier today, I was with the Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and I will continue to work to ensure that there is more UK steel in all our construction, whether rail, road, automotive, aviation or anything else. The reality is that last year it increased by £97 million-worth of work.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I fully endorse all the comments of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). Many hundreds of my constituents work at British Steel, and I have a British Streel terminal on Immingham docks in my constituency. What assessment have the Department and the Treasury made of the impact on the local economy if the changes go ahead? The Minister talked about support for workers who may be made redundant. I have witnessed the decline of the fishing industry in the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area, which has ripped the core out of the community, who need generations of support. What plans will the Government put in place to ensure that that happens?

[Ms Ghani]

First of all, negotiations are ongoing, but I fully appreciate that the statements from British Steel will be incredibly unsettling for my hon. Friend’s constituents. Let me explain the way that we worked on Port Talbot. We were keen to ensure that any support we provided continued to guarantee jobs, in consultation with local stakeholders and the unions. We set aside a fund of around £100 million to ensure that people were reskilled and redeployed. That work will continue if circumstances require it. We are anxious about jobs. These are highly skilled workers, recognised internationally, and these are well-paid jobs. That is why negotiations are sensitive and continue at pace. If we provide support, we want to get the best deal for UK steelworkers.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that Shotton steelworks rely on steel from Port Talbot. What assurances can she give on the supply of steel between the closure of the blast furnaces and the installation of new electric arc furnaces?

[Ms Ghani]

While negotiations were ongoing and support was being provided, we had a conversation to ensure that the supply chain continues to be resilient. A taskforce has been set up to ensure that supply chains continue to get support, working with the unions, Tata and the local community. We have been assured that supply chains will continue to secure the contracts that have been in place.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

Supporting British Steel need not be just about money; it can be about ensuring that the Government are joining the dots for industry and explaining the pipeline of work available to it. With the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS programmes, we have generations of need for virgin steel. The same goes for the new nuclear programme. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing that work and signalling to British Steel that the demand is there? Also, where we have control over procurement, are we ensuring that we lean towards the British market?

[Ms Ghani]

Absolutely. That is why procurement went up by £97 million recently. I was looking at what the industry group UK Steel reflected on when it came to steel produced by electric arc furnaces—the reality is that a substantial amount of speciality military-grade steel can be manufactured using electric arc furnaces. We are working very closely with the steel sector to do everything we can to ensure that it secures UK contracts.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

The Minister seems to be ignoring events in south Wales last week. I met steelworkers from Llanwern last week, who understandably are deeply worried following speculation about the closure of the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. What conditions were attached to the £500 million grant agreed with Tata? Was this the agreed plan? What are the Government actually doing to safeguard jobs?

[Ms Ghani]

We put in place a programme of work and a substantial sum of money—around £100 million—to ensure that the transition took place in a just fashion. Decisions will be taken by the transition board—as has been mentioned—about providing upskilling and reskilling and ensuring that there are assurances in the supply chain. The board is made up of the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister for the Economy of Wales, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries. Those decisions will be taken locally and in consultation.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

The Government have supported a coalmine in west Cumbria that will produce coking coal, which is used in steel production. Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for strategic reasons—which should override commercial reasons—to retain virgin steel production capacity in this country, and that from a practical perspective the coal mined in Cumbria could be used in the production of steel in Scunthorpe? Will she take into consideration the wider issues in the policy decisions that she may make?

[Ms Ghani]

Absolutely. I think all of this has made it clear to British Steel that there is a supply chain here in the UK, not only in the ability to make virgin steel but in the market afterwards, but even with electric arc furnaces we still need some ability to access coal. These are decisions taken across many Whitehall Departments. My job, fundamentally, is to ensure that steelmaking in the UK continues at the pace that it has done and grows even further, and that we support the manufacturing sector, which requires British steel.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

The official march of the Royal Navy includes the words,

“Heart of oak are our ships”.

In the 21st century, virgin steel is the critical industry for the Royal Navy, in the way that timber was in the 18th century. I am the first to want reduced carbon emissions, but this move sounds more like offshoring than about reducing carbon emissions. What consideration have the Government given to the supply of steel to the defence industry?

[Ms Ghani]

First of all, negotiations continue; no decision has been taken. Having said that, the UK steel industry group, which oversees the steel sector in the UK, has made it very clear that military-grade speciality steel can be made in electric arc furnaces. I have been working incredibly hard to make sure that more UK steel is procured in more UK contracts, including defence contracts.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for her dogged campaign in respect of steel; she is a real champion for her constituents. This week’s news is bittersweet, as Teesside welcomes the return of steelmaking. Will the Minister outline what the whole Government are doing to support my hon. Friend’s constituents at this time, and what use of carbon capture and storage is being explored to ensure that we continue to produce our own virgin steel?

[Ms Ghani]

I of course agree with my hon. Friend’s first point: there is nobody more vocal about steel than my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). We have had a number of programmes in place to support the steel sector, because it has a number of challenges, as it has in many continental European countries. Fundamentally, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine caused energy costs to skyrocket, and we had in place an energy costs relief scheme for the steel sector, which has been worth up to £730 million since 2013. We now have the supercharger in place; I have spoken about the steel procurement policy note to ensure that there is more UK steel procured in UK markets; and, obviously, we provided support for Tata recently and Celsa previously. We are doing everything that we can—with my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, of course—to get the best deal possible for Scunthorpe, but these are commercial decisions and they are ongoing.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is clear from today’s comments that the Government are set to abandon more than 2,000 steelworkers in Scunthorpe, just as they abandoned over 3,000 on Teesside eight years ago. That said, I too welcome the news of a new arc furnace for Redcar, but let me give the Minister yet another chance to answer the question from the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and others: are the Government really going to settle for recycled steel and foreign imports, and consign virgin steelmaking in the UK to history?

[Ms Ghani]

Recycled steel can be recycled infinite times, so it does a huge amount for the circular economy. Because of the way technology has moved on, steel can now be used in many more sectors. We have a huge surplus of scrap steel, which we end up exporting to countries such as Turkey, Bangladesh and Pakistan. We could be reusing that in the UK economy. But as I said, these are commercial decisions and nothing has been concluded. The statement put out by British Steel was a plan or a proposal.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not accept that it is a matter of national security that we should retain the ability to create primary steel in this country?

[Ms Ghani]

I have put it on record previously that we need to ensure that we have blast furnace capacity in the UK, and that, fundamentally, should be at the Scunthorpe site. There are matters involving national security—for instance, the anxieties about steel dumping from China and the issues emanating from Russia—and as we continue to manufacture at pace, we need to be able to ensure that we have access to steel manufactured here in the UK.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Some of the mightiest structures made of steel were built in my constituency, in the Nigg yard—I worked there myself once upon a time. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) talked about the strategic importance of the industry. May I point out to the Government that it is as important to my constituency in the far north of Scotland as it is to any other parts of our great United Kingdom?

[Ms Ghani]

I cannot disagree with that. I have been reading up on Scunthorpe steel: it has been used to create structures ranging from the Sydney Harbour Bridge to the London Eye, which demonstrates the breadth and the depth of its history.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The feedstock for the Trostre tinplate works in Llanelli is steel of a quality that can currently only be produced in the blast furnace process. Following the devastating news that Port Talbot blast furnaces will be closed by the end of March, leaving Trostre dependent on imported steel—quite possibly produced to lower environmental standards abroad, and certainly not saving on emissions—may I ask the Minister to stop just quoting commercial decisions, and tell us what strategy the Government have to develop the green technologies of the future here in the UK and to keep virgin steel production here as well?

[Ms Ghani]

I had a feeling that I had mentioned that a few times. We have a fund of about £1.5 million, partly aimed to ensure that we are adopting, testing and commercialising new technologies to enable the steel sector to decarbonise. We have done a huge amount of work on electricity and we are also considering the possibilities of hydrogen, so we are looking into alternative sources of energy to help the sector in the UK. I know there are challenges for places such as the hon. Lady’s constituency because of the sort of steel that they need, but the fact remains that more and more different types of steel can be made to a high standard and a high grade in electric arc furnaces.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The move to net zero should deliver tens of thousands of long-term, well-paid, green industrial jobs, but with her Government’s sticking-plaster policies the Minister is destroying both jobs and sovereign national capability. Is it really her intention to leave behind her a British steel sector that cannot make British virgin steel, and if not, what is her plan? Labour has an industrial strategy for green steel; why does she not have one as well?

[Ms Ghani]

I simply do not recognise the picture that the hon. Lady paints. Our recent decision on Tata Steel was welcomed by UK Steel, the organisation representing the UK sector, which said that it was the way forward. UK Steel itself has a net zero strategy, and wants to see the transition proceed apace.

Decisions have been just left to sit there, but now we are able to provide the support that is needed. What we did in Port Talbot has saved thousands of jobs and allowed the adoption of new technology which will, indeed, create thousands of jobs as well.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Last Wednesday morning, Tata Steel executives in Port Talbot summoned the workforce to tell them of the plan to shut down our entire virgin steel making capability by March 2024. This was utterly shocking, because the understanding had always been that some of the heavy end would continue to function while the electric arc furnace was being constructed, but it takes years to construct an electric arc furnace. The plan is utter madness: it involves importing millions of tonnes of steel from the other side of the world. Electric arc furnaces need the products of virgin steel making, such as iron and iron ore—that is why we need direct reduced iron capability—and the loss of 3,000 jobs over a period like that is completely unacceptable and unnecessary.

When the Government did the deal with Tata Steel about Port Talbot, did they know that Tata was actually proposing not a transition at all, but a potentially lethal cliff edge for our steel industry? Did they know that Tata would be doing that? Does the Minister not agree that the idea of this process is that it should be a transition? It needs to be a bridge, not a potentially lethal cliff edge.

[Ms Ghani]

Tata Steel employs more than 8,000 people and 12,500 further in the supply chain. All of that would have been at risk if we had not been able to provide the certainty it needed to increase its investment to over £1 billion to allow it to transition. These are commercial decisions relating to the pace of transition. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a transition board in place because he is a member. If there has been a failure in consultation at the level and depth of time required, there is no doubt that he and I will take that up as we will both be at the next transition board meeting. The reality is that to ensure the long-term viability of steel in the UK, some tricky decisions have to be made, but the company was provided with support to make sure that it transitioned in a way that supported local jobs, knowing that it had to transition and support the supply chain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her responses. We have committed to a net zero target, but consideration must be given to the potential loss of 1,500 to 2,000 jobs, which could be gone from the industry. We have been told that the two furnace closures could put further employment at risk for many. What steps will be taken to ensure that the steel sector and industry jobs throughout the whole of the United Kingdom will be protected? I had a meeting this morning where it was confirmed to me that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is No. 7 in the world for manufacturing. If that is the case, steel is a key part of that. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) is to be congratulated on bringing forward this urgent question. Really, Minister, we need to make sure that the industry can be retained and not reduced at all.

[Ms Ghani]

That is why the support was so substantial to Port Talbot, to ensure that the steel sector could continue to thrive here in the UK. Manufacturing in the UK is booming. We are the eighth largest manufacturer in the world and we need to get our goods fundamentally from the UK, including steel. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we cannot achieve net zero without steel, but we can help steelmaking to become even more green and clean than it is at the moment.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that this news gives up on the UK’s capability to produce primary steel?

[Ms Ghani]

I do not, because it was a plan or proposal put out by British Steel. We have not concluded negotiations.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

This is a question of national security. It is not just a commercial decision. A specific question was asked of the Minister by the shadow Secretary of State on job losses specifically in Scunthorpe. Is that figure of 2,000 correct?

[Ms Ghani]

Negotiations have not concluded. We are continuing to be in intensive talks with British Steel. We wish to provide the support that is needed to support the steel sector and steel jobs but negotiations will continue. We need to make sure that due diligence is done and that we get value for money for taxpayers, whose money we are going to put on the table. But look at what we achieved at Port Talbot—a sector that was unable to confirm its future until we provided it with the financial support that it needed.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

12:53

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. A tragedy is unfolding. Israel has suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. Palestinian civilians in Gaza are experiencing a devastating humanitarian crisis and violence is rising in the west bank. The best estimates emerging from a confused situation are that 2.3 million people need access to safe drinking water, food supplies are running out, one third of hospitals have been forced to shut down and 1.5 million people are displaced. I know that the whole House shares my pain at seeing so many innocent lives destroyed on and since 7 October.

Britain is working intensively to get more aid into Gaza, to support the safe return of hostages and British nationals, to back Israel’s right to self-defence and to prevent a dangerous regional escalation. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been engaging extensively and Lord Ahmad has been constantly in the region. This morning I met a group of charities and non-governmental organisations involved in getting life-saving support into Gaza. I spoke yesterday to the Jordanian, Lebanese and Egyptian ambassadors and early this morning once again to Martin Griffiths. I wish also to pay tribute to our diplomats and development experts who are striving to make a difference in the most difficult of circumstances.

Despite the many challenges, the whole Government are determined to do all that we can to continue to stand up for what is right and do the right thing. Immediately after Hamas’s brutal assault, the Government brought home almost 1,000 British nationals safely on charter and military flights, but the safety of all British nationals is our utmost priority, so we are in regular contact with those in Gaza registered with us since the conflict began. Working with partners, we have been engaging intensively with Israel and Egypt to allow foreign nationals to leave Gaza via the Rafah border crossing. This has proved possible on five of the last seven days, and I can confirm to the House that, as of late last night, more than 150 British nationals had made it through to Egypt. A forward-deployed team of consular officials is in el-Arish, close to Rafah, to meet them and provide the medical, consular and administrative support they need. We have also set up a reception centre for British nationals in Cairo and have arranged accommodation. We will do everything we can to ensure that all remaining British nationals in Gaza can leave safely.

Sadly, among the British nationals in Gaza some are held hostage by Hamas, among the more than 200 innocents cruelly kidnapped on 7 October. Their plight is a stark reminder of what Hamas represent. The terrorists continue to launch rockets relentlessly at Israeli homes and families. Their stated aim, repeated publicly in recent weeks, is the destruction of the Israeli state and the eradication of its people. That is why the Government unequivocally support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, we have also repeatedly stressed that Israel must take every precaution to minimise civilian casualties in line with international humanitarian law. We continue to press Israel to ensure that its campaign is targeted against Hamas leaders, militants and military infrastructure. We also condemn settler violence. Israel needs to take concrete measures to address it and hold the perpetrators to account.

All parties to a conflict must ensure that their actions are proportionate and necessary, affording innocent civilians the protection that is their right under international law. Who can doubt that this is true, because the Palestinian people are also victims of Hamas. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed his condolences to the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, for the deaths of Palestinian civilians caught in the aftermath of Hamas’s attack.

Since 7 October, the UK has made available £30 million of additional aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, more than doubling our existing aid commitment for this year. So far, three UK flights carrying a total of 51 tonnes of aid have landed in Egypt. The shipments included life-saving items such as wound care packs, water filters and solar powered lights. We have also sent humanitarian advisers and vital equipment including the forklift trucks, belt conveyors and lighting towers specifically requested by the Egyptian Red Crescent Society to help it to manage and deliver all the international aid received in Egypt more effectively. For this aid to meet escalating needs, however, it must enter Gaza and do so in much greater quantity. The Government have been working closely with partners including the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Egyptian and Israeli Governments to achieve this.

Since 21 October, a limited number of trucks of aid have crossed into the strip, but the volume going through the Rafah checkpoint is nowhere near enough to meet civilian needs and it cannot be, even were it operating at full capacity. We are therefore urgently exploring with partners measures that can help to increase the flow of humanitarian support. These measures must include effective humanitarian pauses, as agreed by all the G7 countries in Tokyo this morning, and we are urging Israel to consider utilising the facilities at other land border crossings into Gaza, such as Kerem Shalom. This reflects our current assessment that delivery by land remains the only safe option to deliver aid in the quantity needed in Gaza while ensuring the necessary control and oversight. Control and oversight matters, given the absolute imperative of ensuring that aid reaches those in need and is not diverted or misused. Aid diversion is a real risk—more so during conflicts—and I will set out to the House how we are managing those risks.

All UK aid undergoes rigorous oversight. No funding goes to Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Our humanitarian programme in the Occupied Palestinian Territories already operates with enhanced sensitivity, with the Government having introduced additional safeguards in 2017. They include measures to verify and map downstream partners, non-payment of local taxes, and enhanced due-diligence processes. We constantly review the due-diligence assessments in place with all partners involved in delivering aid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The whole House recognises, however, that to prevent further conflict and terrorism and truly alleviate civilian suffering, there must be a political solution to the conflict. This issue is uniquely polarising. We have seen across the world and in our own communities its potential to radicalise. The long-standing British position on the middle east process is unchanged: we want to see a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. The urgency of a political track—extraordinarily difficult today—has never been more clear. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live in peace and security.

We have moral clarity over Israel’s right to self-defence and we reject all forms of antisemitism, but we are also committed to discharging our moral duty to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Palestinians and we reject all forms of Islamophobia. The current turmoil must act as a further impulse towards realising a peaceful future for the region, and the UK will be doing all it can to achieve that. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

13:02

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the copy of his statement and for his call last night.

Four weeks on from the horror of 7 October, it is hard to comprehend the scale of the devastation in Gaza: almost 1.5 million people displaced and more than 10,000 people killed, with more trapped under the rubble of destroyed buildings. Every single one of those lives matters. Every single death is a devastating tragedy. With two thirds of the dead being women and children, these civilian deaths are not just shocking—they cannot be ignored. Hundreds of thousands of people are crowded into shelters in desperate need of food, water, medicine and fuel. And while we welcome the 93 trucks that entered through Rafah on 6 November, that is completely insufficient to meet the scale of humanitarian need.

I was surprised the Minister did not make more mention of fuel, because this is the urgent priority. Without it the water cannot flow, the hospitals cannot power their incubators and the food cannot be cooked. The sewage system breakdown is now threatening a major public health crisis. For weeks, the international community has demanded that the siege conditions on Gaza be lifted, but that has still not happened. That is totally unacceptable and it cannot continue.

Both the UN humanitarian co-ordinator Martin Griffiths and the United States have made serious efforts to break the deadlock, and to provide the assurances that Israel needs about fuel diversion. Can the Minister tell the House what efforts the Government are making to insist that fuel for humanitarian purposes can get into Gaza? I welcome his update on discussions about Kerem Shalom, but what is his assessment on the speed at which that could be achieved? May I urge him again to follow the US example and appoint a humanitarian co-ordinator to scale up the passage of aid?

We all recognise that while rockets and bombs continue to fall, it is impossible to deliver the scale of aid needed across the whole of Gaza and to repair the damage, extensive as it is, to water and electricity systems. We all want an end to the violence and the urgent release of hostages, but with Hamas leaders doubling down on their determination to attack Israel, and with Israel ruling out a ceasefire until hostages are released, the reality is that humanitarian pauses are, as Martin Griffiths wrote movingly last week, “the only viable prospect”. In Cairo last week, Ministers and aid agencies impressed on me the urgency of that. Pauses provide not only much needed aid, but space: space for the basic humanity to bury the dead; space to look past the pain; and space for dialogue to make progress towards peace more likely. This is needed now. No more delay.

We are devastated by the deaths of so many aid workers and United Nations Relief and Works Agency staff—the highest number killed in any conflict in the UN’s history. I hope I join the whole House in mourning their loss and paying tribute to their bravery and their humanity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Safe shelters, safe distribution centres, and safe medical facilities, hospitals and emergency service convoys are essential.

I echo the Minister’s words about the unacceptable nature of settler violence in the west bank, but will he join me in reiterating our calls that Israel’s clear right to self-defence is not a blank cheque? He acknowledged the importance of international law. Has he raised the protection of hospitals, schools and refugee camps with his Israeli counterparts, and the need for action to be in accordance with international law in order to protect civilians and ensure safe and unimpeded access for aid?

The average age in Gaza is just 18. Make no mistake: this is a children’s war. More children have died in Gaza in four weeks than in all the world’s conflicts in each of the last three years. There are 1 million children caught up in the devastation who are orphaned and displaced, sleeping outside as the weather grows colder, short of food and forced to drink dirty water. In most conflicts we would expect children to be evacuated to a safer place to receive care and shelter. What makes this so devastating is that, almost uniquely, in this conflict that is not going to happen.

In the face of such an extraordinary threat to children, the international community is obligated to do more. With the Foreign Secretary at the G7 this week, will the Government join us in calling for an emergency plan to support the children of Gaza, to prioritise aid to children, safe and protected shelters for food, clean water and medical care as winter sets in? The crisis did not start in Gaza on 7 October. Even before then, two thirds of children were suffering from trauma. One aid agency that operates in North Sinai and Gaza told me last week that this now stands at 100%. Without a long-term co-ordinated plan for the children of Gaza, the political solution we need will not be realised and the cycle of violence will not be broken. We can and must do more.

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her comments and for the priorities she set out in her response. I echo her comment about the brave humanitarian workers who lost their lives. She will remember that we consistently condemned that in the case of Sudan, where approximately 20 lost their lives. As she has, we honour, across the House, the more than 100 humanitarian workers—unarmed people putting themselves in harm’s way deliberately to help their fellow citizens—who have lost their lives.

I also pay tribute to those working in the crisis centre in Whitehall. One hundred or so officials, nearly all volunteers and very young, were working triple shifts the night that Rafah opened, working through the night to help British citizens. I pay tribute to them, their spirit and their hard work.

The hon. Lady made a particular point about the importance of fuel and, of course, she is absolutely right. We are negotiating for it. She will know that Hamas have a lot of fuel in their tunnels—we recognise entirely what that fuel is being used for—so fuel could be made available to help in humanitarian purposes. We are doing our best to negotiate for it. She will also have seen today’s G7 statement, which is very clear on these points.

The hon. Lady asks about routes for access, and the American envoy, Mr Satterfield, has been working non-stop to try to work out whether we can speed up other routes, using Kerem Shalom and Rafah, and we will continue to do all that.

The hon. Lady prioritises the importance of pauses, and we completely agree. We are arguing for humanitarian pauses, but she will also accept that, in the method within the pause by which humanitarian support is distributed, it is extremely important that we do not repeat the mistakes we made in Srebrenica, Rwanda and northern Iraq, when vulnerable people were brought together whom we were unable to protect. There are very clear guidelines on any pauses and safe spaces, and there must be absolute protection for those who go to them.

The hon. Lady mentioned that support for Israel is not a blank cheque. Of course, she is right. Good friends deliver hard messages, and they are able to do so precisely because they are good friends. She talks of children, and I saw UNICEF this morning. I entirely recognise the passion with which she raised that point. We will do everything we can to ensure that the priority of children is recognised in all the humanitarian work we do.

Finally, I remind the House of the wise words of our former colleague, and former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Hague. At the end of his brilliant article in The Times on 9 October, he said:

“It is no consolation to those caught up in it but…this is no strategic masterstroke by Hamas, more a desperate move to fend off a future that is rapidly leaving them behind.”

We should not forget that, the day after this, there will be an urgent need for a political context.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I and, I suspect, my successor in the Chair will do our utmost to accommodate all Members, because we recognise the importance of this subject. I would be grateful if hon. Members would keep their remarks as brief as possible under the circumstances, in order that we can accommodate everybody.

I also gently remind the House of the admonition offered by Mr Speaker yesterday. We are dealing with very sensitive and very emotive issues. Words matter and the tone of those words matter. I know the House is capable of rising to an occasion, and I trust that this will be one of them.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Government’s calls for humanitarian pauses will continue and be insistent. The Minister talked about a viable Palestinian state, which requires land. The reality is that so much of that land has been lost to illegal settlements. Will he continue to make that point, because a brighter future will require land to guarantee the peace we all yearn for.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course we will continue, as he suggests, to prioritise the issue of pauses. He will know that, in my statement, I condemned settler violence, as did the Prime Minister in yesterday’s response to the Gracious Speech. What he says is right, and we will not forget that.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments paying tribute to all the UN and aid workers who have been killed. The Minister is correct to remind the House that UK nationals are being held hostage by Hamas.

That said, the Israeli military must follow the laws of war in this situation. Have the Government made an assessment of Israel’s compliance with international human rights law since 14 October? As he mentioned in his statement, hospitals in Gaza are running out of fuel and UNRWA is warning that its aid operation will shortly “come to a stop” if fuel supplies do not get into Gaza, with blood and life-saving equipment also running out. Have the Government considered sending a military hospital ship to Egypt to help injured men, women and children who have been able to leave Gaza?

Finally, the Minister rightly said that there must be a political solution. The Red Cross has said that it is

“not an exaggeration to say it’s catastrophic in Gaza.”

In Gaza, 4,100 Palestinian children have died—a rate of 180 children a day. At what point will the UK Government join the many of us who are asking them to use their leverage to reach that political solution and call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he says and the tone in which he says it. I also thank him for what he says about the brave humanitarian workers who have lost their lives. He asks whether we are aware of the full impact of supplies running out in Gaza, and I can assure him that we absolutely are. He speaks about the importance of following the rules of war and international humanitarian law, and both Front Benches are urging the Israeli Government to do that. We note the commitment of the President of Israel in that respect, but everyone will be watching to ensure that the rules of war are obeyed.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

I have not spoken to a single constituent who has not felt the pain and tragedy of the 1,400 people murdered on 7 October, or of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. I commend the Minister for all the work he is doing, and I know he works incredibly hard to make sure no stone is left unturned. Can he confirm that aid will increase, if necessary, in future? Does he share my concern about the risk of the conflict expanding because of the presence of Hezbollah? Its 100,000 soldiers and 150,000 rockets pose a risk to the region.

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We have doubled the amount of aid going into the region, but we will increase it further if necessary. We are currently doing a lot of work to try to work out how to quantify what is in el-Arish and how to make sure it can be moved. Physically moving the aid is also a factor, which is why Britain has sent five forklift trucks and a conveyor belt.

Of course, regional expansion is an enormous worry for us all, and it is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister decided to send both air and naval assets to RAF Akrotiri in the eastern Mediterranean, to see what is being moved, to interdict any arms that are coming in, and to make sure we do everything we can to ensure that this conflict is contained and does not expand further.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Ten thousand people have been killed in a month, with UN staff, buildings, hospitals, journalists and the third oldest church in Christendom unspared, since Hamas’s deadly atrocities. There are 230-plus hostages still in captivity. The Minister talks about being a critical friend, so will he urge the Netanyahu Administration to recognise that statements such as the one about a “permanent” Gazan takeover, with some Israeli Ministers not even ruling out nukes, are only losing them support? Does he have any advice for my constituent, whose sister is a survivor of a family mostly wiped out when they moved south, as instructed? He says, “We don’t just want to manage to eat before dying under rubble.”

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. As far as the hostages are concerned, she will appreciate that we do not give a running commentary on those negotiations. She may rest assured that we are working very closely, including with Qatar, to secure their release. She will have seen the condemnation of the nuclear comment made by a senior Israeli.

On the subject of what happens when the conflict is over, she will have seen the very constructive comments made not only by some of the surrounding Arab leaders but by Secretary Blinken when he addressed that point.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I appreciate that the Minister is limited in what he can share on sensitive diplomatic matters, but will he assure the House that the UK Government are doing everything possible to work with allies to negotiate the return of the hostages?

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

As we see the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, with the terrible images of the dying, displaced and maimed, our focus must be on getting humanitarian aid to them and a humanitarian pause for them. As we look forward to a time when the bombing stops, does the Minister agree that the lack of focus on progressing a two-state solution over the past decade and more was a failure on the part of the international community? Will he set out something of what he will be doing to bring renewed focus on a just political settlement to the conflict in the region?

[Mr Mitchell]

The Foreign Office and British Government are very focused on how to re-energise the peace process when the opportunity presents itself. The hon. Lady will have seen the comments that have been made about both a civil Administration in Gaza and what is necessary to secure peace when that point arrives. It is important to note that the huge progress—ultimately unsuccessful—that was made at Oslo took place on the back of the first intifada. It may therefore be that there will be an opportunity, given the disaster that has taken place, to re-energise that political track. We must make sure that if that opportunity presents itself, we grasp it with both hands.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

This is something that unites the House more than divides it, certainly on the issue of the horrors going on in Palestine right now and what caused them. We all recognise the personal commitment of the Minister to humanitarian aims and, in particular, to humanitarian pauses. Does he agree that those who call for a ceasefire must recognise that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and, as was said by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) yesterday, that terrorist organisations go for ceasefires only when they suit their own regrouping, not to end violence?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and, of course, he is absolutely right. We all recognise the motivation of those who call for a ceasefire and why they are doing it, but at this time, in this situation, it is perfectly clear that Hamas have no intention of engaging in a ceasefire. Indeed, they have repeatedly made it clear that their intention is to repeat the awful events of 7 October. So I agree entirely with both his understanding and prediction of the situation.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I and many of my constituents continue to be upset beyond words by the human suffering we have seen on television screens since 7 October. So often, I am being asked to take sides, but, in the words of Jonathan Freedland:

“This is not a football match… Two peoples with deep wounds, howling with grief, fated to share the same small piece of land.”

Does the Minister agree that the side we need to be on is the side of all those who are working towards a lasting peace?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is entirely correct in her last point, and indeed in all that she said. She says that her constituents are upset beyond measure. One thing we can all agree, wherever we stand on this issue, is that everyone is upset beyond measure. Therefore, she is right to say that we must focus, whenever the opportunity presents itself, on the political track and all the opportunities that could then open up.

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his long-standing work in this area. The shadow Minister spoke of fuel and water. On 7 October, amid Hamas’s atrocities in Israel, the terrorist group made a concerted effort to destroy water and electricity lines from Israel into Gaza. Apparently, Israel has reopened two of the three water lines into Gaza, but the third remains heavily damaged, as do the power lines. Does he share my concern that Hamas deliberately seek to worsen the humanitarian conditions inside Gaza?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments, and of course he is right. Once again, I draw his attention to the words of the former Foreign Secretary Lord Hague, who so accurately, so soon after these awful events took place, predicted the reasons why Hamas were doing this and why, ultimately, they must fail.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the response from my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). Will the Minister distance himself from the description of the Palestine marchers as “hate-filled”? The constituents I have been talking to are decent, law-abiding families who have no truck at all with Hamas but who are horrified by the scenes they are seeing, of children killed and maimed, day after day on their screens and are wanting this to stop, as we all must. Will he distance himself from that description?

[Mr Mitchell]

The rights of protest are much cherished in this country, and, of course, they are enshrined in law and we respect that. As for what the Home Secretary said, we are all responsible for what we say and she said it in the way that she did.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

First, let me thank the Minister, all his team and the United Nations agencies that are involved—Martin Griffiths and the people from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees who are on the ground, who obviously are in mourning for their colleagues—for all their incredible work to help with humanitarian aid. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is, in a sense, an intractable problem, because the nature of Hamas and how they are based in Gaza makes it impossible for Israel to defend itself effectively without, surely, breaking the rules of engagement and causing casualties, which everyone here finds very hard to accept? Does he therefore accept that the smidgeon of hope in all of this is that this disaster, which could repeat itself time and again, must be the catalyst for those in the region, above all, to lead on finding a proper political solution?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I hope that he will agree with my Oslo analogy and think that should give us all some hope at a very dark time. He is entirely right in what I take him to have meant, which is that Hamas can play no part in the future of Gaza after what has happened. I thank him very much for his comments about UN agencies and officials. There is no doubt that the UN, particularly UNRWA and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is working incredibly hard. I last spoke to Martin Griffiths just after 2 o’clock this morning, and I can tell the House that every sinew is being bent within the UN in trying to end an horrific state of affairs, which has been so accurately set out across the House.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Heartbreakingly, the number of children killed in Gaza in just four weeks of Israeli bombardment has surpassed the number killed in global conflict zones for every year since 2019, so we must urgently work for peace and a two-state solution, however difficult that may seem, and urgently deal with the humanitarian crisis engulfing Gaza. It pains me to see that the death toll in the occupied west bank, which I recently visited, is rapidly rising, including as a result of an Israeli airstrike on a mosque and more deadly settler violence. Those victims are certainly not Hamas. So will the Minister join me in condemning settler violence and the extremist rhetoric, and will he ensure that those perpetrators are held to account?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask us to condemn settler violence. The Prime Minister did that yesterday when he addressed the House, I did it in my statement, and it has been done from the Opposition Front Bench as well. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that violence in the west bank has reached unprecedented levels. We are doing everything we can to urge restraint and ensure that it stops. In what he said about children, he speaks for the whole House. The analysis of the problem is the easy part, but we are all working for the resolution.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

On children, I welcome both statements made from the Front Benches: my right hon. Friend the Minister is right to focus on every civilian life that has been lost in this conflict, and the hon. Member for Wigan was right to highlight the importance of children in this. I remind the House that the full wording of the Balfour declaration included:

“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

Children’s rights should be at the heart of that, so may I urge my right hon. Friend to double down on the push for humanitarian pauses and for humanitarian access, to make sure that we can protect children’s rights to life and to education?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, with which I agree entirely, and for his recollection of the Balfour declaration.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am told by the Muslim Council of Wales that seven families in Wales have lost immediate family members in Palestine, with some having lost children and grandchildren. We fear for the Israeli hostages in Gaza, among them British citizens. More will lose their lives, which is why Plaid Cymru has tabled a motion in the Senedd calling on the international community to seek an immediate ceasefire. In advocating for humanitarian pauses, does the Minister recognise that innocent non-combatants in Gaza will again be killed when pauses cease and that the only way to achieve lasting peace is a ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Lady will have heard what I and the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have said about ceasefires, but the hearts of the whole House will go out to the seven families—and maybe others too, in Wales—who have lost family members.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The atrocities on 7 October were well planned and well resourced. Indeed, Hamas, the terrorist group, stockpiled in advance, knowing what the response would be from Israel. Equally, Hamas have been caught out putting injured terrorists through the Rafah crossing into Egypt. What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of what Hamas should do now to release the resources they have stockpiled, so that there can be a wider humanitarian effort than there is currently?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is right and knows a great deal about these issues. He is right about the atrocities committed on 7 October by Hamas. This was a pogrom. It was the worst loss of Jewish life at any time in one day since the Holocaust and since 1945. One reason why the Rafah crossing is so difficult is precisely because of the circumstances that he described, with the misuse of the rules by injured Hamas terrorists.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, more than 10,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces in the past month—that is one of every 200 residents of Gaza. That does not include everyone who may have died due to lack of clean water or the collapse of the healthcare system after fuel was cut off. How many more people must die before the Government join the UN Secretary-General, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, Oxfam and the UN General Assembly in calling for an immediate ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

Once again, the hon. Lady will have heard the views of spokespeople on both Front Benches on the issue of a ceasefire, but her comments underline the importance now of trying to achieve these humanitarian pauses, so that help and succour can be brought to those who are suffering.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The loss of life in Israel and Palestine is beyond horror and everybody wants it to stop, but the statement from Hamas that they will not stop until the people of Israel are annihilated is deeply chilling. In his statement, the Minister mentioned radicalisation and the concern that the greater the loss of civilian life, the greater the risk of radicalisation, so I thank him for saying clearly that Israel must take precautions to minimise civilian casualties. I would add that Israel needs to be seen to be taking such precautions. We continue to call for pauses in fighting to let aid in and people out. What assessment has he made of the likelihood of such pauses happening?

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not think I can give a running commentary on that, except to say that the sinews of everybody are bent towards achieving it. My right hon. Friend makes a good point that, from all this death, destruction and killing, we must guard against the radicalisation of an entire new generation of young people. As President Biden said, it is very important that the lessons of 9/11 are properly learned.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Those of us who support a ceasefire are getting the overwhelming message from both the Government and the Labour Front Bench spokespeople that somehow calling for a ceasefire is naive. Does the Minister think that the Pope is naive in calling for a ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

I have set out very clearly our understanding, our logic and the reasons why we and Opposition Front Benchers have reached the conclusions we have on a ceasefire. I hope, at the very least, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on those.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

Getting aid into Gaza is vital and I welcome the Minister’s statement about looking for additional border crossings. What is more important is making sure that once aid is in Gaza, it gets to the people who need it most. Reports suggest that Hamas are holding more than 200,000 gallons of fuel that could be used for generators, to power hospitals or for ambulances. What is the Government’s assessment of Hamas holding fuel? What steps are being taken to ensure that once aid gets into Gaza, it does not end up in the hands of Hamas?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is right that we know Hamas have hoarded fuel in Gaza, although I cannot give him a statistic on that. The statistic he gave to the House may or may not be right, but we know that they do have a stockpiling of fuel. In terms of the way in which support will be used once we get the pauses and are able to get help and humanitarian supplies into Gaza, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are very careful indeed. We never work through the Palestinian Authority or Hamas in terms of direct support; we only go through trusted organisations. As I set out in my statement, we are very careful indeed to ensure that the aid gets to those who need it and gets there directly.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

The United Nations Secretary-General has said:

“Gaza is becoming a graveyard for children.”

More than 4,000 children have been killed since the start of the conflict. Every day we see footage of heartbreaking stories; I watched a small girl being pulled out of the rubble, asking her uncle if she was dead and whether he was taking her to a graveyard. Another video showed a girl of barely five stuck under a collapsed building, praying her final prayers in preparation for her death. At their age, children should be asking whether they are going to a playground, to buy an ice cream or any of those usual things, not whether they are going to a graveyard or preparing for their death. Children outside Al-Shifa Hospital yesterday felt they needed to do a press conference to call on the world to let them live. Minister, when will the UK ramp up its effort to end the bloodshed and ensure that Palestinian children just have the right to live?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady speaks with the greatest possible eloquence. She speaks for the whole House in saying that what is happening to children in Gaza appals us all. I just ask her to consider the wider context, accept that the Government understand and agree with her analysis of the plight of children in Gaza, and will do everything within the wider context to try to bring that to an end.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests concerning my visit to Israel and Palestine in May this year.

I received a report from a surgeon at a hospital in Gaza today. He says the situation is beyond catastrophic and that he is seeing “horrific” injuries, the majority of which are to children. He says:

“The type of injuries we are seeing is not something a human mind can accept or tolerate.”

He goes on to say that people who are being pulled alive from the rubble

“are scratched and bleeding and full of flies.”

A lot of his report is very graphic, including the fact that many children have lost limbs and no one knows who many of them are. The UK is the penholder for the protection of civilians in conflict at the UN Security Council. Can we ensure that all health facilities, including the Indonesia Hospital in Gaza, which was at threat of being bombed, be protected from attack?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to refer to the UK’s role at the United Nations. We take those responsibilities extremely seriously and our brilliant team who work at the UN are doing everything to justify the fact that we hold that particular pen, among any others. My hon. Friend will have heard what the Prime Minister said about the treatment of hospitals, and we will continue to do everything we can to protect them.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

May I welcome the balance and tone of the Minister’s statement? When the Government make representations to the Israeli Government about the increase in settler violence in the west bank, what do the Israeli Government say in return?

[Mr Mitchell]

These are ongoing discussions and they are made at many levels. The Prime Minister has spoken repeatedly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and my colleague Lord Ahmad has been consistently in the region, as has the Foreign Secretary, so we are having those discussions at every level. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that what the Prime Minister has said, and what I have said from the Dispatch Box, is the thrust of those discussions, and we are doing everything we possibly can to drive forward what both he and I believe is the right answer to this.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is incredibly difficult to hear the testimonies of the survivors of the 7 October Hamas atrocities. It is equally difficult to see the media reports of what is happening in Gaza, particularly in relation to the children who are being affected. It is so important that we do all we can to bring this conflict to an end for the security and the futures of children in both Israel and Gaza. I welcome the extra humanitarian aid that is going into Gaza from the UK Government. Can the Minister please assure us that, once this conflict is over and even bigger humanitarian aid is required, the Government will do all they can to help rebuild Gaza?

[Mr Mitchell]

On my hon. Friend’s final point, there is no doubt that when peace comes and the international community is able to engage in a political process, the rebuilding of Gaza will certainly be a part of that. To her point about the awful testimonies of survivors from the 7 October attacks and the dreadful scenes that we see on our television thanks to the brave reportage of many journalists, there is no doubt that it is extremely difficult to watch, which is why the Government, along with our allies and others who are deeply concerned about this, are doing all we can to ensure that we bring this to a close as soon as we can.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

There are 1,400 dead in Israel and 10,000 dead in Gaza; there is increased military activity on the west bank, increased settler violence, and now more and more children dying as this conflict goes on in Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu is now promising that Israel will control the Gaza strip into the indefinite future. Is it not time that the British Government joined all those other sensible and reasonable voices around the world that are doing everything they can to demand and get a ceasefire to prevent any further loss of life and to begin to work out a peaceful future for all the people in the region?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what his successor, the leader of the Labour party, has said on the subject of a ceasefire, and we agree with him. None the less, the right hon. Gentleman describes an extraordinarily difficult situation. He also talks about security on the west bank, the key purpose of which for Israel is to ensure that the rockets cannot come over the border again. I think we need to see security in that context, rather than in the ebb and flow of the debate that is going on at the moment.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

We know that escalation is a real risk. With reports that Israeli forces have started raiding refugee camps on the west bank, we know that there is real risk to innocent Palestinians. There are also reports of Israeli settlers on the west bank becoming increasingly hostile in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Will the Minister please explain what specific steps he is taking to de-escalate the situation?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes the point that escalation is not just about the region, but about the west bank as well. That is why the Prime Minister has condemned settler violence and why we continue to make representations to the Israeli Government in that respect.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

On the question of humanitarian pauses, can the Minister tell us his assessment of how long they will last, how people will be protected, and how those pauses will be managed? He referred briefly to those points in his statement.

[Mr Mitchell]

The aim of humanitarian pauses is not only to get humanitarian relief and supplies into Gaza, but to ensure that there is a safe structure, as I said earlier in my statement, to deliver humanitarian supplies, and one that does not put people in jeopardy. Therefore, a humanitarian pause should not be seen as one on its own; we are looking at negotiating a series of humanitarian pauses, so that there can be a proper supply basis for the people we are trying to help.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Many constituents have raised concerns with me about the humanitarian crisis faced by Palestinians in Gaza. Indeed, a march was held in Aylesbury on Saturday, which, I am pleased to say, passed off peacefully. We know that Hamas hide behind human shields—including, shockingly, even in hospitals. How is my right hon. Friend’s Department working with partners on the ground in Gaza to ensure that aid gets to those who need it, including in hospitals, despite the barbarity and the barriers put in their way by Hamas?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the importance of ensuring that Hamas brutality does not fetter our ability to get aid through to those who really need it. I can give him the undertaking that that is precisely what we are trying to do.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Against the backdrop of a child dying every 10 minutes in Gaza and evidence that water entering as aid through the Rafah crossing is not being allowed into northern Gaza, will the Minister confirm that the Government support the independence of the International Criminal Court and recognise its jurisdiction to address the conduct of all parties in the conflict in Gaza?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about the importance of prioritising children. In respect of the International Criminal Court, she will know that the Government are a very strong supporter of it and the role that it plays in international affairs.

[Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement; I agreed with every single word of it. In my 13 years as an MP I have never received such detailed and harrowing letters from my Jewish and Muslim communities in South Derbyshire. Whatever else happens, please can we make sure that, looking to the future, we work on the two-state solution and put in place a safe place for all Gazans and Jewish families going forward?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend accurately summarises the role and the importance that the Government attach to progressing the political process, and I thank her for her comments in that respect.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister tell us whether his discussions with charities and non-governmental organisations this morning included aid agencies such as Oxfam, Christian Aid or Save the Children? They say that only a full ceasefire can deliver the conditions to get lifesaving food, fuel, water and medicine into Gaza, not least because critical infrastructure, such as roads and hospitals, needs to be mended first and that cannot happen if there are only humanitarian pauses. I know that he has said a lot this afternoon about the difference between pauses and a ceasefire, but he has not addressed explicitly the advice that we are hearing from humanitarian experts on the ground who say that only a full ceasefire will allow them to get that kind of aid fast enough to the people who need it.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is correct about the importance of tackling the deficiencies of infrastructure, both in the area around Rafah and more extensively than that. She asks about my contact with NGOs and charities. As she said, I had a meeting this morning that was chaired by the British Overseas NGOs for Development—BOND— which is the collective of charities. We operate through trusted partners, such as UNICEF, UNRWA and UNHCHR, and we are in continual contact with them. The point she makes about infrastructure is one that we are very much aware of and will do everything we can to assist with.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

The Minister is absolutely right to say that Hamas made a massive strategic error when they attacked innocent Israeli people on 7 October, and they are paying a heavy price with the destruction of their terror network in the Gaza strip. However, does he agree that the bigger price that they should pay is the moderate voices on both sides coming together to re-establish the framework, as he has referred to, that was in place under Oslo, going towards a two-state solution between a viable Israeli state and a viable Palestinian state, and getting the terror network out of the way?

[Mr Mitchell]

Not just in Britain but all around the Arab world and the United Nations, people are very much focused on how to get a political track going again when these dreadful events draw to a close. As I said earlier, I think the one opportunity that may arise from these dreadful events is an effort to rebuild the political process to deliver an answer on the way we go forward politically—my hon. Friend mentioned the two-state solution, which is the bedrock of British Government policy.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I spoke to a constituent last night who is studying in York. He has lost 42 members of his wider family, and his immediate family remain in the line of rockets in Gaza. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there can be family reunions, and that refugees can come from the Gaza strip to the UK?

[Mr Mitchell]

We are working very hard to ensure that families are not broken up through the Rafah crossing. We have been moderately successful at that so far. I am sure that everything that can be done will be done. If any of the hon. Lady’s constituents are caught up in that way, I hope that she will let us know in the crisis centre through the MP hotline.

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

I put on record my thanks to the Bolton Council of Mosques, which covers 34 mosques in my constituency and has 60,000 members across the town. My constituents have felt very aggrieved over the last month. We have seen statements coming out of Israel about having “security responsibility” for Gaza for an “indefinite period”. The Minister mentioned that Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that there shall be no Israeli reoccupation of Gaza after the war. What is our Government’s position on that in the long term? My constituents through the Bolton Council of Mosques have called repeatedly for a ceasefire. I will meet them again tomorrow night. From our Government’s perspective, what criteria would have to be met in order for us to call for a ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

I know that my hon. Friend has been deeply engaged in representing his constituents, and I am aware of the representations that he has made. I hope that he will explain to his constituents tomorrow night the reasons why a ceasefire is not something that either the Government or the Opposition are calling for. I hope that he will be able to explain that we are doing everything that we can both to construct a scenario where there can be a number of pauses and to ensure that humanitarian support can be safely delivered within Gaza.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The International Committee of the Red Cross has reported that as Gaza loses power, hospitals lose power, putting newborns in incubators and elderly patients who are on oxygen at risk. Without electricity, hospitals turn into morgues. Does the Minister not think that at this point bringing an immediate stop to the violence is the only way to stop hospitals turning into morgues and the whole of Gaza turning into a graveyard?

[Mr Mitchell]

We are extremely concerned about the position in hospitals and the effects that the hon. Gentleman has described, but I can only repeat what I have already said to the House about how we are doing everything that we can to try to bring these circumstances to a close.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and for his, the Prime Minister’s and the Foreign Secretary’s ongoing diplomatic efforts. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the brave humanitarian workers who are doing so much in Gaza, and can he reassure the House again that the UK Government are straining every sinew to get as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as quickly as possible?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again reiterating the strong support across the House for the brave humanitarian workers and what they are doing in this terrible conflict, and for expressing his abhorrence that unarmed people who are trying only to benefit their fellow humans should be murdered in this way. He can rest assured that we will do everything that we can to ensure that they are protected.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Hounslow’s Muslim leaders told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) yesterday evening of the horror felt in their communities at the atrocities taking place in Gaza, the need to get aid and support in, and their wish for long-term peace. Now that Israel is threatening to occupy Gaza permanently, will the UK Government support the US Secretary of State Blinken’s insistence that there should be no Israeli occupation of Gaza after this war?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for telling the House about her meetings with the Muslim leaders in her constituency. I hope that she will tell them about the position of the House, the aid and support that we are trying to get in through the pauses, and the support for the political process that she mentioned. The British Government agree with what Secretary Blinken said, but are absolutely clear that the perpetrators of the dreadful events on 7 October—Hamas—must never be allowed to do it again.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

My constituent Momon Zomlot is from Gaza. I met him when he was working as a chef at a local pizza restaurant. He is an incredibly nice and genuine guy, but this morning he sent me a text informing me that his family home was destroyed three days ago and he has heard nothing from his family since. How much longer do we have to wait until this suffering ends and humanitarian aid can reach people such as my constituent’s family?

[Mr Mitchell]

I cannot tell my hon. Friend the answer to that, but I can tell him that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the period is as short as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I indicated that I would endeavour to accommodate everybody. That remains the case. The Minister has indicated to me that he has effectively cleared his diary to accommodate this statement, because he realises how important it is. But there is a time when everything has to come to an end, because a large number of Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, wish to speak in the King’s Speech debate and we want to get those people in as well. I will try to terminate this statement by 2.30 pm, bearing in mind that some 38 Members still wish to ask a question.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

We are grateful to the Minister for his tireless work, but by his own analysis the aid is not getting through. I commend to him the motion passed by Birmingham City Council last night that calls for an immediate ceasefire binding on all sides, because it is the best way to save the hostages, get aid through, and let the war crimes inspectors do their work. I support that position. I do not think that he does, but could he tell us under what conditions the British Government would shift from a policy of supporting humanitarian pauses to a strategy of supporting an immediate ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain to our friends on Birmingham City Council the reason the Government and indeed his own Front Bench take the view that they do about a ceasefire, but he is right that the critical thing at the moment is to focus on the humanitarian pauses, which are designed to get food to those who need it. Nothing is more important in this context than that.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) that he wants the Government of Israel to comply with international human rights law and that he encourages them to do so, but he did not answer my hon. Friend’s question: have the Government made an assessment of whether or not the Government of Israel are complying with international human rights law?

[Mr Mitchell]

It is not for the Government to make such an assessment; it is for lawyers and a court to do so. The critical thing is that Britain makes it clear that all countries must abide by international humanitarian law and the rules of war.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Over 10,000 people have already been killed in Gaza in the past month—more than were killed in the 1995 Srebrenica genocide. There are grave concerns that starvation is being used as a weapon of war against 400,000 civilians in the north of Gaza. That is illegal under international law. The UN Secretary-General and a number of others have talked about the need for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and a halt to the spiral of escalation already taking place, from the west bank to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. I recognise the position across the two main parties on a ceasefire, but 120 countries in the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian truce. That has not been achieved either. The Government talk about humanitarian pauses, yet our Government have abstained on UN resolutions. What are the Government doing to use their influence at the international level to stop the bombardment, so that at the very least aid can get in?

[Mr Mitchell]

As I set out in my statement, we are engaged on all those matters and doing everything we can, through Britain’s very strong diplomatic network, which means that we are engaged and connected to almost all the relevant parties in this matter, and that will continue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I do have to call upon hon. Members to try to keep their questions brief. I want to accommodate everybody, but at the present rate of lengthy questions it is simply not going to be possible.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful answers. In 1919, seeing children from the defeated Austro-Hungarian empire starving, Eglantyne Jebb established Save the Children. Many people said to her, “How can you help enemy children?” and one of her supporters, the great Irish humanitarian George Bernard Shaw, said:

“I have no enemies under the age of seven.”

Almost half of Palestinians are children, many thousands of whom have been killed, maimed and orphaned. So have many Israeli children, including one dual Irish citizen who is believed to be among the hostages in Gaza. Does the Minister agree with UNICEF’s regional director, Adele Khodr, who says that the situation in Gaza is

“a growing stain on our collective conscience”?

[Mr Mitchell]

The head of UNICEF, who made those comments, is right to focus on what is happening in Gaza and to express her abhorrence of what is taking place. On the hon. Lady’s citation of the brilliant work that Save the Children does, I have been intimately connected with Save the Children for the last 20 years and we honour both its work and the success it so often achieves.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Everybody wants the bloodshed to stop; the question is how to secure that ambition in a lasting way, not whether we should seek it. For my constituents, that matters not just as a policy for the UK Government, but for the people on the ground, who are our neighbours and directly affected. May I have a few precious moments of the Minister’s time to help to offer them just a crumb of comfort? For 30 days they have not heard anything. Both Oded and Ibrahim are at direct risk of harm due to Hamas and the Israeli missiles. Oded, the father of one of my constituents, was kidnapped by Hamas, and the Prime Minister made a personal pledge to assist him. Ibrahim is at risk because we do not yet know why he and his family have not been able to cross the border at Rafah. May I seek an urgent meeting with the Minister to look specifically at those two cases and to find those rays of light we all desperately want for my constituents?

[Mr Mitchell]

In response to the hon. Lady’s request for a meeting, she will know that the crisis centre in the Foreign Office, which is full of both willing volunteers and experts in these consular matters, will be the right place to take this issue. However, I will certainly meet her immediately after this statement.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

A doctor sent a message last night from Gaza saying, “We have worms coming out of wounds even after we do surgeries. Nothing is clean. Nothing is sterile.” It is clear that we need an urgent cessation of hostilities on all sides on humanitarian grounds, because the situation in Gaza is now unspeakable. At the same time, as well as condemning settler violence in the west bank, we need more action to bring an end to it. May I bring the Minister back to a question of accountability under international law, following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott)? Will the Minister confirm that the Government support the independence of the International Criminal Court and recognise its jurisdiction to address the conduct of all parties in Gaza and the west bank?

[Mr Mitchell]

We are very strong supporters of the International Criminal Court, and that has been true under Governments from both the main parties. On the hon. Lady’s important point that we need to see an end to settler violence, the Government entirely agree.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) set out in the most powerful way why the deaths and trauma experienced by innocent children in Gaza are utterly intolerable. The supply of basic utilities such as water, medicine, electricity and fuel needed to operate the hospitals in Gaza should not be blocked. It is unacceptable that siege conditions are still being imposed on Gaza by Israel. Can the Minister confirm that he agrees, and what has he done to communicate that to Israel as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Mitchell]

The Government at every level are engaged in those discussions with the state of Israel. The hon. Lady lists a number of humanitarian supplies that need to get through, and Britain is at the forefront of the international community in doing everything we can to ensure both that they do get through, and that there are sufficient supplies in the region.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will not take up time now, but we will forward the report from Doctor Hassan at the Indonesian hospital in Gaza regarding the treatment of children with no hands and stage 4 burns. However, we must remember that 30 of the hostages are children too. I believe in an immediate ceasefire, but I am willing to clutch at straws as well. Have the Government verified in any form with Qatar the reports that Hamas might be willing to agree a release of civilian hostages for a five-day ceasefire, and have the Government engaged at all with the proposal by the families of hostages for an “all for all” release of hostages for prisoners of Israel?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman is a very senior member of this House and he knows that I cannot give him a running commentary on hostage negotiations. However, I can confirm to him that Qatar has been exceedingly helpful and that releasing the hostages remains at the very top of our list of priorities in this dreadful situation.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I am not sure we can exactly trade hostages in these conditions. However, does Minister agree that the immediate release of the hostages would go a long way towards enabling the conditions for the kind of humanitarian pause or pauses that we need if we are to deliver aid in the manner and on the scale that we all think is necessary?

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

As a person of Jewish heritage, I was mortified and horrified by what happened on 7 October, but I did not for one second believe that any Palestinian child anywhere was responsible. Yet the Secretary-General of the United Nations has said that Gaza is “a graveyard for children” and that the Israelis are committing war crimes, and has called for humanitarian peace. We helped to create the United Nations. We are permanent members. Is it not time we got behind the Secretary-General, who speaks with great moral authority on these matters, and ourselves called for a ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

The British role at the United Nations is second to none in trying to stop what is happening in Israel and in Palestine. The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that Hamas knew exactly what they were unleashing on that dreadful day of 7 October, and the blame for what has happened should be allocated precisely where it rests.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Gaza used to be described as a “prison camp”—that is what Prime Minister David Cameron called it in 2010. This week the United Nations Secretary-General called it “a graveyard for children”. More than 10,000 Palestinians have been slaughtered in Israel’s assault, nearly half of them children. It would take nearly six hours to read the names and ages of every child killed so far. Yet that horror has been given the green light by this Government. Today I tabled an amendment to the Humble Address calling for an immediate ceasefire, a move backed by 76% of the British public. Will the Government finally do what is right and demand an immediate ceasefire to end the bloodshed?

[Mr Mitchell]

While the hon. Lady is eloquent on the effects, she is not so eloquent, in my opinion, on the causes. In respect of the amendment that she has tabled, of course that is a matter for the House, but it will not be supported by the Government, nor by those on her own Front Bench.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Almost 1,200 constituents have been in touch with my office demanding a ceasefire now. Oxfam has said that humanitarian pauses and safe zones are simply not enough to address this humanitarian crisis, and it is far from alone in saying so. Can the Minister explain to my constituents and to Oxfam why he will not support a ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will not try your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, by repeating what I have already said. The hon. Lady says that pauses are not enough, but there have not yet been any pauses. That is why we are working so hard to try to achieve them.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, but how will he ensure that humanitarian aid, which he has assured the House will get to those in Gaza, will actually get there? We are getting reports that there are hospitals in the north that have only 24 hours’ worth of fuel. We are seeing and hearing horrific reports of children dying, and of people trying to work in those horrific circumstances. What are we doing to help those people? It is too much. We are crying; we are upset. It is going on and on. We have statements to the House, but they are not enough. People need to know that we care and that we will make a difference.

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not think there is any doubt that, across the House, we care deeply about what is happening there. The hon. Lady asks how we will achieve access for humanitarian aid, and rightly makes the point that it is not getting through in anything like sufficient quantity at the moment. That is why we are doing everything we can, across the international community and the humanitarian sector, to ensure that the pauses are implemented and take place as soon as possible.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are seeing a humanitarian catastrophe of unfathomable depths unfolding among the world’s youngest population. Last week, the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution calling for the

“immediate, full, sustained, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access”

for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, as well as an

“immediate and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities”.

The United Kingdom abstained. The resolution was supported by France, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, New Zealand and 115 other nations. Why did the UK abstain? If a similar resolution comes again, will the UK vote for it? Does the UK support Pedro Sanchez, who put a motion before the European Council calling for a peace conference after the conflict has finished? Does the UK join that call?

[Mr Mitchell]

If another motion comes before the United Nations, Britain will of course look at the terms of that motion and discuss it together with our allies and like-minded countries who, like the hon. Gentleman, want to see an end to these dreadful circumstances. In respect of the last motion and Britain’s decision not to oppose it but to abstain, he will have seen the reasons set out by the Government. For any new motion put before the United Nations, we will vote in the way that we think is best in these dreadful circumstances.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that he is discussing with partners how to increase the amount of aid going into Gaza, and that humanitarian pauses must be part of that, but how long must a humanitarian pause be to live up to that name? Infrastructure needs to be repaired, and an enormous amount of aid needs to be shifted, in a very short time. Is there consensus with those partners on how long a humanitarian pause has to be?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but these matters are the subject of intensive negotiations at this time.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

We know that multiple respected humanitarian organisations on the ground in Gaza and Israel have called for a ceasefire of all parties. We know that, historically, ceasefires break down and are maintained again only with international support and pressure, so how many horrors and deaths do the Government believe we must see before that pressure comes from the international community? If, as he said, the Minister believes that multiple humanitarian pauses are achievable on all sides, when will that hope be transferred to a permanent, lasting ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

Although it is not the policy of the Government or Opposition Front Benchers to call for a ceasefire, we are calling for comprehensive humanitarian pauses to enable us to reach civilians in the desperate circumstances that the hon. Lady describes.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I concur with the calls for a ceasefire. Since 7 October, an estimated 39 journalists have been killed in the conflict. That makes it the most deadly month for journalists in almost 30 years. What more can the Government do to stress to the Israeli Government the importance of safety for journalists and their safe access? Accurate reporting on this is crucial.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to raise the point about the number of journalists who have sadly lost their lives. Many very brave journalists are in the area trying to ensure that we get accurate reporting of what is going on there—they risk their lives in that respect. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Foreign Secretary, he specifically implemented a number of changes to try to defend journalists who were caught up in those sorts of difficulties, and the British Government strongly support the work that he set in train.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the scale of human suffering in the 7 October attack and the offensive in Gaza, we are drawn to that of the children who have been killed or injured, and who continue to suffer. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), has asked the Government to provide for a co-ordinator for aid to be appointed. Will the Government meet that request?

[Mr Mitchell]

We are certainly considering that as the situation evolves, but for the moment, there are many specialists fulfilling a series of different purposes and different work in connection with the international situation.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The human suffering in Gaza is unimaginable, and a humanitarian pause for aid is desperately needed to save lives. The UK has played a unique historical role, so what steps are the Government taking to support UNICEF and others in protecting the million innocent children in Gaza?

[Mr Mitchell]

UNICEF is one of the most highly respected United Nations organisations and agencies. Britain has consistently been one of the most generous and strong supporters of UNICEF, precisely because of the effectiveness of that organisation. The hon. Lady may rest assured that we will work closely with UNICEF throughout this period, and that we profoundly respect the abilities and reach that UNICEF brings to its work.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Yesterday a mother and five children—all UK citizens in my constituency—finally made it out of Gaza, having experienced sights that no child should witness, literally walking past hundreds of dismembered and decaying bodies to reach safety. If war crimes are committed, they should be investigated. Will the Minister answer the question that he has deftly avoided so far: is there a role for the International Criminal Court in investigating the conduct of all parties to this terrible war?

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not think it fair to say that I was avoiding the question. I was making the point, which I know the hon. Gentleman will understand, that Britain was one of the first countries to support the ICC—it was not supported by Russia, China or America, as I recall—so Britain’s support and enthusiasm for the work of the ICC should not be in doubt.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is heartbreaking to hear of the fear and terror that caused 1.5 million people in Gaza to be displaced. Does the Minister agree that, for the 1.5 million Palestinians who had to flee, the right to return to their homes is vital for long-term peace, especially given the history in the region? Has the Minister raised that in his diplomatic meetings, and what response has he received?

[Mr Mitchell]

We all hope that, eventually, the position in Gaza will be radically different from what it is today, and that the two-state solution will be implemented. The two-state solution means that Israel is able to live behind secure borders and the state of Palestine emerges, so the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is a fairly qualified yes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for his clear commitment to looking out for the innocent in Israel and Gaza and to finding solutions—it is clear that that is what he wants to do. It is understood that the Egyptian Government have opened the Rafah crossing for dual nationals to vacate the Gaza strip, and many have already taken advantage of that. What steps will the Government take to ensure that British dual nationals are guaranteed safe passage via the crossing to get back to the UK for a much-loved reunion with their families?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—he always speaks for the House on humanitarian matters. More than 150 British nationals have now come out, and all our country-based staff and dependents were out by last night. There are 32 British nationals who are waiting for clearance, and 48 British nationals who have been cleared and who were waiting to come across when this statement started. That is the current position, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use the MPs’ hotline to the crisis centre for any of his constituents who are caught up in this, so that we can give him the most accurate information available.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The charity Medical Aid for Palestinians has warned that people are struggling to find food and water and meet their basic needs, and that even the minimal humanitarian aid that has been allowed in is unable to be distributed fully, due to the damaged roads and lack of fuel for trucks. The north of Gaza is basically receiving no aid at all, so can the Minister set out how the Government are working with international partners to ensure that urgent fuel and humanitarian supplies are not only getting into Gaza, but throughout it, to help those in desperate need?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady rightly draws a distinction between getting humanitarian supplies into Gaza and being able to distribute them safely. These are very challenging circumstances, for the reasons I have set out to the House, but she may rest assured that the international humanitarian community is doing everything it can to address them.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The World Health Organisation estimates that there are 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza, with an average of 180 giving birth every day without access to obstetric services and, of course, babies being born into a war zone. Can the Minister outline what work is going on to make sure that humanitarian aid is getting to those pregnant women, new mums and babies?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Lady describes an extremely difficult situation, one that has been ventilated in the press, where we have seen that women are having to give birth in the most hideous of circumstances. What I can say to her is that if we are able to get aid in, we have specific humanitarian aid and support for mothers of babies—for mothers who have just given birth—and when we are able to get access in that respect, we will do everything we can to meet that need.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Thousands of children are dead. Many more are traumatised, millions are being starved, and as we have heard, the UN has described Gaza as becoming a “graveyard for children”. We all agree that Israel has the right to respond to the senseless and brutal attack of 7 October, but many of us, including hundreds of my constituents, believe that this response is utterly disproportionate. With the UN, the WHO, and the lead prosecutor of the ICC warning of breaches of international law, will the Minister explain to the House what it will take for his Government to stand up to Netanyahu and his extremist Ministers and make clear that this abject suffering simply cannot, and must not, continue?

[Mr Mitchell]

Because we are strongly supportive of Israel’s right to self-defence—we have been absolutely clear about that throughout these dreadful circumstances, as have the Opposition—we are able to have clear and firm discussions with the Prime Minister of Israel, and that is what we do.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I abhor the loss of all innocent civilian life. Dead innocent Israeli men, women and children and dead innocent Palestinian men, women and children have this in common: they are innocent civilians, and they are dead. This vicious cycle of killing must stop. As we are here to talk about the humanitarian situation, I remind the House that the Prime Minister told us before Prorogation that he would use British logistical capacity to get hundreds of aid lorries a day—rather than the tens that were crossing at the time—across the Rafah crossing. By when do we expect that target to be met?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman speaks for everyone in the House when he abhors the loss of life among innocent civilians. On the humanitarian situation, he has referred to what the Prime Minister said before Prorogation. What the Prime Minister said is absolutely correct: Britain has not only been supplying humanitarian provisions into el-Arish so that they can go through Rafah when circumstances permit but has provided heavy lift materials so that others, as well as us, can move those supplies towards Rafah when they are able to get through. What the Prime Minister told the House is what everyone, not just Britain, is trying to achieve.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the work they have done to help facilitate the safe departure from Gaza of my constituent, Mr Abdel Hammad. Mr Hammad was in Gaza to perform kidney transplant operations as a charity volunteer with the Liverpool International Transplant Initiative. I pay tribute to his many years of humanitarian work in this field.

As we know, there have been thousands of deaths in this terrible conflict, so will the Minister urgently press all parties to agree to an immediate de-escalation and cessation of hostilities, and will he do all he can to bring about a peaceful resolution to this devastating conflict?

[Mr Mitchell]

In respect of the hon. Lady’s last point, I am not sure I can add to what I have already told the House, but I am very relieved to hear about her constituent. I will pass on her thanks to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

The only route to long-term peace is a two-state solution. The Minister has said in response to other questions that Gaza will look radically different at the end of this conflict, but can he commit to making representations to his Israeli counterparts that all those displaced in Gaza will be able to return?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady rightly identifies the importance of getting back to the two-state solution, which is the policy of the British Government and has repeatedly been the policy of British Governments. She may rest assured that Britain, along with its allies, is absolutely focused on the wellbeing of the people of Gaza and their future. It is very important to make clear that Hamas is not the Palestinians.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

To tackle this humanitarian crisis, we need to strain every sinew for a ceasefire. The UN Secretary-General says that we need a ceasefire, one binding on all sides. The UN high commissioner for human rights also says that we need a ceasefire; so, too, do the heads of the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN Children’s Fund, UN Women, the UN World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation. In fact, the heads of all major United Nations agencies are calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. Why do this Government think that they know better than the world’s leading humanitarian agencies?

[Mr Mitchell]

Again, I am not sure that I can add to the very comprehensive and full answer that I have already given the House on that point, but let me make clear that it is not the policy of either the Government or the Opposition to call for a ceasefire, for the reasons I have set out. However, all of us across the House are engaged in trying to bring these dreadful events to a close.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I agree that the need for humanitarian pauses is urgent. With that in mind, what discussions are the Government having with regional partners, especially Egypt, to ensure that the Rafah crossing will allow for many more people to leave Gaza much more quickly? Further to that, can the Minister assure the House that when it is safe to do so, those people will be able to return quickly and safely?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support for humanitarian pauses. She can rest assured that we are having detailed discussions with all our regional partners. In respect of Egypt, which she mentioned specifically, I had a discussion yesterday at around midday with the Egyptian ambassador.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In depriving the civilian population of Gaza of water, food, medicine and power, combined with the forced relocation of civilians, not respecting the sanctity of hospitals—indeed, bombing or threatening to bomb hospitals—and targeting civilian infrastructure including refugee camps, Israel has broken articles 3, 18, 23, 33 and 47 of the Geneva conventions. What exactly do the Israel Defence Forces have to do before this Government call out Israel for its war crimes?

[Mr Mitchell]

I would not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, in his question, of the Geneva convention, but when he talks about the need for water, food and medicines, he may rest assured that Britain is focused very much on those supplies in its humanitarian efforts.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

In 2014, a six-hour pause made way for a three-day pause before a ceasefire. This House must be on the right side of history, and I absolutely respect the Minister for the time and the tone of the statement today. However, does he agree that, for lasting peace, we must inevitably reach the point of a ceasefire, even after humanitarian pauses? Will he assure me that he will press for that with our international partners to ensure that we have lasting peace in the region?

[Mr Mitchell]

In spite of the hon. Lady’s very generous comments, I cannot agree with her, for the reasons I have set out, about calling now for a ceasefire, but I hope she will feel that the intention of the Government, along with our partners, in respect of humanitarian pauses is moving in the right direction.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I understand the need for Israel to act to free the hostages and deal with Hamas, although the images we see and the number of children who have been killed can sometimes seem a very distant way away from those objectives. On the latter of those aims, in relation to Hamas’s capacity, I would like to know how the UK Government will judge whether that objective has been reached and whether we have reached a point when we say to Israel that that is enough?

[Mr Mitchell]

I recognise that the hon. Member is being supportive in saying that the purpose of the Israeli Government is to free the hostages and deal with Hamas. I am sure this will not be the only occasion when I come to the House to give a statement about both the humanitarian position and also the position throughout Gaza.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

When so many children are being horribly maimed and killed, it really is not naive to call for a ceasefire. That is why so many international voices are calling for a ceasefire, including my friends at the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. They have done that against the background of an assessment that the rules of international humanitarian law have not only been broken by Hamas, but may be being broken by the Israeli Government.

I was very disappointed to hear that the UK Government have not carried out an assessment of whether international humanitarian law is being obeyed on the ground in Gaza. This matters terribly to my constituents, many hundreds of whom have written to me about it. May I suggest to the Minister that if the UK Government fulfilled their obligation to carry out an assessment of whether international humanitarian law is being obeyed on the ground in Gaza, that might change both the UK Government’s mind and the mind of the official Opposition, and make them support a ceasefire now?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. and learned Lady is a distinguished lawyer, and she will know that the judgment she is asking the Government to make is not a judgment for Ministers and politicians, but a judgment for lawyers in respect of international law, so I fear that I am not in a position, as a Minister, to give a direct answer to her question.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to thank the Minister for the way he has conducted himself this afternoon, listening to the wide range of concerns from right hon. and hon. Members. My prayers and thoughts remain with the hostages, who have been kidnapped for over 30 days now. They have to be released safely and urgently.

I have received so many emails from constituents who are really concerned about the ongoing humanitarian situation in Gaza. I recently met Islamic Relief UK, which is based in my Vauxhall constituency, and it shared with me the harrowing story of one of its aid workers on the ground:

“None of us has proper food, we’re struggling to find water and we have no electricity. Humanitarian assistance is not being allowed into Gaza and I fear people will starve here.”

That is a quote from an Islamic Relief staff member in Gaza who fled south with his family. These calls are real, and these calls are being made now. People are in desperate need of help. People are facing a major crisis. What more will the Minister and this Government do to make sure they are speaking to their Israeli counterparts to ensure that that pause is real and that it comes now, so we can get in urgent assistance and do not see more innocent civilians dying?

[Mr Mitchell]

I think the hon. Lady speaks for the House about the importance of achieving the humanitarian pauses, which have been greatly mentioned over the last hour and a half. I say to her that I know those at Islamic Relief extremely well, and I have visited them in her constituency. They do fantastic work, and we all honour and respect them for that. In her question, she talked about the importance of releasing the hostages and addressing humanitarian concern. Those two things are at the heart of what the House has been discussing today, and I thank her for ending this session on a constructive note.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

At the start of the statement, I expressed the hope that the House would rise to the occasion, and I have not been disappointed. I particularly thank the Minister for the courtesy he has brought and the time he has given to this session.

Bills Presented

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)

Secretary Michelle Donelan, supported by Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Steve Barclay, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, George Freeman, Julia Lopez, Sir John Whittingdale, Paul Scully and Alex Burghart, presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the processing of information relating to identified or identifiable living individuals; to make provision about services consisting of the use of information to ascertain and verify facts about individuals; to make provision about access to customer data and business data; to make provision about privacy and electronic communications; to make provision about services for the provision of electronic signatures, electronic seals and other trust services; to make provision about the disclosure of information to improve public service delivery; to make provision for the implementation of agreements on sharing information for law enforcement purposes; to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; to make provision about information standards for health and social care; to establish the Information Commission; to make provision about oversight of biometric data; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 17 April); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 1) with explanatory notes (Bill 1-EN).

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)

Secretary Alex Chalk, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Steve Barclay, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Secretary Mark Harper, the Attorney General, Edward Argar and Miss Sarah Dines, presented a Bill to make provision about victims of criminal conduct and others affected by criminal conduct; about the appointment and functions of individuals to act as independent public advocates for victims of major incidents; about the release of prisoners; about the membership and functions of the Parole Board; to prohibit certain prisoners from forming a marriage or civil partnership; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 15 May); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 2) with explanatory notes (Bill 2-EN).

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)

Secretary Kemi Badenoch, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Lucy Frazer, Kevin Hollinrake, Paul Scully, Gareth Davies, Julia Lopez and Sir John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of competition in digital markets; to amend the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 and to make other provision about competition law; to make provision relating to the protection of consumer rights and to confer further such rights; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 17 May); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 3) with explanatory notes (Bill 3-EN).

Renters (Reform) Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)

Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Mel Stride, Secretary Lucy Frazer and Rachel Maclean, presented a Bill to make provision changing the law about rented homes, including provision abolishing fixed term assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; imposing obligations on landlords and others in relation to rented homes and temporary and supported accommodation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put and committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 23 October); to be printed (Bill 4) with explanatory notes (Bill 4-EN).

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)

Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden, Robert Jenrick, Robert Halfon, Stuart Andrew and Felicity Buchan, presented a Bill to make provision to prevent public bodies from being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign states when taking certain economic decisions, subject to certain exceptions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 3 July); to be read the Third time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 5) with explanatory notes (Bill 5-EN).

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)

Secretary Mark Harper, supported by the Prime Minister, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, presented a Bill to make provision for a railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly Station; for a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put and committed to a Select Committee (20 June 2022); to be printed (Bill 6) with explanatory notes (Bill 6-EN).

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Orders Nos. 57 and 80A)

Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Secretary Gillian Keegan and Secretary Lucy Frazer, presented a Bill to make provision for expenditure by the Secretary of State and the removal of restrictions in respect of certain land for or in connection with the construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put and committed to a Select Committee (Order, 28 June); to be printed (Bill 7) with explanatory notes (Bill 7-EN).

Media Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Lucy Frazer, supported by Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T. C. Davies, John Glen and Sir John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to make provision about public service television; about the sustainability of, and programme-making by, C4C; about the name, remit, powers, governance and audit of S4C; about the regulation of television selection services; about the regulation of on-demand programme services; about the regulation of radio services; about the regulation of radio selection services; for the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013; for addressing deficiencies in broadcasting legislation arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 8) with explanatory notes (Bill 8-EN).

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Claire Coutinho, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Secretary Mark Harper, Secretary Alister Jack, John Glen and Graham Stuart, presented a Bill to make provision about licences to search and bore for and get offshore petroleum.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 9) with explanatory notes (Bill 9-EN).

Debate on the Address

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[2nd Day]

Debate resumed (Order, 7 November).

Question again proposed,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

14:38

[The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)]

It is an honour to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.

Education is the key that unlocks the door to opportunity. Get it right, and it is the single most transformative thing that any Government can do. That is why this Conservative Government have spent the last 13 years doing just that. We have been taking the long-term decisions to ensure that the next generation have a brighter future, because we know what happens when Governments get it wrong—[Interruption.] When we started this journey in 2010—Opposition Members are going to like this—we inherited Labour’s legacy. It was a legacy defined by politicians saying, “Education, education, education” but failing to deliver. The results speak for themselves. At that time, more than a fifth of children left primary school without achieving basic levels of literacy and numeracy, and two fifths finished full-time education without even the bare minimum qualifications. That failure entrenched inequality and locked the door of opportunity. The education system worked against children from places like where I grew up in Knowsley. It was a system that widened the gap between the richest and the poorest in society.

Politicians often say that talent is everywhere but opportunity is not, and they are right. I know that, because I lived it. My failing comprehensive school left many of my classmates without those precious opportunities. Although some came to education later, many others never did—so much so that some are now in prison and others sadly have died many years before their time. It did not have to be this way. For five years, I sat next to those children. We all thought we had a bright future ahead of us, as children often do, but sadly that was not the case for too many of them. Education is about removing the barriers to opportunity and the belief that talent is everywhere. It is about the growth in confidence that our teachers inspire and the understanding that if the playing field is levelled, no one’s dream will be out of reach. That is what this Government are delivering, from the moment someone enters this world until they retire.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Gillian Keegan]

Let me make some progress before I take interventions.

Earlier this year, we announced the largest ever investment in childcare in England’s history. Very soon, we will be spending £8 billion a year. That investment will ensure that every child gets the best start in life. It means that working parents will be entitled to 30 hours of free childcare from the end of parental leave until their child starts school. To give parents the flexibility they need, we are rolling out universal wraparound childcare for primary school children from 8 am to 6 pm. These Conservative policies will end the choice that some working mums and dads feel they need to make between having a family and having a career, and it will save parents up to £6,500 a year.

The generation having children now will not remember what was on offer under Labour, but let me remind the House: 13 years of Labour delivered only 12.5 hours of free childcare for some three and four-year-olds. That is less than one hour for every year in office. Our childcare package gives people wanting to start a family the confidence to do so. May I invite the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), when she stands at the Dispatch Box, to finally offer Labour’s support for our record childcare investment? Can she tell hard-working parents in Wales why her party is not rolling out the same support that English parents will benefit from?

I know that the right hon. Lady, like me, did not grow up with privilege. I have heard her speak eloquently and passionately about the help and support she received from Sure Start, and I know she was grateful for that support. I am sure there were many positives from that programme—indeed, my best friend used to run a Sure Start centre—but there were also some serious failings in the design and delivery. First, Sure Start was not a universal offer, and it stigmatised people who used the services. Plus, it only helped families for the first five years of a child’s life, but any parent will say that challenges can arise at any time. [Interruption.] This is important: the National Audit Office found that Sure Start had failed to target the most disadvantaged families and was even unable to identify families needing support in the most disadvantaged 30% of communities. It simply did not reach the right people.

When we launched our family hubs programme, we ensured that the hubs provided a service to anyone who needed it. They are supporting families with everything from mental health to breastfeeding, and housing and debt services—challenges that many of us need support with. The service is universal, available to anyone. Family hubs support families with children of all ages, from conception to 19, or up to 25 for those with special educational needs. They join up services, ensuring that every family gets the right support at the right time. As part of that, the best start for life programme provides focused support during the crucial first 1,001 days of a child’s life, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for her work to get that right.

Before I talk about how we have transformed our schools, I will address one of the key challenges we face in delivering opportunity: school attendance.

[Munira Wilson]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Gillian Keegan]

I will in a moment, honestly, but this is important. I want to address one of the key challenges we face, which is school attendance. Following the pandemic, we have seen a phenomenon where more children are staying home and not going to school. That challenge is not unique to the UK. At the G7, my counterparts from the US to Japan were all grappling with the same issue. I reassure the House that it is a top priority. We are making progress through our attendance hubs and mentoring programmes, as well as more specialised support for key cohorts, such as those with mental health issues or special educational needs. In just the past year, 380,000 fewer children are persistently absent, and we will keep driving at this issue until all our children are back in school.

I notice that the Labour party had a lot to say about attendance this morning, but the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) may have missed the 380,000 fewer children persistently absent in the past year. Yet again, Labour offers little more than empty words, with a touch of student politics. In Labour-run Wales, attendance rates are still far behind those in England. Last year’s attendance data showed that Wales only managed an attendance rate of 85.5%, compared with England’s 92.5%. That means that English children are benefiting from well over a week more education than those just over the border. I advise the Labour party to spend a little less time playing politics, and more time helping children. The children of Wales deserve better.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Education Secretary very much for giving way. What was crystal clear from the King’s Speech yesterday was that, despite her grandiose statements here, education is not a priority for this Government. There were two re-announcements, nothing new and no new legislation, and her speech so far is revisiting old announcements, which is shocking, considering the crisis in our schools and colleges. She talks about persistent absence, so can she explain to the House why there was no announcement yesterday about bringing forward legislation for a “children not in school” register, which Ministers promised to do when they scrapped the Schools Bill in the last Session?

[Gillian Keegan]

The progress we have made on education is phenomenal. The legislation we have put in place has enabled us to make many of these improvements, but we remain committed to legislating to take forward the “children not in school” measures, and we will progress those at a suitable future legislative opportunity. We continue to work with local authorities to improve the non-statutory registers, and have launched a consultation on revised elective home education guidance. There is a lot of work going on. The consultation is open until 18 January 2024, and we intend to bring forward that legislation.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

This is a King’s Speech for the UK generally. Does the Secretary of State intend to say anything positive at all about Wales today?

[Gillian Keegan]

As somebody who grew up in Liverpool, I have had many a fabulous holiday in north Wales. In terms of the education department, unfortunately Wales suffers from a poor Administration.

Let us move on to schools. Nowhere is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives clearer to see than in our school system. When we came into office, Labour had overseen a decade of decline in our schools. Fortunately, thanks to the tireless work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and, notably, that of the Minister for Schools, we have reversed that trajectory. Today, 88% of our schools are “good” or “outstanding”—up from just 68% under Labour.

By the end of the Labour era, we had plummeted down the international league tables: our children were ranked 25th for reading and 27th for maths. Now, we are up 10 places in both. Better still, the progress in international reading literacy study shows that when it comes to reading, English primary school children are the best in the west, coming fourth in the world—an amazing, phenomenal achievement, for which I thank our teachers, parents and children.

How have we done this? We have reformed the school system, putting teachers and experts—not politicians—in charge of schools. Through our free schools and academies programmes, we have empowered heads and focused on academic excellence, improving discipline and ensuring that schools are calmer, happier places to learn. We have built on the evidence, not the ideology, over the past decade.

The Education Endowment Foundation has carried out over 200 evaluations to understand which approaches are the most effective in closing the attainment gap. It has engaged 23,000 nurseries, schools and colleges and, as a result, teachers are better trained in the things that make a difference, and children are taught in ways that we can prove work, such as phonics and maths mastery. We have made our exams more rigorous and reliable; and we have changed how we teach for the better. And at every turn we were met with a barrage of opposition from the opportunists on the Labour Benches.

In 2011, the Opposition said that our literacy drive was “dull”. In 2012, they said that phonics would “not improve reading”. In 2013, they called free schools “dangerous”. All three accusations have been categorically proven wrong. Our results simply speak for themselves, and we are not stopping there. Our new advanced British standard will remove the artificial divide between academic and technical education, and place the two on an equal footing, bringing together the very best of A-levels and T-levels to form a single overarching qualification. Right on cue, what did Labour call this? A “gimmick”. Given Labour’s track record, that condemnation is a very good sign that we are on the right track.

The advanced British standard will ensure that every child studies a form of maths and English until they are 18, and equip our children with the skills they need for the future. They will be entering a very different workplace—one where artificial intelligence, and quantum and digital systems, are a big part of every working day—and they will be competing for the top jobs internationally, so we will be increasing the time spent in the classroom, bringing us more in line with other countries, including Denmark, Norway, France and the US.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

The Government’s disregard for school pupils with special educational needs has never been clearer. The silent assassination of any new mental health Act has let down my constituents, who are struggling to get a diagnosis and to get continuous support in schools. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that pupils and schools urgently need new legislation?

[Gillian Keegan]

We published our special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan in March 2023—the hon. Lady may have missed that as she was not yet in her place—and we have backed the plan with investment of £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025. That will fund new and alternative provision places, and it is also a significant investment in the high-needs budget. We know that we need to invest in improving the special educational needs and alternative provision system, and I am happy to go through that plan with her.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s plans to increase maths teaching up to 18 are interesting. I wonder how she expects to deliver that when there is currently a shortfall of over 5,000 maths teachers and the retention of maths teachers is at an all-time low. How does she think she can deliver maths teachers to increase maths education when she cannot deliver enough for children up to the age of 16?

[Gillian Keegan]

We have some initiatives in place. First, we are raising the starting salary to £30,000 for all new teachers across the country, and more in London. Secondly, we are increasing—in fact doubling—the premium we pay to maths, computer science and some science teachers to enable them to earn more. That is the plan. We are also updating our retention and recruitment strategy before the end of the year.

Anyone who wants a blueprint for a Labour Government does not need to look back to the ’90s and early-2000s, when Labour oversaw a decade of decline. No, they should look to Wales. After a quarter of a century running the education system in Wales, the Labour Administration preside over the worst-performing education authority in the UK. While in England we have increased the number of teachers by 27,000, the numbers have fallen in Wales. While our standards rise, Wales consistently has the worst results for maths and reading in the UK. Those are facts. Even before the pandemic, the head of the OECD said that the Welsh education system had not just “underperformed” but “seen its performance decline”. There is nothing that stifles opportunity more than an education system in decline under Labour.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Gillian Keegan]

I will in a second. We believe in the values that I have talked about—aspiration, standards and rigour—precisely because they deliver a brighter future for our young people, and one that means that, as they grow into adulthood, they can be sure that they are getting the skills they need to succeed in life, to get a good job and to earn a good wage. That is the purpose of education: to help ensure that we have the skills to prosper and that every young person can reach their potential.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Gillian Keegan]

I will; just give me a second. The hon. Gentleman might want to answer this point. One thing that Labour did do was set an arbitrary target of 50% of young people going to university—a policy that favoured the most advantaged in society and only widened the gap. Today, under the Conservatives, children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are 71% more likely to go to university than when we took office.

Let me be clear: university is a brilliant choice. For many, it will be the best thing they ever do—life-changing—and a degree will be the first step on a wonderful career journey. But for some, in a minority of cases, it will be a ticket to nowhere, saddling students with debt and no prospects.

[Stephen Doughty]

As a Welsh MP, I think that learners and teachers in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth would be shocked to hear the Secretary of State denigrate their work and efforts. The reality on the ground in Wales is that, in my constituency, I have seen new brand-new schools at Eastern High and Penarth Learning Community, and a brand-new further education college. We are also just opening a brand-new school in Fitzalan. They have all had significant issues with performance in the past, but have turned things around thanks to the dedication of their teachers and the support they have had from Welsh Labour councils and the Welsh Government. Will the Secretary of State apologise for denigrating and running down Wales?

[Gillian Keegan]

I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. I always want things to improve in Wales, and I very much care about the Welsh children. It is not my words; it is the OECD and the international league tables—which I believe they have actually withdrawn from now because they do not want the scrutiny. We have to be open and transparent and put ourselves forward for international scrutiny, and that is where these words are coming from.

[Emma Hardy]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Gillian Keegan]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Lady.

[Emma Hardy]

The Secretary of State is being generous. I was interested in her comments about some university degrees not being of high value. I wonder how she seeks to calculate whether those degrees are not worth the same as others. Does she intend to use the longitudinal educational outcomes data that looks at average earnings? Does she acknowledge that children who wish to stay in areas such as Hull will earn less because wages are lower in certain areas, and that that has nothing to do with the degree? Would she reflect on the presentation given to the Treasury Committee recently, which said that outcomes in life and how successful someone is in terms of job and income are everything to do with their parents’ background and not the background or anything to do with the university that that person attended?

[Gillian Keegan]

I am happy to come to that later. I am concerned about ensuring that children and young people in Knowsley, Manchester, Hull, Blyth, Teesside and all over the country get fantastic opportunities, so that their earnings rise. That is what we in this party will continue to do.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Before the Secretary of State moves on to what I assume will be higher education, I want to raise with her a serious problem particularly in inner-city schools in England: falling rolls and, therefore, falling income to the school, which usually means the loss of teaching assistant jobs and all sorts of other issues. This issue has affected rural areas a lot in the past, and special arrangements have been made. Is the Secretary of State aware of that? Is she considering what can be done to ameliorate this very serious problem, which damages the life chances of so many inner-city children?

[Gillian Keegan]

The right hon. Gentleman made a good point. Local authorities usually work with us to capacity plan for demographic changes, which often happen from time to time—they go up and down. When we were first elected in 2010, we had to find 1 million more school places because the previous Administration had failed to do so. In some London inner-city schools, the pandemic has changed that more rapidly. We are looking at that and the impact that it has had on rural schools, as some have increases in demand. We are aware of that and we will work with schools on it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question.

In a minority of cases, higher education could be a ticket to ride to nowhere, saddling students with debt and no prospects. That is bad for students, the taxpayer and the reputation of our universities, many of which are truly exceptional and admired all over the world. A meaningless and arbitrary target of 50% of students going to university focuses on the wrong thing: quantity over quality. That is why this Government introduced new powers to clamp down on rip-off degrees—something the Opposition claimed was an attack on aspiration. That could not be further from the truth.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) may want to listen to this point, because it directly answers her question. Average earnings for computing graduates five years after graduation can vary from £23,000—barely above the minimum wage—to £85,000, depending on the university. Students who choose computing probably listen to their parents and have thought about their future career. They think that they have made a wise and smart choice. The attack on aspiration would be to let the next generation spend their time and money, only to end up with a degree that does not help them to achieve their goals. Those who lose out from low-quality courses are not the universities but the young people who have been sold a false dream. Many of us will know those young people. Defending that is a short-sighted and, quite frankly, snobbish mindset that fails the very people whose education it is meant to help.

I make no apologies for this Government’s commitment to high-quality education, whether at school, college or university. We have already announced that we will introduce recruitment limits to reduce the quota of low-quality courses and account for earnings as part of the quality regime, so that students know that they will get value for money and a return on their investment. I will make no apologies for our work promoting apprenticeships and technical education as an equally valid route. I know how transformational a good technical education can be: it got me to where I am today. As the only degree apprentice in the House of Commons, I will always champion high-quality technical education. It changed my life and it has the power to change many more.

As Conservatives, we will always work to break down the barriers to opportunity. Today, there are more options to access high-quality technical education than ever before, but that has not always been the case. Under Labour, T-levels did not exist. Under Labour, high technical qualifications did not exist. Degree apprenticeships for jobs such as lawyers, accountants and space engineers did not exist. Skills bootcamps did not exist. The lifelong learning entitlement did not exist. Institutes of technology did not exist. Why? They were all introduced by this Conservative Government.

In case Opposition Members are confused about what institutes of technology are, let me tell them: they bring together education and business, providing skills in everything from aerospace to agriculture, and energy to engineering. Does that sound familiar? It should do; Labour’s big new policy of technical excellence colleges is, effectively, little more than a rebrand of something that already exists. We have already delivered it. Once again, Labour demonstrates that it has no new ideas. It has had 13 years to come up with an original idea, and has failed even that.

Apprenticeships are not a new idea, as demonstrated by the fact that I did one many more years ago than I care to admit. What is new is that people can become a doctor, lawyer, account or space engineer. They can take degree apprenticeships in the NHS, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Amazon, KPMG, PwC—the list goes on. Any career they aspire to, anywhere, they can do now via an apprenticeship. In fact, there are now more than 680 standards, including 170 degree-level apprenticeships, all developed hand in glove with more than 5,000 employers, none of which existed under the Labour Government. Anyone doing one of those apprenticeships today is doing it because of the work of this Conservative Government.

Since 2010, we have seen 5.5 million people benefit from those apprenticeships. We want to support even more people to access these life-changing opportunities, which are now on UCAS. From next year, young people will be able to apply for them alongside undergraduate courses. My apprenticeship was my golden ticket. Today, thanks to this Government, millions more people are being offered the same opportunity. Hopefully, many future Secretaries of State will sit here, having gone through that fantastic route.

It is not just the younger generation who need opportunities. We are all living and working longer. Many of us will have a second career, including me—this is my chosen second career. For me, politics came after three decades working in international business. Like me, many people will want to change. Often, that will require new skills. Some 80% of the 2030 workforce are already in work today. We know that we need more people with new skills, unlocking new opportunities. That is why we launched skills bootcamps. These are free, flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, training people with an offer of a job interview at the end. They support people to gain skills in key sectors such as digital, HGV driving, civil engineering, electric vehicle charging installation or as a wind technician. Often, they are the first step into a brand-new career. Our new lifelong learning entitlement also removes barriers to gaining new skills later in life. People will have real choice about how and when they study, enabling them to acquire life-changing skills to improve their employment prospects. Both those programmes will give people the chance to transform their lives totally at any stage and any age.

This Government have been defined by our relentless drive to spread opportunity through better education. Yesterday, the King’s Speech continued that legacy. Today is the perfect time to take stock of the impact of those reforms. Those who entered school in 2010 are the first generation of children educated under this Conservative Government. They will take their A-levels and T-levels this summer, and their future is brighter than ever before. Standards of reading are higher, standards of writing are higher, and standards of maths are higher. The next generation are coming through, and their potential and their achievements are higher than ever before.

Let us never forget how the Labour party left us with an education system in decline—as, unfortunately, it continues to be in Wales. Labour left us with a limited childcare offer, declining standards in schools, poor technical education and an arbitrary target of 50% of kids going to university. And we know why: because they are political opportunists with empty words and meaningless promises, which will inevitably change.

That is the difference between us: Conservatives deliver. We have delivered the most generous childcare package in our country’s history; we have delivered the highest school funding ever; we have delivered more high-quality technical education than any other Government; and we have delivered for adults looking to learn new skills. As Conservatives, we do more than break the barriers to opportunity; we take the long-term decisions to create opportunity. Now and in the future, every child will benefit from a world-class education because of the decisions made by this Conservative Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, let me say that we have a packed speakers list. I do not want to introduce a time limit, but if Members could think of each other and confine their remarks to seven or eight minutes to start with, that would be very helpful. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

15:11

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I just say well done to the Education Secretary for the level of creativity and imagination in her opening remarks?

In opening this debate on behalf of the Opposition, Iusb want to offer a note of optimism after the miserable vision for this country’s future presented by the Government. Britain is crying out for lasting change that will see the ambition of our young people harnessed, the drive of our businesses rewarded, and the aspiration that exists around every kitchen table fully realised.

We promise our children and grandchildren that if they work hard, they will be able to get on, no matter what their background. We tell them that with enough graft, everyone has the opportunity to build a good life around what they do best and love most. But opportunity is built on security, so that people can live without fear that they might be evicted or lose their job for no good reason at all. It is built on the foundation of a decent wage and a secure home.

The Prime Minister and his party have taken a sledgehammer to those foundations on which a good life can be built. People can no longer be sure that by working hard they will get on, or that where they come from will not hold them back. The only certainty is that this Government will sit on their hands while working people graft and Ministers promise more of the same.

Last year, it was the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who led the second day of debate on the Queen’s Speech for the Government. This year, she was dancing away through her party’s conference with Nigel Farage—dancing the right away, we might say—but it is the current Home Secretary who is dancing to his tune. This week, she told us her answer to homelessness: “Take away their tents.” And her answer to crime? To waste police time arresting charity volunteers for giving the tents out. Then there is the Prime Minister, who is so weak that he does not dare put the proposals to us but does not dare to distance himself from them either. He chooses delay, while his Cabinet argues behind closed doors. We know who is leading this dance and who is following.

That is the story of this King’s Speech through and through: party before country. We needed a King’s Speech that would draw a line under 13 years of Tory decline, but instead we have a party so devoid of leadership that the only fight left in them is to fight among themselves. But while Cabinet Ministers argue over headlines, schools across our country are literally crumbling, with children cowering under steel props to stop the roof falling in. Is there any clearer example of a Government failing in their basic duties than the constant drip, drip of schools being added to the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete list? At the current rate, over 2 million children are at risk of regularly missing school by 2025. That is one in four of all children currently at primary and secondary school. A lost generation of children in England are facing a tidal wave of mental ill health, unable to get treatment through the NHS.

Yesterday, we waited for a plan for our children and young people that would see aspiration and ambition for everyone, a plan to prevent a child’s background from being a barrier to their getting on, a plan to deliver a broad, inclusive and innovative curriculum, a plan to get to grips with the epidemic of persistent absence and mend the broken relationship between schools, families and Government, and a plan to enable every child to achieve and thrive. Yet this sorry excuse for a Government offer no plan for crumbling buildings, no plan to broaden the narrow, outdated curriculum, no plan for the children missing from classrooms since the pandemic, and no plan for the future.

[Munira Wilson]

One of the things that we did not hear about from the Education Secretary is the attainment gap between the wealthiest pupils and the most disadvantaged, which is growing, as evidenced by the Education Policy Institute and many other experts. We have seen that small-group and one-to-one tutoring can be a really effective intervention for disadvantaged children, yet the national tutoring programme is not due to continue beyond this year. Will the right hon. Lady join me in calling on the Education Secretary to extend the national tutoring programme and fully fund it so that schools can help the most disadvantaged pupils?

[Angela Rayner]

I will do better than that: I call on the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister to call a general election and let Labour take over. We will make sure that every child in this country has an opportunity. All too often, the prospects of children in Britain are limited by the circumstances of their birth, not opened up by their opportunities in life. Led by our formidable shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), Labour has a serious plan to boost child development and young people’s school outcomes, as well as to expand training routes so that more people than ever are on pathways with good prospects by 2035.

This starts at school. I do not think the Secretary of State understands that. I remember all too well feeling hungry all day at school and being unable to focus. I am proud to say that Labour will introduce breakfast clubs in every primary school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South announced, Labour will be on the side of children and families. We will boost standards across schools by reinstating the requirement for qualified teacher status, ensuring that teaching is a respected and valued profession. We will reset relationships with families, schools, teachers and school staff. And Labour will end the tax breaks for private schools to fund that investment in excellent state education for everyone.

The fact is that young people are caught in a vicious Tory doom loop, denied the opportunities their parents had, left behind by their Government from school to employment, and unable to rely on the security of a decent home and a secure job.

What the Tory party has successfully built is a boulevard of broken dreams. The Conservatives have broken their promises to renters, to leaseholders, to house builders, and to all those who dream of owning their own home. Like a bad Santa at Christmas, they are doling out broken promises in every direction. There is a broken promise to renters, with the ban on no-fault evictions kicked into the long grass in an indefinite delay and with the Government blaming a court system that they themselves have broken, appeasing the vested interests on their own Benches rather than doing the right thing for the country. There is a broken promise to leaseholders —not the integrated package of recommendations for enfranchisement, commonhold and right to manage proposed by the Law Commission, but more cherry-picking and space-saving from the Secretary of State. There is a broken promise to house builders: the Government said that they would bring back amended proposals to reform nutrient neutrality rules after their flawed first attempt was rightly rejected by those in the other place, including many Conservative Lords. We stood, and we stand, ready to agree on reform to build the homes that we need while protecting the rivers from pollution, but yesterday we heard not a word. The Government were never serious; they were just playing political games.

And what about first-time buyers? There are no targets, no ideas and no ambition. The Government were too weak to take on the blockers in their own party and deliver the change that our country needs. The dream of a safe, secure and affordable home is moving ever further out of reach. Instead of homes, all that the Government have built is a house of cards. That is the difference between us. We have a recovery plan for secure homes: a plan to build 1.5 million homes across the country, with a reformed planning regime that will unlock our potential. This is no time to wait. Let us get Britain building again with a generation of new towns, unlocking growth across Britain with the biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation. The Government cannot fix homelessness without increasing the supply of housing, and they cannot boost real growth unless workers have the homes they need. We will not duck the difficult issues as the Tories have. We would abolish no-fault evictions and fix the broken leasehold system once and for all. Labour is the only party that is serious about boosting the supply of new homes to buy or to rent and unlocking the dream of a safe, secure and affordable home for all.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

The Labour party talks about 1.5 million new houses; we talk about 300,000 new houses over the next five years. Can you tell me exactly what the difference is?

[Angela Rayner]

I think the hon. Lady needs to ask herself whether her Government have ever delivered on any of their housing targets. They have not done so. They can pick a number out of the sky, but they have not delivered on it. They have not taken on the blockers in their own party, which is why we are in this decline and do not have the houses that we want in our country. But Labour will deliver those houses, will take on the blockers, and will make sure that people do have a home for life.

I had a sense of déjà vu when I listened to yesterday’s speech, because some of it sounded rather familiar. Let us take the pledge to

“increase housing supply and home ownership by reforming the planning system”.

That was not said yesterday; it was said back in 2014, nearly a decade ago—and home ownership rates are lower now than they were when the Tories came to power. Or let us take this line, from 2013:

“My ministers will continue to prioritise measures that reduce the deficit—ensuring interest rates are kept low for homeowners and businesses.”

Well, that went well! Since the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget, when they crashed the economy, interest rates have gone through the roof, and mortgage holders have been £580 a month worse off in the last year alone. Or let us take this one:

“My Government will help more people…enhancing the rights of those who rent.”

That was back in 2021, and almost identical words have featured in every single Gracious Speech in the current Parliament. However, the pledge was first made in April 2019, by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). It is now five sessions, four and a half years and four Tory Prime Ministers later. They do not really like anything involving high speed, do they? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), will at least be able to say later whether he will commit to scrapping section 21 by next April, five years after they pledged to do so. If they do not have support from their own Benches, I can offer ours, and if they do not achieve that in their last King’s speech, we will do it in our first.

This Government have failed young people not only from school to housing, but into employment too. Yesterday’s announcements were utterly out of touch when it came to the basic foundation of decent work. Time and again—in fact, 20 times—Ministers promised an employment Bill that would not only protect workers but strengthen our broken labour market, boosting productivity, retention and growth. They promised that enhanced rights and protections were just around the corner, but they never came. The promise to introduce a single enforcement body, a measure that is backed by businesses and workers alike? Gone. The promise to make it easier for fathers to take paternity leave? Disappeared. The promise to end the cruel practice of fire and rehire? Up in smoke. Instead, the Government have done nothing but fail workers, the public and businesses by doubling down on their failed approach to Britain’s broken labour market. leading to the worst strikes in decades.

Now the Government are getting their excuses in early for Christmas, offering another sticking plaster to distract from the Conservatives’ track record of failure. We all want minimum standards of service and staffing, but it is Tory Ministers who are constantly failing to provide them. I know: I am an Avanti West Coast user. Only Labour can offer the change that Britain needs, with industrial relations fit for a modern economy where issues can be resolved before they escalate. We will bring in a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government, which will mean that issues are resolved before the need for strikes. We will learn from other high-growth economies that benefit from more co-operation and less disruption by updating trade union legislation so that it is fit for a modern economy.

Labour’s new deal is our plan to make work pay and help working people to thrive, tackling insecure work and ensuring good jobs and higher living standards in every part of the country. The next Labour Government will present an employment rights Bill to Parliament within 100 days of taking office. We will offer a new deal for working people, with zero-hours contracts banned; fire and rehire gone; basic rights from day one; and a genuine minimum wage taking into account the real cost of living that every adult will benefit from. We will go further and faster in closing the gender pay gap, making work more family-friendly and tackling sexual harassment.

Our plans will benefit not just working people but be good for businesses and the economy. They will help to keep more people in work, improve productivity and put more money in working people’s pockets to spend—the absolute route to real growth. That will also benefit businesses by ending the race to the bottom by ensuring that good employers are not undercut by those who use exploitative employment practices. By levelling up workers’ rights, Labour will be starting a race to the top, with a future of work that provides opportunity, affords dignity and fuels growth in every part of the country— [Interruption.] The public know you laugh at them, they see it all the time. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think Government Front Benchers need to listen. It would be good for them to understand what it is like for working people in this country after they crashed the economy, sent inflation sky high and put record numbers of tax burdens on working people. I really do think they need to listen.

The British people deserve a Government who match their aspirations; a country where families have more money in their pockets, decent pay and good jobs; a country where their children have the opportunity they deserve to thrive, where young people are not held back by their background; and a Britain where no one is written off and no one is left behind. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State chunters. Call a general election and let’s test.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. While I have hon. Members’ attention, I give a little reminder of the importance of addressing Members not directly—the word “you” means me—but through the Chair. I also give a little reminder of my advice on time limits.

15:30

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I thank His Majesty King Charles III for delivering the Gracious Speech yesterday, as others across the House have done.

I make my contribution as the Member of Parliament for Aldridge-Brownhills, a patchwork of communities, each with its own identity and a uniqueness to be recognised and celebrated, echoing the industrial spirit of our past while looking to the challenges and opportunities of the future. It is this theme of opportunity that I want to focus on, starting with houses and homes.

It is well known in this place and beyond that, together with the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, I am a passionate advocate of a brownfield-first approach to developing new homes. In doing so, we can be that truly regeneration generation, building new homes and protecting our precious green belt and green spaces, for which I will keep advocating. I welcome measures in the King’s Speech to regenerate our town centres. By regenerating, reusing and recycling existing brownfield town centres and empty high street properties, we can adopt a circular-economy approach to housing. It can be a win-win.

Good regeneration is also helpful—in fact, vital—in protecting our green belts, which are critical to preventing urban sprawl. That is why they were created back in 1935, and they must continue to be protected to prevent areas such as those I represent from becoming subsumed into the suburbs of a greater Birmingham. Yes, I would have liked more mention of planning in the King’s Speech, building on the previous Session’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It is about time we stopped using the green belt as a scapegoat for our country’s housing shortage.

Housing and homes are about not just building new homes but making the most of what we have and developing a mix of housing. That brings me back to my point on regeneration, but it also brings me on to another housing matter, which I am pleased to see come forward at last. That is leasehold reform. I must declare an interest as a leaseholder, as I am sure many other Members are, but I raise it because, far from its being an issue that affects only our cities, leasehold affects constituencies across the country, including my own. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities estimates that there are around 4.98 million leasehold homes in England. That is a lot of homes.

It has become apparent in recent years—and in my inbox—that a raft of problems can affect leaseholders. [Interruption.] I see the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), nodding in agreement. Examples include extortionate service charges and the complexity of extending lease agreements and marriage values. That causes stress and uncertainty for leaseholders and barriers for buyers, and it is time we sorted it out. A report from the Law Commission has been sitting in DLUHC for some time, so I gently say to the Minister, “Can you get a move on with this, please, in the remaining time in this Parliament?”

A lack of transport can be a barrier to opportunity. Access to a good local train station will be transformative for communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. Stations can help to reconnect small communities, regenerate local economies and improve access to opportunity—to jobs, homes and education. There are currently only eight places with a population of 30,000 or more without an operational railway station situated within 5 km. Aldridge is one of them. I urge the Government to push ahead with the next stage of this important project and to work with me and Mayor Andy Street to deliver a train station in Aldridge as part of Network North. We are making progress, so let us continue to do that. My constituents deserve to share the benefits of greater connectivity.

Transport, housing, a safe community—all that matters, but so do skills to take advantage of job opportunities. I welcome the Government’s determination to strengthen education for the long term, and invest in skills and education both for the future and for today. Right now, the UK has 1.1 million job vacancies, yet there are still people seeking work. We have to ask why. It could be partially explained by the misfortune of having a deficit of highly skilled people to take those jobs. The skills shortage is set to cost our country £120 billion by 2030 due to a shortfall of 2.5 million highly skilled workers. That should not be the case. The UK is a renowned global leader in academic excellence in education, so why are we suffering from a shortage of highly skilled workers when we should be a high-skill, high-wage economy?

Maybe we are not investing enough in the right skills in the right areas. There is a mismatch between skills and industry that we need to address urgently. I know, from speaking to local businesses in my constituency, that there are vacancies for technicians, mechanics and toolmakers. Across the Black Country and the broader west midlands, manufacturing jobs are available, but there is a deficit of skilled people to take up those positions.

I am pleased to hear that the Government are focusing on that and in particular on apprenticeships and technical qualifications to ensure, most importantly, that our young people have choices and that they understand what those choices are. I am very fortunate to have in my constituency a company called In-Comm, which is one of the UK’s leading training providers, delivering engineering skills, apprenticeships, training and upskilling. The Minister with responsibility for apprentices is on the Government Front Bench. Maybe he would like to come along and visit, and see the amazing work that it does with businesses and young people.

I turn to the topic of safer communities, which was also a theme and focus in the King’s Speech. Safer communities are stronger communities and crime, sadly, is a scourge on our society. In recent years it has become all too prevalent in too many of our communities. Office for National Statistics data shows that in 2022-23 across the west midlands we recorded the highest rate of offences across England and Wales, with 178 knife crimes per 100,000 of population. That equates to a staggering average of 5,197 knife crime offences per year. But those are not just numbers, are they? Behind every number is a story—a family, a loved one, friends, colleagues, a community.

In my constituency, James Brindley fell victim to an unprovoked fatal stabbing in 2017 as he walked home from a night out. The James Brindley Foundation has a campaign to bring about positive social change and reduce youth violence. We urgently need the legislation now to deliver the promised ban on machetes and zombie-style knives, and for the police to have the powers to seize and destroy any weapon they find. That is something that I have campaigned for. Our local newspaper, the Express & Star, is also actively campaigning on that. Good work is going on locally, and it is connected to breaking down barriers to opportunity, but we need legislation now. I hope that measures will be included in the criminal justice Bill. Perhaps someone on the Government Front Bench will be able to confirm whether that is the case.

Local policing also matters when it comes to opportunity. [Interruption.] I am keeping an eye on the clock, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will get my skates on. I just want to touch on policing, bobbies and buildings, which are at the heart of our communities. We need safer communities to remove barriers to opportunity. That is why I am disappointed that our police and crime commissioner is pushing ahead with sweeping cuts to 30 police stations across the west midlands, including in Aldridge. That is a reckless choice from someone who is saving Quinton while sacrificing Aldridge. [Interruption.] I can hear people chattering, and I have said that I will bring my speech to a conclusion.

We need long-term decisions for the future, not short change for the short term. I urge Ministers to work with me and Andy Street, who knows the west midlands better than anybody when it comes to breaking down barriers of opportunity. I will continue to press the Government to do more for my constituents and to continue delivering opportunities for the people, businesses and organisations I represent.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I stress how important it is that we think of others when we make our speeches; otherwise I will have to put on a time limit. Obviously, I will not do so for the SNP spokesperson, but I am sure he will also be considerate of others.

15:40

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to open for the Scottish National party on the day after the day before. I think of this as a constitutional Boxing day, when we assess the quality of the turkey, see how the hangover is getting on and make sure that the odd crown or tiara has not been left behind and that everyone got home with the right ermine robe.

That brings me to the first barrier. Do we have to do this so ostentatiously? Our constituents are suffering probably their worst cost of living crisis. Some of those emeralds and rubies that were described by the BBC yesterday probably cost as much as a local authority budget.

I know it is likely that the tribunes of the people will be presenting the next King’s speech and, keeping with their political pallor, maybe it will have a bit more measure and be a bit more in keeping with what this country deserves, particularly as it is going through a tough time. I already have constituents getting in touch with me who are quite upset about the sheer ostentatiousness of what we observed. [Interruption.] I will get to the substance.

This was a King’s Speech designed to revive the Government’s catastrophic fortunes—they have been 20 percentage points or more behind in the opinion polls for about two years. This was an opportunity to reacquaint themselves with the British public’s affections. How did they get on? The sad news for Conservative Members is that the answer is: not particularly well. I doubt they want to see this morning’s headlines, which say that it was a dud, a dead duck, a missed chance, a failed opportunity—and that is only the Tory press. There were some real crackers, including “The Kingzzz Speech”. One newspaper said that Colin Firth’s one was better. I particularly liked the description “insipid” that featured in The National—probably the finest publication in the UK—because it was mine.

This King’s Speech had to work for the Government, as they are looking for something to get them out to the stump to “stand up and fight”, as the Leader of the House said. They wanted red meat, but this King’s Speech was like last week’s boeuf bourguignon. It was not a fillet steak so much as offal, both literally and figuratively.

They were looking for populist measures to get them out there, and what did they get? A smoking ban. This is the biggest congregation of right-wing Tories we will ever see assembled on these Benches, and I hardly thought they would be standard bearers for progressive liberalism. Even the Liberal Democrats have not proposed a smoking ban. I support it, and I think it is great, but imagine a lily-livered liberal like me supporting a Tory measure. I do not know whether that is good news or bad news for them, but it is certainly not the red meat they wanted.

There are so many contradictory and confusing things in the King’s Speech. The Government have styled themselves as the friend of the motorist—the scourge of 20 mph neighbourhoods—who will get rid of clean-air zones so that people have to breathe exhaust fumes for the next few years. But what have they gone and done? They have only gone and planned to legislate for self-driving cars. So much for being on the motorist’s side. There will not be any motorists any more. That is one measure that particularly intrigued me. I suppose they could be the scourge of 20 mph neighbourhoods with an algorithm—that’s the modern Tories for you.

This was a last-gasp King’s Speech. It was a bit like that 14-year-old looking for a pack of cigarettes in some future corner shop. This King’s Speech confirms almost everything we know about this Conservative Government. It is a legislative programme from a “can’t be bothered” Government with nothing more to say, who are just waiting to be put out of their misery.

The theme of today’s debate is “Breaking down barriers to opportunity.” The opportunity that the whole country wants is the opportunity to kick the chaotic Tories out of power, and the barrier to that is their refusal to give us a general election so that we could achieve that objective.

Another opportunity that Scottish National party Members are looking for is the opportunity to get my nation away from this place. This King’s Speech was delivered by a Government we did not vote for, and who are doing things that we do not approve of and that we do not want. Would it not be better if my nation were governed by the people who live and work in Scotland?

Just by saying that, even I might be labelled an “extremist”. There was lots of talk about the red meat that was supposed to be included in all of this—all this stuff about turfing homeless people out of their shelters on the streets of the UK—but another thing the Government were considering was extending the definition of an “extremist” to cover people who sought to undermine the integrity of the UK. That is my political mission. My job here is to ensure that the UK is undermined and that my nation becomes free and independent. I do not know whether the Government are now thinking about extending the definition of “extremist” to cover half the people in Scotland who currently support Scottish independence—I am looking forward to seeing them try to bring that one in.

Of course, very few Bills in this King’s Speech apply directly to Scotland, which was not even mentioned in the King’s Speech. I have been listening to the pain of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who notes that it contains no mention of Wales either. Apparently, we are told in some of the documents that 20 of these Bills somehow apply to Scotland, but they barely touch the sides of the Scottish experience and the conditions that my constituents are living in just now. We are looking for practical measures that deal with the reality of the situation for our constituents, such as proposals to deal with the cost of living crisis and to help people through this winter and with their energy bills, which will remain sky high. Nothing in the King’s Speech does that.

The Scottish Government, my colleagues in Edinburgh, are having to pick that up, with the transformative Scottish child payment. The one thing we have in our gift that we can deliver to the Scottish people is freezing council tax, and that is exactly what we are doing. Where we are in charge and have the responsibility, we will make that difference to the living standards of people in our nation—something this Government are not prepared to do and I am proud that our Government are doing it.

I am setting out the opportunities that we will give to bring dignity back and to tackle the real issues that are being experienced. It seems as though the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Education are leading this debate, but nothing in this King’s Speech deals with either of those areas. Thank goodness that is the case in education; I say that after listening to that drivel from the Secretary of State, with the Government’s ideological venture in education. It has absolutely nothing to do with Scottish education and so we can get on with making sure that we deliver for our children.

While the Tories are fascinated with taking on poor degrees and university courses, we are making sure that young people in Scotland get the destinations they deserve. We have seen fantastic figures, with 95.7% of 2022 school leavers in Scotland having now secured that positive destination; they have gone into work, training or further education. The national 5 pass rate is up from 78.2% in 2019 to 81.6% in 2022, which was our best exam year ever. Higher exam pass rates increased from 71.7% in 2007 to 80.3% in 2022. Thank goodness we do not have the Tories involved in any of our devolved services, because if they were, we would end up being subject to that drivel we have heard. Of course, we also have no tuition fees in Scotland, which means that students from Scotland do not have the crippling, sky-high debt that these Tories seek to burden our young people with at the beginning of their lives—thank goodness for that.

Of course, there is one Bill that totally applies to Scotland: the Bill that seeks to have an annual licensing round for North sea exploration. It perplexes me, along with many people in Scotland, because I remember—you were here too, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you will remember—that during the debate about Scottish independence the Government and the “Better Together” side told us that Scotland’s oil and gas was just about to run out. We were told that we were cursed with this stuff and that even having it would impoverish us, but now we find out that North sea oil and gas will liberate us from foreign reserves, reduce bills and give the nation the energy security it needs. What a remarkable resource we have in the North sea: it can simultaneously be running out and a curse, while rescuing the UK from its current conditions when it comes to oil and gas. That, of course, is all absolute bunkum.

Apparently, we will get to net zero more efficiently by taking more carbon out of the ground, burning it and then releasing it into the atmosphere. No one believes that sort of bunkum science other than the Tories. This Government have already watered down the climate targets, pushing back the deadline for selling new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers. By far the best way to improve energy security, cut bills and support workers is through investing in more renewables.

Extracting more oil from the North sea will not help energy security in Britain or reduce bills. Our oil is owned by the big companies, such as Shell and BP, which extract it and sell it into the international markets. We then buy it back at market rates. The new licences will make no difference. The way to reduce dependence on foreign oil is to reduce dependence on oil—it is as simple as that.

After 14 years, is this really the best the Tories can do? They are now at the stage where they are wanting change—change from themselves. Yes, we all want change, but the change that we all require and need is to get rid of the Conservatives. At some point in the course of the next year, they will meet their destiny with the British people, which I suppose and suggest will not be good for them. The King’s Speech has not worked for them. They probably have one last chance and effort when it comes to the autumn statement, but I do not think anybody is expecting them to get out that way.

I do not just want rid of this Conservative Government; I do not want the Westminster Government impacting and affecting decisions made in this country. We will get there, Madam Deputy Speaker, first by making sure that they are replaced and then making sure that Scotland has the opportunity to decide its own future. Believe me, when that opportunity comes, Scotland will make its position dead clear and we will be leaving this place for good.

15:52

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Pageantry is one of our country’s greatest strengths, with yesterday’s state opening of Parliament reaffirming our standards and values to the world. I am proud of our royal family, our country and our democracy. It saddens and concerns me that a significant minority do not share my views. Some of them plan to march in London during this Remembrance weekend, which is a time reserved for quiet reflection about those who have died serving in our name. They gave the ultimate sacrifice.

The right to protest peacefully in this country is long held, and rightly so. However, Saturday’s march must be banned. Not only is it disrespectful, but there is a genuine risk of disorder, potentially on a large scale. I urge those who are genuinely concerned about the war in Gaza to stay at home on this special weekend of Remembrance. To those who do attend, I say there can be no other reason other than to cause trouble.

As for the King’s Speech, I have mixed feelings. With a year to go before an election, I am always looking for red meat—certainly for a far stronger narrative. To be fair, no Bill alone can tackle the huge challenges the country faces, such as our debt, foreign wars and the consequences of the pandemic. What the nation is looking for is a healthy dose of common sense, a re-emergence of British values and an end to all this wokey, politically correct nonsense that is corrupting all that we hold dear.

A ban on smoking and the Orwellian driverless car are not top priorities either. The British people are crying out for a clear choice. For too long, with our high taxes and bloated state, we have aped those on the Opposition Benches, spending money that we simply do not have. Courage and conviction are needed now, and we did see hints of that in the King’s Speech. Tougher sentencing, more money for our armed forces, and more doctors, nurses and dentists, to name but three, are all positive and are to be welcomed.

However, words are easy; it is backing them up coherently that counts. For example, a new ambition to raise defence spending from 2% to 2.5% is good news, but arbitrary targets are meaningless. Would it not be more sensible to calculate what we need to defend our island and fulfil our NATO obligations before we even think of setting targets? Our armed forces are under-resourced—and this when the world order is under threat.

Another ambiguity is the new licensing regime to extract oil and gas from the North sea. While totally sensible, punitive taxes are hardly going to encourage companies to take such a risk. To secure investment, countless jobs and our energy security, the industry urgently needs low taxes. Oil and gas will continue to play a role in our economy for many years to come. To deny that will condemn the country to abject misery. Why was there not a Bill to redraft the Climate Change Act 2008, which will simply impoverish us, and scrap all the green taxes? I am all for reducing carbon emissions, but not until the renewables are reliable and affordable. And let us not forget nuclear, which will be a crucial part of the mix.

Welcome, too, is the reform of tougher sentencing for serious offenders. But, while those offenders will spend more time in jail, those committing less serious crimes will evade it because we have reached full capacity. New prisons are being built, but not fast enough.

One Bill that I would like to have seen in the King’s Speech is one reintroducing national service for those who need a hand up, and that number is sadly growing. We already spend billions of pounds on encouraging reliance on the state. Let us spend that instead on instilling in people that life is about contributing, about service, and about taking responsibility for one’s self.

I hope most sincerely that the much-awaited autumn statement will go some way to answering some of my concerns. What we need right now is a clear vision based on sound Conservative values. We are Conservatives, so let us start acting like them before it is too late.

15:57

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The Secretary of State’s attack on Sure Start, which was dismantled by the Conservatives, was completely ill-conceived. The one area where I thought she did have a point was in her attack on the state of secondary education when she was a pupil and the Thatcher Government were in charge. Thankfully, the Labour Governments that followed have addressed those very serious problems that she suffered from when she was at school.

In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) was absolutely right to take the Home Secretary to task for her attack on people forced to sleep on the pavements in tents, and for her description of them having made a “lifestyle choice” to do so. It is hard to understand how somebody holding such a crucial role in the government of this country can have no grasp of the harsh realities facing far too many people during the current crisis.

In opening the debate on the King’s Speech yesterday, the Prime Minister spent some time, quite rightly, talking about the situation in the middle east. I want to take the Home Secretary to task again for her description of those taking part in the recent Palestine marches as having taken part in a “hate march”. She owes those marchers an apology. No doubt she has not spoken to any of them, but the constituents whom I have spoken to who have been taking part in those marches have no truck at all with the appalling massacre and hostage-taking by Hamas. They are definitely not motivated by hate; they are motivated by distress and compassion. They see appalling images, refreshed on their screens hourly, of children being killed and maimed. Some have told me they cannot sleep at the moment because of their distress at what is happening. They want it to stop. Surely we all want it to stop. The Home Secretary may reach a different conclusion from those who have been on the marches, but she is absolutely wrong to impugn their motives so unfairly. Unlike the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), I think that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is absolutely right in his decision about the march this weekend; there is no lawful basis for a ban.

I am glad that the Prime Minister has made a renewed commitment to deliver a two-state solution—two secure states alongside each other in peace—but we have all been saying that for so long and nobody has done anything to make it happen. The Government of Israel have for years been undermining that prospect. One of the criticisms they will have to answer when the fighting stops is why their soldiers were off protecting people living in the still-expanding illegal settlements in the west bank when they should have been protecting Israeli citizens in their own country, who were left undefended in the Hamas attack. The renewed commitment to a two-state solution from the Prime Minister, which I welcome, must be delivered once the fighting stops.

Like others, I was struck by omissions from the King’s Speech. It refers to proposals being published to reform welfare and support more people into work, but there is no sign of any Bill. The Government have been undertaking a rushed consultation lasting only eight weeks over major proposals to change the descriptors for the work capability assessment. On the Work and Pensions Committee, we have heard from organisations such as Citizens Advice about the deeply unsatisfactory nature of that rushed exercise, and the consequences for people who are out of work on health grounds. The Government’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that

“the consultation period is insufficient to enable disabled people and their representative organisations to respond meaningfully.”

The Select Committee asked on a unanimous cross-party basis that the consultation be extended so that it can be done properly. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State rejected our request.

There will have to be legislation to make whatever changes are decided on, but there is no mention at all in the King’s Speech of a Bill to do it. There is a puzzle here, because the Government have announced that they plan to abolish the work capability assessment in a couple of years anyway. That will require legislation, but there is no Bill to do any of those things in the King’s Speech. There are press reports that the Government intend to inspect benefits claimants’ bank accounts regularly. That will also require powers, but there is nothing in the King’s Speech that would have that effect either.

There is no pensions Bill. The Government consulted on proposals for the consolidation of defined-benefit pension schemes in 2018. Finally, after five years, the Government responded to that consultation in July this year. Consolidation is important for the ambition to secure more pension scheme investment into the UK economy, as set out by the Chancellor in his Mansion House speech. In that speech, he spoke of

“introducing a permanent superfund regulatory regime”.

The commitment of the Minister for Pensions to having a permanent regulated regime for superfunds as soon as parliamentary time allows was very welcome, but there is not a Bill. The aspiration that the Chancellor set out not very long ago will not be fulfilled by this King’s Speech.

In evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, the chief executive of Clara-Pensions said that in an “ideal world” legislation for superfunds “would be enacted today.” Luke Webster of The Pension SuperFund said that the direction of travel set out in the Department’s response was

“very helpful and having that properly defined in regulation would give a lot more confidence to investors and those involved in delivering these proposals.”

But there is no Bill.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne pointed out in her opening speech, there is no employment Bill either. Ever since the Taylor review six years ago, Ministers have promised a Bill to regularise the status of people working in the gig economy, ensuring access to a pension scheme and other rights that Parliament has determined they should have. It was in the Queen’s Speech in 2019, but yesterday it was missing once again.

Today the Trussell Trust announced the highest ever level of food bank demand. In the six months to September, more than 1.5 million emergency food parcels were given out—16% more than in the same period last year. Nothing in the King’s Speech addressed that disgrace.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I think I had better wind up, considering the advice you have given us, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor must at least uprate working-age benefits in line with September’s inflation to avoid making matters even worse.

16:05

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this historic debate following the first King’s Speech in more than 70 years.

Opportunity manifests in many ways, but one thing is clear: it is the Conservatives who are the party of opportunity. As a comprehensive school student during the Thatcher years, I was inspired to look for opportunities and seize them—not to expect to be given a handout, but to work hard as a way to achieve my ambitions. I recognise that I have been very lucky. I have had many opportunities and some successes along the way, and one reason I sought election to this place was to help to give other people better opportunities, whatever their background or whatever may befall them.

Key to opportunity is the economy. That is the case for everyone, whatever walk of life they are in. Too many people sneer at the private sector and criticise the profit motive, but it is entrepreneurs who take the risks and make the investments, and businesses that create the jobs and generate the wealth. Without them, there would be no money to pay tax and therefore no money to deliver the excellent public services we all deserve and want.

I was delighted that His Majesty began his Gracious Speech by stating that his Ministers’ focus was on increasing economic growth. We need to remove the barriers to growth if we are to remove the barriers to opportunity. That means reducing regulation, incentivising investment and lowering taxes, all in a fiscally responsible way. I am particularly pleased that the Government have committed to addressing the drivers of low growth over increasing the national debt. That is in marked contrast to the Opposition’s solution of more tax, more borrowing and more debt, but we should not be surprised; after all, that has always been Labour’s way, and we know the shadow Chancellor is a fan of “cut and paste”.

I share the Government’s firm belief in the ability of education to break down barriers to opportunity and improve life chances. We are doing that in Aylesbury, where our excellent schools strive to give every child a brilliant start in life. Buckinghamshire is renowned for its grammar schools, and deservedly so, if my recent visit to Aylesbury High School is anything to go by. The spirited questions from its sixth formers reminded me somewhat of this place. However, it is not just academic education flourishing in Aylesbury. Since my election I have been a strong supporter of Aylesbury University Technical College, and I am extremely pleased to have been able to help to secure its long-term future. I am also pleased to see the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—who I know is an equally ardent supporter of UTCs—on the Front Bench.

I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to high-quality technical education, affirmed in the King’s Speech, and the parity of esteem that will be achieved with the introduction of the advanced British standard. That is how we open up more opportunities for young people, by providing options and educational choice—quite the contrast, once again, with those on the Opposition Benches, from whom all we have heard is the politics of envy in the form of taxing independent school fees. That is red meat for the militant left, but not a feasible plan for the Government. What better illustration could we have of the fact that on the Conservative Benches we believe in opportunity for all, whereas the Labour party believes in division?

Moreover, where better to illustrate the Conservative commitment to opportunity than my own county, where Buckinghamshire’s Conservative council runs the Opportunity Bucks programme to address education, health and income inequalities? While Buckinghamshire as a whole may be a wealthy county, parts of Aylesbury struggle with considerable deprivation. To tackle that, ambitious plans are in place for the redevelopment of our town centre. I look forward to working with the local business community, local councillors and the Levelling Up Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who is on the Front Bench, to ensure that the right long-term decisions are made for Aylesbury to remain a great place to live, work, visit and invest.

Unfortunately, these days it can be something of a challenge to get to Aylesbury and experience all that it has to offer, as a result of appalling traffic congestion. Much of that could be overcome by the rapid construction of the link roads that have been planned to circle the town, so the formal announcement in the King’s Speech of Network North is a welcome way to speed up the approval of funding for the south-east Aylesbury link road and the eastern link road project.

That would go some small way to begin compensating for the huge disruption and devastation that has been caused in my constituency by the construction of phase 1 of High Speed 2. It is a blight we see every day with woodlands being felled; it is a blight we feel every day sitting in yet more traffic as HS2’s heavy goods vehicles ruin our roads. Funding that comes from the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2 would be an important contribution to greater connectivity for individuals and firms alike. As the Federation of Small Businesses told me recently, connectivity is absolutely key to the success of companies across the country.

I will briefly address another barrier to opportunity: involvement in the criminal justice system. As the House knows, prior to my election, I served as a magistrate and was a member of the Sentencing Council and a non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. My determination, and even passion, to improve the criminal justice system is one of the principal drivers of my work in this place. Over the past few years, we have seen a welcome increase in the emphasis on getting former prisoners into jobs, because we know that paid work can dramatically reduce the risk of reoffending. A job provides not only an honest wage but a sense of worth. Sadly, however, too many ex-offenders do not yet have that opportunity. That is partly because short prison sentences do relatively little to reduce reoffending, so I am pleased that the Government are embarking on radical sentencing reforms, especially by increasing the focus on robust community orders.

The concept of a virtual prison is one that we should also explore—to seize the opportunities afforded by digital innovation to create opportunities for personal change, growth and success. It is also right that for the worst offenders, the entire prison sentence will be spent behind bars, and that, for the most appalling crimes, life will mean life. That, too, represents opportunity: the opportunity for victims of crime to know that justice has been done; and the opportunity for the public to be safe, secure and protected from harm—the Government carrying out their first and prime duty to their citizens.

Whether in justice, in education or in the economy, the King’s Speech sets out Bills for the months ahead that show a brighter future for our country—a brighter future that can come only from this Conservative Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We have speeded up a bit. My guidance still stands, but it is now for speeches of eight or nine minutes.

16:12

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) in this King’s Speech debate.

After 13 years of Tory Government, and three Prime Ministers in the last year and a half, this King’s Speech offered us pretty thin gruel. There was no real vision for the future, there was nothing like a plan to get there, and it was nowhere near adequate to meet the challenges this country is facing. The Speech contained just 21 Bills, six of which have been carried over from last year’s parliamentary Session. Many of those included, such as on leasehold reform, turn out on closer inspection to be pale shadows of what was promised by the Government. There are Bills that nod towards the need for reform but do not actually deliver meaningful change, or delay it so long as to be meaningless. They sit alongside such towering legislative ambitions as a Bill to license pedicabs in London.

That legislative programme leaves the challenges that my Wallasey constituents are facing virtually unaddressed: taxes are the highest they have been for 70 years, mortgages are up, rents have skyrocketed, the cost of living squeeze goes on, inflation remains the highest in the G7, and food inflation is higher still. Growth is projected to be zero next year, and the Bank of England has put the chance of a recession at 50:50. After 13 years of this Government, our rivers and seas are filled with sewage, our schools are crumbling, 94% of crimes go unsolved, our transport system is in chaos, and over 7.5 million people are on an NHS waiting list. Where in this King’s Speech were those things addressed?

Food insecurity was once rare; now, in the past year in a rich G7 country, over 11 million of our fellow citizens have experienced it. In my constituency of Wallasey, the number of emergency food bank parcels provided by the Trussell Trust has increased by 57% since the last general election. On the Wirral as a whole, over 16,000 people received emergency food parcels last year, a third of whom were children, and in the country as a whole, nine children out of 30 in a class are growing up in poverty. This legislative plan does not even mention, let alone begin to address, the daily struggles and hardship that millions of people in this country are now facing.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) mentioned, there were some notable omissions from the speech, including a promised reform of the Mental Health Act 1983; an employment Bill to give workers a fairer deal; and the Tory manifesto promise to ban conversion therapy for LGBT+ people. There was no sign of the promised reform of audit rules—boring to some, but quite important to the good working of our economy—and as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the promised reform of pensions was also absent. Despite the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted summit, there was no regulation of artificial intelligence anywhere to be seen, either.

We have a Government who have long since ceased to govern, who seem uninterested in tackling the serious issues our country faces and who seek division, rather than solution. We have a programme for the final year of this Parliament that was briefed out by senior Tories as being designed to set “traps” for Labour in the forthcoming general election campaign. The offshore petroleum licensing Bill is one such example: the industry says that the Bill will make no difference whatsoever, and the Secretary of State has been forced to admit that it will not lower energy costs for consumers. While rough sleeping is up 74% under the Tories, we have a Home Secretary who, instead of solving the problem of the housing shortage, wants to make it illegal to give tents to the homeless. She claims they are indulging in a “lifestyle choice” by having the temerity to sleep on our streets. We have five criminal justice Bills that toughen sentences for convicted criminals, but have nothing to say about the huge and growing backlogs of criminal cases —some of which are taking two years even to get to court—or about the plummeting arrest and conviction rates for serious offences. They are tinkering, not dealing with the real issues.

Rather than do the day job, this tired and incompetent Government are grinding to a halt. They seem much more preoccupied with pursuing their own internal factional fights than addressing the growing needs of the country. Even now, it is possible to discern the looming battle to be the next Leader of the Opposition commencing between the current Home Secretary and the Trade Secretary. We can spot the dwindling band of Boris Johnson supporters publishing absurd, conspiracy-laden books such as “The Plot” to explain his defenestration, when the rest of us only need to follow the covid inquiry to appreciate what the real explanation is. As the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) tours the world proclaiming that despite her catastrophic 44-day tenure in office, she was in fact right all along, we can see that the Tory party can never be the change that this country is crying out for.

The change Britain needs is a mission-led Labour Government embarking on 10 years of national renewal—a Government who will secure the highest growth in the G7, make Britain a clean energy superpower, build an NHS fit for the future, make Britain’s streets safe, and break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage. It is long past time for this flailing, divisive Tory Government to recognise that the country needs real change, and to call a general election so that the country can have the new start it deserves—and sooner rather than later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Flick Drummond.

16:20

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for asking you to figure out the difference between those housing numbers earlier.

It is a total pleasure to speak in this debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech. As the Secretary of State stated, one of the best ways to break down barriers to opportunities is through education. Outside parenting, teachers and our schools are crucial to providing the life skills that ensure people from more disadvantaged backgrounds can break through any barriers. They enable them to do whatever they want to do with their lives. As the Sutton Trust has said:

“A young person’s future outcomes should not be determined by their background or economic circumstances.”

Boosting social mobility through education is the way we get talented young people to develop their ideas and improve the world for all of us.

Changing the education system to make sure it works for everyone is one of the reasons I got involved in politics. I wrote a report for the One Nation Conservatives over three years ago, and last year I was very pleased to see so many commissions coming to much the same conclusions. The Times education commission said that our curriculum is too narrow at the top and is not providing the skills that universities and businesses want. I agree with that, and so do all the employers I speak to. That is why I am so pleased with the Prime Minister’s announcement about the advanced British standard, although I have made my views clear on the title. I do think we need to change it.

As I wrote in my report three years ago, I agree that putting vocational and academic subjects on a par with maths and English until 18 is an excellent idea. We are not talking about everyone doing maths A-level; we are talking about functional maths that might be related to a vocational subject or to life in general. One third of young people have to retake their maths and English GCSEs, over and over again in some circumstances. I have talked to young people about this, and I know it is very dispiriting and a blight on their education, so why are we still having these high-stakes exams at 16, when the key assessment point is in fact at 18? Very few other countries copy our approach. We should provide a system to assess at 18, get the curriculum right and remove the barriers of GCSEs. Most other countries start their technical education at age 13 or 14. I have always advocated a 13-to-18 curriculum, because not starting early will limit experience and exposure to many subjects, including technical education.

My final point is that I must regret the absence of a Bill to introduce a register of children not in school. The House will recall that I introduced such a Bill in the previous Session, after the measure was dropped from the Schools Bill. Before I introduced my Bill, I consulted teachers, educational think-tanks, children’s charities, teaching unions, the Children’s Commissioner and also Ministers. Parents have a right to home school children, and my Bill would have done nothing to prevent them from doing so. Its aim was to ensure that vulnerable children are identifiable and can be supported. There is a crisis in attendance post covid, and we have to tackle it before these children miss out.

My Bill fell at the end of the last Session, but I note that the Schools Minister has committed to introducing legislation at “a future suitable opportunity”. What more suitable opportunity could there be than the one we have now? I was deeply disappointed at the lack of such a Bill in the Gracious Speech. The wording of my Bill provided a ready-to-run solution, with support from across the House and across the education system. I urge Ministers to look at this again, and in the meantime I will continue to look at ways of getting this much-needed register in place.

16:24

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This debate is entitled “Breaking down barriers to opportunity”, and I look at the issues facing people in my community: poverty, low wages, the disgraceful two-child policy on benefits, systematic discrimination, inadequate housing, poor air quality and so on. They affect so many inner-city and other communities across this country, and I do not see any answers in the King’s Speech. On the environmental issues that the King managed to stumble across when telling us about the new policies, we are told that, somehow or other, new oil drilling and new fracking will improve the environment, make the world sustainable and put us in line with all the conventions that the Government have signed up to over the past few years. I just think that this debate is slightly surreal in its title, and in how the Government have addressed it.

I want to say a couple of things about education. In schools—certainly in England—there are deeply stressed teachers and deeply stressed students. We have a mental health crisis affecting all elements of staff within our schools and in particular young people. The mental health crisis goes right down into primary schools. At later stages, we have grotesquely indebted graduates and, in some cases, parents deeply in debt or having problems just trying to find childcare for their children to continue in work. It is not as if we are giving all our children a great start in life. The teaching unions’ strikes over the past year have been about wages, but they have also been about workload and the quality of education delivered in our schools. They have also demanded the full funding of the pay settlement that was agreed to ensure that school budgets were not slashed. The Government then did a volte-face on that. Having accepted that they would refund the schools to pay for the settlement, they have tried to get out of that. We need a catch-up process on our teachers’ salaries. Teachers have been so badly treated by this Government.

In an intervention on the Secretary of State—she kindly gave way—I raised the issue of falling school rolls. She answered that the Government are aware of and investigating the problem. In my constituency, along I suspect with those of many colleagues representing inner-urban areas, there is a problem of falling rolls. That is partly because of people moving out of urban areas, partly because of a lower birth rate and partly because of home schooling. There is a whole variety of issues, but the reality is that many schools have seriously falling rolls, and therefore are questioning their survival. Each school is asked to deal with the problem on its own, along with the local education authority where it is a maintained school. The teaching assistants go first, and the other support staff second. The teachers go third, and all along the line, the after-school activities and so on are all cut back and dealt with.

Successive Governments have understandably had to deal with this issue in rural areas, and they have come to a funding arrangement that has often protected rural schools, albeit with quite low numbers. I suggest the same principles should now be applied to inner-urban communities, too, because keeping a local primary school within walking distance for all children is important as part of the glue of the community, and I hope that issue can be addressed quickly. We do not have an integrated education system. We have far too much competition within the education community, and we have local authorities trying to juggle maintained schools, free schools and academies. They have great difficulty therefore in planning for future educational needs.

In the couple of minutes I have left, I will reflect on the statement earlier concerning the situation in Gaza and the demand for a ceasefire, which I strongly and fully support. All deaths are deplorable. Some 1,400 were killed in Israel, which is utterly deplorable, and a vile act was undertaken to kill those people. We now have more than 10,000 dead in Gaza, including 4,000 children who have been killed. The statement by Netanyahu of permanent occupation in Gaza suggests to me that they are trying to expel the entire population, and a new Gaza will therefore be created in the Sinai desert. That is the prospect we face. Somehow or other, our Government were incapable of voting at the UN even for the minimal request in the Brazilian-authored resolution of a humanitarian pause at that time, and they still refuse to join the global call by a whole range of organisations for a ceasefire. That surely has to be the urgency of it.

This morning on BBC Radio 4, Mr Mustafa Barghouti, an independent member of the Palestinian Authority dedicated to non-violent resistance of the occupation, spoke at length and with great heartfelt feeling of the occupation over 70 years, the settlement policy in the west bank and the continuing and increasing settler aggression towards the Palestinian people. His voice should be listened to carefully. If there is to be a long-term settlement, it must be the end of the occupation, the end of the settlement policy and justice for those hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living in camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the diaspora all around the world.

What is happening at the moment is ghastly beyond belief. We are watching in real time on television human life being destroyed with weapons, some of which have been in part supplied from this country. Cannot our Government just wake up to the simple humanitarian demand that millions of people in this country are making, and will be making in a peaceful march on Saturday, not in competition with the Remembrance weekend but part and parcel of it?

We are remembering the horror of all those who lost their lives in two world wars and many other wars, and trying to bring an end to this ghastly conflict to save lives from being destroyed in Gaza and anywhere else in the middle east. Surely we can have that voice and make it clear from this House that we support a ceasefire now.

16:31

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I am sure that there is much to welcome in the King’s Speech and much to ponder on the theme of “breaking down barriers to opportunity”, but I was warmed to my theme by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is no longer in his place. I always find him entertaining in the House—I always disagree with everything he says—but I think he is entertaining as Shakespeare’s clowns are entertaining. Today marks the 400th anniversary of the publication of Shakespeare’s first folio, which was the first time that Shakespeare’s plays were published in a printed edition. There were 36 plays in that first folio. Shakespeare is being celebrated across the media today, so, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Shakespeare, I thought it would be remiss not to mark this significant anniversary.

The folio probably represents a foundational moment in our culture, and it is relevant to today’s debate on opportunity. Some of my constituents and others might be saying, “Why is the MP for Halesowen and Rowley Regis talking about a dead playwright? Why is he important? What has he got to say about our contemporary world?” I would argue that the folio gives us an opportunity to reassert the continued importance of Shakespeare’s works in the modern world, particularly in our cultural heritage and education system. The performance and understanding of Shakespeare’s plays is essential for the education of our young people.

I recently took part as a judge in a competition organised by the Coram Shakespeare Schools Foundation, which asked young people to reimagine a Shakespeare speech in the contemporary world. Some incredibly creative ideas were put forward.

The discipline required to understand Shakespeare is vital. Many of us may have had bad experiences at school. I remember studying “As You Like It” at O-level, and that put me off—it took me until I was doing an English degree five years later to get into Shakespeare. But the discipline and creativity of putting on performances are critical to the education of our young people and the protection of the cultural heritage. Shakespeare is a central part of our national culture.

I want to mention the Rose Revealed project in Southwark. In 1989, archaeological digs were done under a building in Southwark, which revealed one of the original Shakespearean theatres—the Rose theatre—where some of the plays of Shakespeare and Marlow were performed. The second phase of the project is to do further work on that site to create an exhibition centre celebrating the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, with a broader vision to create an Elizabethan quarter on that side of the river in London. Many other organisations across the country support Shakespeare education and the performance of Shakespeare: the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and my alma mater the University of Birmingham, which has the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford doing incredibly important work to promulgate Shakespeare and promote his works.

There is a second reason why celebrating and talking about the folio and Shakespeare is important today. We live in a time when the international order is under threat. We have conflicts throughout the world: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we have spoken about the situation in Israel and Gaza. Members may ask, “What does Shakespeare have to do with that?” As I mentioned in a recent Prime Minister’s question after Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit, I know from my contacts with the Ukrainian Shakespeare Centre that Shakespeare’s plays—in particular, Hamlet—have been put on in air raid shelters in Ukraine as an act of defiance against Russian aggression. That is an incredibly powerful statement of how a great example of our culture can be used to support democratic values and assert the power of creativity against brazen aggression.

In that sense, Shakespeare is part of our soft power. What do we mean by soft power? I had a conversation with Professor Michael Dobson, who runs the Shakespeare Institute, who said that Shakespeare’s plays and their performances are a kind of conversation in which he represents humanity in all its plurality in an eloquent and vigorous way. Shakespeare characterises all that is best in British culture, while still inviting those of other cultures to join that conversation. Shakespeare is an important part of our soft power, but not in the sense that he is a commodity we can trade around the world. Those plays and performances are a critical way of bringing people together and asserting the power of creativity in our world. That is an important dimension of why we need to celebrate the folio today.

Let me come to my final point about why I am banging on about Shakespeare in the Kings Speech. Feste, a character in “Twelfth Night”, said:

“I can yield you none without words, and words are grown so false I am loath to prove reason with them”.

Shakespeare wrote those words all that time ago, but in our politics, in some ways, words have become false and it is very difficult to prove reason with them, because we are living in this world dominated by social media, the soundbite and—sometimes—false language on both sides of the political divide. It is important that this House considers and celebrates the first folio anniversary, because perhaps we can learn from Shakespeare’s eloquence and the conversation that is the central feature of his plays, as we seek to resolve some of the most profound domestic and international difficulties that we have faced for many years.

16:40

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Government are out of ideas and without direction, either unwilling or unable to make the big decisions to give us a brighter future. What a wasted opportunity, especially when it comes to action to tackle the nature and climate crisis. What better opportunity was there to empower communities and businesses to break down barriers to tackle the biggest issue of our generation? I am pleased that the Government announced recently that they will introduce a nature GCSE, but considering the abysmal nature of what was in the King’s Speech on tackling the climate crisis, it seems to me that the Prime Minister should be the first person to take it.

Climate education should not stop with schools; local authorities could organise citizens’ assemblies, as we have proposed many times. There are so many opportunities to educate people about the dangers of our not getting this right and failing to reach our 1.5° target by 2050, but those on the Government Front Bench continue to ignore them. They continue, too, to ignore the opportunities that would arise from a green transition. A nature or climate GCSE could grow the careers and skills we need to tackle the climate emergency and get to net zero, but this Government’s attitude is that everyone except them must meet their commitments.

Rather than protecting our children’s future, the Government are protecting the interests of the fossil fuel giants. How can they seriously claim to be leaders on net zero action while introducing legislation to hold annual oil and gas licensing rounds? That is particularly shocking when compared with their unforgivable failure to allocate a single new contract for difference for onshore wind farms in the recent auction round. I would like to hear how the new legislation will bring down energy bills for a single one of my constituents. Research from Uplift confirms that most of the oil produced at Rosebank will be shipped abroad and sold on the global market to the highest bidder; it will secure the future of the oil and gas giants, but not the UK’s energy supply.

Not only does the new Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill fly in the face of our climate commitments, but it will have wide-ranging and long-term negative impacts on the sustainability of our oceans and marine life. As I say, we need education on this across the House and across the board in all our communities. Educating young children is a good start, but it seems to me that a lot more of the older generations need that education too.

When will this Tory Government embrace the clean, green energy of the future and stop delaying our path to net zero? We need more grid capacity and more Government action to capitalise on green jobs and technology. New green jobs do not fall out of the sky; they start with proper career options for young people that they can start now so that we can see the energy transformation we need.

We hear from Tory Ministers that they hope to attract more investment in renewables, but their words do not match their actions. We cannot afford for our Government to miss any more of their own targets. That, too, should be part of our education—that if we say we will do something, we should actually deliver. We must take people with us on the green transition, and education is the first step.

There are so many untapped opportunities. UK solar power deployment is already significantly behind target. The smart export guarantee should incentivise households to invest in solar panels by allowing them to sell the excess electricity they produce back to the grid at a better price and recover the cost of their investment much faster. Again, educating householders in how they can invest in the net zero transition is an important part of the puzzle. If we do not communicate properly with our citizens about what they can do to tackle the climate crisis, where will we be?

Under the current system, it takes decades for householders to break even. Householders are confused, and we need to ensure that there are trusted sources where they can obtain information about how to tackle the climate crisis and break down the barriers that we are discussing today. There must be that change to bring about the revolution in rooftop solar that carries so many benefits for people and the planet. The cheapest energy is the energy that we do not use, and reducing energy waste will lower bills and cut carbon emissions. We urgently need to upgrade our housing stock to guarantee warm and comfortable homes for everyone, long into the future.

One in four private renters live in fuel poverty, and 1.6 million children are living in privately rented cold, damp or mouldy homes. Landlords have contacted me saying that they cannot afford to upgrade their properties to energy-efficient standards. That, too, is just a bit of education, a bit of knowledge that we must share as a matter of urgency. I believe that local councils are best placed to be the trusted sources of that type of information, but the Government must see them as partners and people to engage with, and give them the opportunities and resources that they need in order to share the information that is so badly needed in our communities.

Some subsidy schemes are available to landlords, but they are not open to all landlords and they can be difficult to access. We Liberal Democrats propose that all landlords should be allowed to offset their spending on insulation and energy-saving improvements against their income tax. Only through well-targeted incentives for landlords will we make the difference for tenants who are struggling to pay their bills. If the Government disagree with our proposals, I ask them to suggest an alternative. All we have seen so far is that from 2025 landlords will no longer need to meet the energy performance certificate C standard.

There has been yet more delay. When will we see action to ensure that families do not live in poor-quality housing that is badly insulated, making their energy bills more expensive? We need the landlords on board. We need a Government who are prepared to use both a carrot and a stick, and we need a Government who are prepared to put out the necessary information and enable it to be pooled—and I would say, yet again, that councils are best placed to do that. E3G has found that raising the energy standard to C rating for privately rented homes would save bill payers about £570 a year. The Government should hold firm, and help landlords to meet these targets and keep homes warm this winter.

Since the last King’s Speech, we have not reduced our dependence on oil and gas, we have not allowed households to make more sustainable choices, we have not put out that important piece of education that people need, we have not organised the citizens’ assemblies for the sharing of information that we require so urgently, and we have not protected households from rising energy bills. Too many households face another difficult winter. The Government’s failure to deliver is becoming their trademark, and judging by the King’s speech that will not change any time soon, although I still hold out hope that it will. The Government should prove me wrong—or right.

16:44

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I fear that the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Shakespeare, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), has opened a can of worms with his quotations. I hate to say this, but most of us feel that yesterday was Much Ado About Nothing. In fact, I think it was less Shakespeare and more “upstart crow”.

I listened to the Secretary of State’s introduction to the debate. We have heard her personal history a number of times, and there is the benefit of not having to buy the inevitable autobiography when it comes out, but I would have expected her to have learnt, as most of us have, that it is best for children to maximise their educational opportunities when they go to school, and if they are to do that, they should not be going to school hungry. What worried me about the King’s Speech was that there was no attempt to address the problems of poverty in our society.

I am never completely sure what the debate on the King’s Speech is about, because we know what the Government are going to do and there is little influence we can have on them. To a certain extent, though, now that we have the autumn statement, maybe this is an attempt to shout through the Chancellor’s letterbox to say that there are issues that the King’s Speech has not addressed, and one of them is poverty. I do not want to rattle through the figures too much, but we all know that 14 million of our fellow citizens are living in poverty at the moment, that 4.2 million of them are children, and that two thirds of those children are living in households where someone is at work. What does that say about low pay?

The Government also need to be clear that unemployment is rising steadily. We now have up to 1.5 million unemployed. When I was first on the shop floor, unemployment benefit did actually get people through. Back then it was 28% of the average wage, but now it is 13%, so we are forcing people who are unemployed into a life of poverty. The number of people certified as unfit to work is also rising rapidly, and I think part of that is because many of them are on the 7.9 million-long waiting list for operations and treatments to get them back into work.

I can remember having a debate in this House nearly five years ago when the UN rapporteur Philip Alston reported on our social security system and its implications for people in our society living in poverty. He said that our social security system meant

“the systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population”.

That shocked us, because he also started using a word that we had not used for generations: “destitution.” Last week, his successor Olivier de Schutter reported that the situation was getting significantly worse.

If we do not believe the UN rapporteur, then the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which we have cited across the House time and again when we have needed advice on how to tackle poverty, reports that 3.8 million in our country are now living in destitution, including 1 million children. It defines destitution as

“when people cannot afford to meet their most basic physical needs to stay warm, dry, clean and fed”.

It reports that destitution has increased by 148% since 2017. That is not a society any of us wants to live in. I have looked at the foundation’s detailed research, but what I found most interesting was when it actually talked to people and asked them, “Just give us an example of your experience.” There is a whole list of quotes, but this is the one that got to me:

“Me and my partner survive on one meal a day. We make sure my daughter is eating. She has three meals a day, but me and my partner, we are lucky if we have one meal a day.”

That cannot be right, can it? In any society, that cannot be right.

There is a whole series of other quotes in which people talk about going hungry because the food bank is open for only a limited number of days, or because they get only so many discretionary opportunities to receive food from the food bank. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) said, the number of people using food banks has shot through the roof again.

So this is an appeal to the Chancellor to do something in the autumn statement, in a couple of weeks’ time, to help our children out of poverty. In the pandemic, it was recognised by the Government that the safety net was not working, so with our unanimous support they added an extra £20 a week to universal credit to see people through. That needs to be done now, just as a first step. The cost would be between £5.5 billion and £6 billion. That sounds a lot, but given the overall weight of Government spending and the impact it could have on lifting children out of poverty, it would be a significant investment. We have also previously debated scrapping the two-child limit, which would lift 250,000 children out of poverty. I also want to make sure that children are not going hungry, which is why free school meals for all pupils will be critical as a foundation stone for the future.

In many of our areas we have people living in poverty because they cannot afford the rent. On Sunday night, a family of constituents came to my home. They are in a property in my constituency. To get on a council housing list, you have to live there 10 years and then you have to wait for five or six years. By that time, some children have grown up. This family came into my house and we sat down. Both parents are in work—one works in childcare—but they cannot afford the rent because the housing allowance no longer anywhere near matches what is needed. The Government need to now consider ending the housing allowance freeze and restoring it just to the 2015 level of 50% of market rents.

There is a brutal form of social security policy in this country: no recourse to public funds. What that means is that the children of migrants, who have done nothing to deserve it, are forced into poverty because their family has no recourse to public funds. I urge the Government and the Chancellor in the autumn statement to do something to lift our children out of poverty. There is a range of measures that are completely affordable and that could have a dramatic impact on the lives of children in our country.

A final point from me: no debate can go on without mentioning the children of Gaza—the 4,000 who have been killed and the 1,000 we think are under the rubble. That is why our calls today for a ceasefire are so important. Sometimes when we have these debates, political calculation overtakes us. When we come into the Chamber, our humanity and sometimes our ability to express our concerns ends there because of the politics of a situation. I thought we saw today, across the House in many respects, the real concern there is about the children of Gaza. I just hope the Government can bring themselves to lead the call for an immediate ceasefire, because I cannot see any other solution to ending that suffering.

16:56

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He always focuses on child poverty in these debates, and that is the right thing to do. What he refers to in his constituency is replicated across the whole United Kingdom. On food banks, for instance, just last week in my Strangford constituency there was a front-page article about food banks. There has been not a 16% increase in the use of food banks, but a 72% increase. That is incredibly worrying. It is not just those on low incomes who are finding it harder and harder to pay their bills; it is also those on middle incomes. He is right to make those points and I support him entirely.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. What a poignant first speech delivered by His Majesty the King in his role. It was a privilege to be a part of that audience yesterday, to witness his instructions for the delivery of the Government’s aims, and to today represent the good people of my constituency of Strangford, his loyal subjects, as we seek to ensure that the needs of our community are met within those aims. Watching the pomp, pageantry, tradition and history—the whole procession and the King’s Speech for the start of Parliament—makes me feel incredibly proud to be British.

I very much welcome the apprenticeship scheme that the Secretary of State outlined. I also welcome the measures on childcare provision—good news. It might be low-hanging fruit, but the tobacco legislation is also to be welcomed. It may not be earth-shattering as such, but it is important because it will, hopefully, make a change. I also welcome the increase in Ministry of Defence spending. My request within that Government commitment is that perhaps we could look at recruiting more Territorial Army personnel in Northern Ireland. The reserve forces in Northern Ireland are well-recruited. There are opportunities and I believe we should be doing more, legislatively, to ensure that people can join the Royal Navy, the Army and the RAF in Northern Ireland.

I want to make three points, so I will call it a Presbyterian sermon. I am not a Presbyterian, although I am married to one—I am a Baptist—but a Presbyterian sermon is in three parts.

[John McDonnell]

There is a hint of Catholicism there.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman always has a good point to make.

The title of today’s debate, “Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity,” resonates with me in a few ways. I seek assurance from the Government that their commitment to breaking down barriers extends to Northern Ireland. I secured a Westminster Hall debate before Prorogation on contracts for difference, and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has just spoken about the importance of having them in place. I know the Minister will forgive me for raising the matter again so soon, but this is a new Session with new goals and, I hope, a new approach. Contracts for difference are much wider than simply an energy issue; they are also about the Northern Ireland economy.

I am a great believer that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better together and, for me, it is important that we all feel the benefits of the King’s Speech by making sure that Northern Ireland plays its part in the economy of this great nation. It is about building a Northern Ireland supply chain, and Northern Ireland’s desire to contribute to the Government’s net-zero target and to reaching that target together equally across this great kingdom. It is about jobs. It is about science, technology, engineering and maths opportunities for ladies and women. It is about new skills, as the Education Secretary said, and it is about Northern Ireland’s desire to be an integral part of providing support for low-carbon delivery across the four nations of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I love history, and it is no secret that I love this place. It always resonates with me that the four nations become one in Central Lobby, which is what I hope for. The barriers to opportunity must be torn down, and I look to the Government to make sure that happens through the contracts for difference scheme.

I know the Government intend to commit over £1.6 billion to the green climate fund—the biggest single international climate pledge that the UK has ever made—yet I feel there is a barrier within the UK, which can be brought down to help achieve our climate pledge while improving the local economy in Northern Ireland. Extending contracts for difference to Northern Ireland is an essential component of that work, and I hope Northern Ireland’s barrier to opportunity will be broken down. Green energy can deliver job opportunities, so we must break down that barrier.

The obvious barrier to opportunity in Northern Ireland is the Irish sea border. That physical barrier is detrimental to all in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister made only a fleeting reference to Northern Ireland yesterday, and the fact is that this issue has not been resolved. He referred to the Union, but he did not go into any details. As someone who believes in the Union, I would have loved to hear more from the Prime Minister.

The barrier to democracy erected by the European Union is still fully in place, as my constituents are subject to laws created by a process in which they have no elected representation. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is also here, and we both recognise that local representation makes an important difference. At the moment, we are denied that representation. The barrier remains, as the DUP remains unable to take its place in devolved authority at Stormont until further steps are taken to restore our opportunity to operate as a fully functional member of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I now move on to the third part of my Presbyterian sermon. I say this respectfully to the Minister—I always try to be reasonable in my comments—but the Government continue to bury their head in the sand on child benefit thresholds. This is DUP policy, and we moved a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject before Prorogation. I have raised this issue over and again, and I will continue to do so until the Government acknowledge that the 10-year freeze equates to a reduction in child benefit thresholds. It has created barriers to opportunity, and to much-needed extra funds, for working families, which is unacceptable. It is a barrier not only for us in Northern Ireland, but for us all in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is a barrier in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

Another barrier to opportunity for working families throughout the UK is that they are afraid of accepting small pay rises for fear of dealing with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and that while prices have escalated, their wage is stagnant. Something has to break and it must not be, and never can be, the working family. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to that clearly and I am saying the same thing. For them, I ask the Government to include this matter in the list of priorities for this coming year.

I am coming to the end of my speech, within the timescale that you asked us all to adhere to, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, let me highlight that all of us here have the tools not only to build barriers in society, but to break them down. Let us break them down together and make sure that we make the right choice, prioritising our economy, our Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and our working families in this new Session. May God bless the King, and this Government, as they deliver his and their goals and aims in this year.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sticking to the guidance. As I said, I am more relaxed now, because there have been a couple of drop-outs.

17:05

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

On the anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, I have to say that it is disappointing that not much in the King’s Speech delivered for disabled people. After 13 years of Conservative-led Governments, disabled people feel that they are an afterthought and that their rights are not fully protected and promoted in this country. It is shocking that we are still having these conversations in 2023. Progress has gone backwards, not forwards. It is well documented that the pandemic and the cost of living crisis have had a disproportionate effect on disabled people. That comes on top of the fact that extra costs are already associated with having a disability.

Earlier this year, disability equality charity Scope released updated research on the extra costs associated with having a disability—the so-called disability price tag. When Scope last calculated the price tag, in 2019, it stood at an average of £583 per month for households containing at least one disabled person. Over the past four years, that has risen to a shocking £975 per month, which equates to 63% of household income. That means that disabled households need to find almost £12,000 extra per year to achieve the same living standards as non-disabled households. The impact of the rising costs is exacerbated by the fact that disabled people also tend to have lower than average incomes. In its January 2023 report, the Resolution Foundation found that the gap in household income in respect of adults with a disability and adults without one was about 30% when including disability benefits, and 44% when excluding them.

Ministers tell us that they have brought forth a number of measures to improve disabled people’s rights and tackle the barriers they continue to face, so let us have a look at some of them in turn. First, we come to the national disability strategy, which was announced in the 2019 Queen’s Speech. The strategy was much delayed before its eventual publication, in the summer recess of 2021. Although claiming to be bold, it introduced little new policy for disabled people and instead relied on other pieces of Government work. It was then held up by a lengthy court case brought by disabled people who disputed whether the consultation process had been lawful. Had the Government engaged in proper co-production, the court case would not have been necessary.

Next came the disability action plan, which was quietly announced in December last year. After months of waiting, the proposals for the plan were published during the summer recess—again—and the consultation closed a month ago. Disappointingly, the plan does not contain a cohesive set of actions to bring about the changes disabled people so desperately need.

Thirdly, we have the health and disability White Paper that sets out some plans to reform employment support and disability benefit. Its most significant proposal is the scrapping of the work capability assessments, which has left many people concerned that the system will rely solely on the flawed personal independence payment assessment.

All this should be considered in the context of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which seeks to ensure that disabled people’s rights are promoted and protected. In 2016, an investigation found that “grave or systemic violations” of disabled people’s rights had taken place because of welfare reforms in the UK since 2010. In 2017, at the first periodic review, the Conservative Government were judged to have taken insufficient action to implement earlier recommendations. The next review is ongoing, but the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who was on the Front Bench earlier and I wish was now, caused further concern by refusing to attend an evidence session in August 2023.

The Government must do better. Twenty-four per cent of the UK population identify as disabled, and we must stop letting them down. We must break down the barriers that exist in society. Ministers should be taking every opportunity they can to co-produce policy with disabled people, who are the experts by experience, and to ensure that their needs are being met in every part of life.

17:11

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). I thank her for the work she does and for being a champion for disabled people.

Watching the King’s Speech was quite an occasion, as it is a moment in history. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) painted a picture of how significant it was, but the irony was not lost that the King arrived in a gold-plated, horse-drawn carriage to announce legislation on banning pedicabs at Westminster tube. It just shows that, however grand the occasion, there is nothing like a Conservative Government to bring it down into the gutter—and much else did follow that.

The test of any King’s Speech must be whether it makes life materially better for the people we are all here to represent, and whether it makes the country we love stronger, more confident and more resilient in the face of global uncertainty. By those measures, it can only be marked as another missed opportunity.

It is a missed opportunity to address one of the biggest economic challenges our country faces. The very bond of the British contract is broken—the promise that if people are willing to work hard and play by the rules, in return they can get on in life and do well, and that through our generational effort, our children can go on to do even better. That contract has not just been reneged on; it has been torn up. People in Chadderton, Oldham West and Royton, and right across Britain, know that and they feel the betrayal every single day: families working all the hours God sends, but still unable to make ends meet; young people starting off in life unable to get on the housing ladder; and older people denied the care they need and deserve to live well into older life.

It is a fact that life has always been challenging for working people, but it has not always been this grinding. There was so much missing from the King’s Speech on social care, the environment and nature, child protection and a range of other issues. It was completely hollow and void of ideas and solutions to the issues facing the country. As the proud chair of the Co-operative party, it is disappointing to see the Government fail to take the opportunity provided by the King’s Speech to seize the many solutions put forward by our movement to address those challenges.

As Labour’s sister party for almost a century, co-operators believe in enterprise, grassroots organisation, and that the wealth and value we create together can and should be used to build stronger communities and stronger economies that we can all share in. We believe, too, that ownership matters, because it drives decision making and ultimately determines where the dividend is returned. On energy, for instance, the Labour and Co-operative parties together have a shared commitment to bringing back community energy as a blueprint to safeguarding energy security and investing in cheap, clean renewable energy that is produced and owned right here in the UK. Instead of investing in non-renewables that help only multinational oil and gas giants, the Government should be backing local communities to produce and own their own renewable energy. Labour’s local power plan sets out how to do that, with a bold ambition for 1 million new owners of energy producing 8 GW of energy by 2030.

We also fail to see any action on retail crime, despite an announcement in the Criminal Justice Bill. It is a crisis and a blight on our high streets that stores such as the Co-op Group are victims of significant retail crime. The Co-op Group reports that 175,000 incidents were recorded in the first six months of this year alone. Retail crime should be a stand-alone offence. Shopworkers enforce the laws set by this House, and they should be afforded the protection of it, too.

The Government’s agenda for this Session also neglected to address the ownership that people desperately need over their local communities and the places that really matter to them. Our high streets have been hollowed out. We see the empty, boarded-up buildings; the pubs, shops and community hubs on which we have relied closing down; and the services on which people depend disappearing. Again, the Labour and Co-operative parties can contribute to the solution. By strengthening the Localism Act 2011 and introducing a genuine community right to buy, we can address head-on that issue of community loss. We can encourage communities to come together to buy at-risk pubs, shops and other assets to make sure that they are protected for future generations.

We believe that words are one thing, but there is nothing like action to show what change can achieve. For instance, in my own constituency, when the Daisyfield Inn, a local pub in Bardsley, was at risk of closure, we managed to secure an asset of community value protection on the register of that building. Now, not only has it been retained for the local community, but it has a community allotment out back to help local people fight isolation and to bring the community together even more. It can be done; the model is there, but we can do even more.

Oldham Athletic Football Club, our pride, is now backed by local power, because Boundary Park and the fields next door used for training—Little Wembley—are now also an asset of community value. We recognise that, beyond the bricks and mortar, these are meeting places—they are the fabric, the glue, the identity, the belonging, the past, the present and, with effort, the future, too. Another blueprint for change offered by the Labour and Co-operative parties—yet another chance missed by the Government—really breaking down the barriers that we are talking about here today.

People feel that the economy is not working for them, and that power is being taken away from them. We believe that if we can double the size of the co-operative sector, where more people have a stake in the future, where businesses are rooted in the community, and where decisions are being made for the benefit of the community, not for short-term dividend payment extraction, we will see an economy that is more resilient and more robust, and that will benefit the UK as well. It has been proved that these businesses are more productive, more resilient, and more equitable, because co-operatives are more than twice as likely to survive the early years of trading when compared with other styles of businesses. We have seen that in huge sectors right across the UK. With just a little more effort, we can see them grow even further.

What would that mean for the UK? According to research commissioned by Co-operatives UK, just last year alone the turnover of the co-operatives in the UK contributed £41 billion to the UK economy, an increase of 3.7% on the previous year. This is not a small-fry contribution; it is a significant part of our economy. Instead of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a small number of people at the top, ownership is spread in the communities where the co-operatives operate. That is important for the local community and important for the country overall.

In the end, what we see from the King’s Speech is what we have seen for the past 13 years: a country that is fragmented socially and economically and a Government who have run out of road, out of ideas and out of solutions to fix those problems. Surely the only way now to repair the cracks in the foundations and to give Britain hope again is to call a general election, not provide a King’s Speech.

17:19

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We might have a new monarch on the throne, but what we saw yesterday was a complete abdication of responsibility from the Government, who have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) just said, completely run out of ideas. With no answers to the cost of living crisis and other problems of their own making over the past 13 years, their default response now is just to distract, delay and, as we see with the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, sow division through political point scoring, rather than doing what is right for this country’s economic future and for the planet. The Energy Secretary herself has conceded that we cannot rely on that Bill to bring energy bills down, so who does benefit from the Bill, if not consumers? Could it be the oil and gas companies, making record profits, which are handed billions in taxpayer subsidies?

Doubling down on fossil fuels is not the answer. Clean, cheap home-grown energy is the only way to make us energy secure. As the Prime Minister stumbles in the starting blocks in the race for net zero, or indeed seems to be going backwards, Labour stands ready to lead the sprint for renewables with all the opportunities that they will bring—whether it is green jobs in communities that are making the transition away from dirty fossil fuels; whether it is community power, which we have heard about; or whether it is economic regeneration and technical advances. There is so much potential.

It was a relief that the Renters (Reform) Bill came back before Parliament just before Parliament prorogued and was carried over, but frankly the Bill is not good enough. The ban on no-fault evictions is still being kicked down the road, for probably years into the future. More than 60,000 section 21 notices have been served since the promise to ban them was first made. While we wait for the Government to act, thousands more will become homeless through no fault of their own—victims of a Government pandering to the wealthy property-owners on their Back Benches.

The Renters (Reform) Bill was supposed to transform the private rented sector, but it will remain legal for landlords to discriminate against tenants on benefits. There will be no statutory decent home standard in the private sector, and local housing allowances will remain frozen, meaning that the vast majority of privately rented homes in places such as Bristol will remain unaffordable for people on housing benefit. Given that we have not heard anything from the Government this week, I certainly hope that we will see something on that in the autumn statement. We talk about opportunity. The opportunity to have a decent home and a roof over their head is being denied to so many.

I am pleased that the leasehold and freehold Bill will be introduced. Even the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has admitted that the leasehold system is “outdated” and “feudal”, but it is disappointing to see such a half-hearted attempt at reform again. It is good to see a ban on leaseholds for new houses, but houses make up only 30% of leasehold homes in England. There is no reason why flat-owners deserve less protection and higher costs. That is yet another Tory U-turn that will leave far too many flat-owners facing extortionate bills and ground rents for homes that they already own. Given that the Home Secretary’s recent announcement on tents was not taken up, at least they will be safe in the knowledge that they can switch to sleeping under a dual carriageway in a little tent of their own for the foreseeable future.

I am trying to be positive, but there is not a lot to go on. That is evidenced by the fact that no Tory MPs are waiting to speak, and the last Tory MP who did speak, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), managed to get through 10 minutes without mentioning anything at all in the King’s Speech, though he told us an awful lot about Shakespeare, which I guess was educational in its own way.

I am pleased that we are finally getting a Bill to ban live exports, even if it has been more than seven years since we heard all those promises during the 2016 referendum campaign. It was one of the Leave campaign’s flagship things. I know people who voted for Brexit only because they thought that there would be a ban on live exports, so it has taken the Government a long time, and where are the other promises that were made on banning imports of fur and foie gras? They were supposed to be a Brexit bonus too.

In another example of better late than never, I welcome the long-overdue football governance Bill, finally giving us a chance to realise recommendations from the fan-led football review. We desperately need greater parity across the footballing pyramid in this country to protect the future of the game and ensure that the excessive wealth of the top clubs reaches the lower leagues and grassroots football.

On crime, of course Labour supports the need to bring in tough sentences for serious and violent offenders, but this is not the first time the Conservative Government have made such promises. Since 2010, almost 4,000 convicted rapists have received sentences of less than seven years. It is no surprise that this Government are all talk and no action. We have a record backlog in our courts, with more than 65,000 cases waiting to be heard in the Crown courts. That is thousands of victims waiting for justice to be done. Two thirds of English and Welsh prisons are overcrowded and as of last month we had barely 500 prison places left, which raises the question of where those extra prisoners will go. That is just not joined-up thinking; again, it is making grand statements without making the investment in our public realm that is needed to back up those promises.

This debate is as much about what was not in the King’s Speech as what was in it. There was no mention of the long-awaited employment Bill or pensions reform; no register of children out of school; no commitment to reform the dental contract, which dentists and my constituents are crying out for and which Labour will deliver; and nothing on tackling the climate or nature emergencies. I am told we will need primary legislation to ratify the global ocean treaty, which the UK signed with some fanfare earlier this year. Where is that legislation? It will be a very short piece of legislation, but why the delay?

It is not as if this is a Government bursting with ideas, full of ambition and struggling to find space in the parliamentary timetable for all the urgent and inspirational things they want to do. We will have to wait for next year’s King’s Speech for that. Given that the Government seem to have so few ideas, why have they stalled on some of the things we already know they have been looking at? Where is the mental health Bill, for example? We have had the draft Bill and plenty of time for pre-legislative scrutiny, so why is this Bill dragging on and running out of time when reform is so desperately needed? And why, five years on, are the Government still procrastinating over a ban on so-called conversion therapies? LGBT+ people deserve better than to be told that their sexuality or gender identity can be cured. When will the Government follow Labour’s example and back a full, inclusive conversion therapy ban?

What this King’s Speech reveals is that we have a Government devoid of compassion, of leadership and of conscience, exemplified by a Home Secretary who describes homelessness as a “lifestyle choice”. Demonising the most vulnerable in society is a political choice. Overseeing the managed decline of the NHS is a political choice. Trashing the UK’s international climate reputation is a political choice. Letting that trickle-down mini-Budget crash our economy last autumn and lead us into a cost of living crisis was a political choice. Those are the actions of a Tory Government who for 13 years have put self-interest over the interests of the country. It is time to give the people of Britain a chance to choose. This King’s Speech shows that the country needs a general election and a Labour Government.

17:27

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

When we scrape away all the pomp, the ceremony and the pageantry of yesterday, there is a consensus—on the Opposition Benches at least, if it has not yet dawned on the Conservative side—that this is a decaying Government who are not really governing. Rather, they are presiding over a country in decline. That is evidenced by the acres of empty green Benches on the Government side of the House. Our job is to be unconvinced by the Government, but the Conservatives are so unconvinced by their own legislative agenda that only one Back Bencher has joined them for this part of the debate—the best part, if I say so myself, since I got to my feet.

This Government are defined by chaos and falling from crisis to crisis, and my constituents certainly cannot wait to see the back of them. They are completely unfit for the challenges that all our constituents face today. They have no clue, I believe, about the scale of the challenge and no comprehension of what is required to meet the social, economic, political and global insecurities that rip through communities up and down the country.

We could have had a King’s Speech rooted in prosperity, rooted in resilience, rooted in that word that the Conservatives love to use: aspiration. We could have had a King’s Speech about tackling the big challenges of our time and seeking consensus for the long-term structural changes needed to take on those policy challenges, whether they be improving living standards, which our constituents are desperately crying out for—our living standards are falling massively behind those of our western European counterparts, and the Government do not even seem to recognise that, never mind have a plan to deal with it properly—or our decaying national infrastructure and public services. The Conservatives have managed to turn climate change into a culture war issue, with all kinds of nonsense on the issue of the net zero transition coming not just from some junior Parliamentary Private Secretary, but from the Prime Minister himself. Look at global affairs and international security.

All those challenges require a sensible, level-headed approach, but we have a Government who know their days are numbered and are rushing to an imaginary constituency based on about 500 people in the constituency of the previous Prime Minister but one, where even opposition to clean air zones will set and define their governing and political strategy. It hardly instils any confidence when we see the Prime Minister—quite correctly—trying to form a global coalition to deal with things such as the regulation of artificial intelligence, but using that summit as an audition for a job back in California. In the Bills set out in the King’s Speech, many of which are old announcements simply being re-announced, we see a poverty of ambition that my constituents certainly cannot afford.

I know that this is the great unspoken iron-clad consensus between the two main parties in this Chamber, but we also have not seen a plan to deal with the damage of Brexit. That is an issue that will not even speak its name, but it has damaged us—it has damaged our standing internationally, it has damaged our economy, and it has damaged the country’s reputation with our closest neighbours in Europe. We have not even started to think about the huge project of rebuilding and strategic redesign of the public realm, public services and national institutions needed post-pandemic. Nobody talks about “building back better” any longer—it has almost been erased from the public consciousness and public debate—yet we know that that is exactly what will be needed.

And yes, many colleagues on both sides of the House have said much that I agree with in terms standing up for the international rules-based order, which is massively challenged by a war in Europe right now, and, of course, by the situation between Israel and Gaza. If someone calls for a ceasefire to that conflict, they are somehow labelled an extremist, and we have a Home Secretary who wants to turn it into a culture war issue by describing those protesting for a ceasefire as taking part in “hate marches”. Are we to believe that the Home Secretary—one of the great offices of state—really believed that tens of thousands of antisemites marched through the streets of London, and her response was to write an open letter? Her position would be untenable if that were actually the case. But so radicalised and desperate to lead her party has she become—presumably when they are on the Opposition Benches—and so weak is the Prime Minister in not reining her in, never mind thinking about sacking her, that this is the position of the Conservative party today.

I am not a conservative, but we need a Conservative party that is at least rooted in the real world. There are many good Conservative Members, some of whom I have personal friendships with, and there might even be one or two here right now—let us not overstate it, mind you—but I say to them: “Take your party back from this madness, because it drags the entire political country into the sewer, and we all deserve much better than that.” All this nonsense about homelessness being a “lifestyle choice”, and wanting to attack charity workers who hand out tents to give people a semblance of shelter from the rain and the cold. What is this rubbish? They have the cheek to call themselves Conservatives, but they have contempt for institutions, contempt for the law, contempt for norms. Conserve what exactly? A Conservative party utterly unrecognisable to its own traditions—many of which are fine; many of which I do not agree with—and massively out of control. Think of the challenges we face—climate change, technology, ageing populations and all the rest of it—and the institutions we need in order to meet those challenges. In, I think, a report for a think-tank, the former Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill said recently that Palmerston would recognise many of the institutions that exist on Whitehall today.

This month marks 25 years since the passing and signing of the Scotland Act 1998 that established the Scottish Parliament—an institution that the Government detest with every fibre of their being. It has increasingly become a Parliament that is about mitigating the worst excesses of the Government’s agenda and policies over many, many years. I do not want a Parliament of mitigation; I want a Parliament of aspiration. Scotland can only become prosperous, fair and resilient, and its aspirations can only really be realised, when it becomes independent and is back in the European Union.

17:35

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and to represent my Lewisham East constituents as we debate breaking down barriers to opportunity and other relevant issues. However, it is concerning to me—as I know it is to the public—that the Government have not addressed in the King’s Speech the many crises that impact our country.

Because of 13 years of Conservative Government, we have seen multiple failings. To name a few, we have seen a failure to tackle the cost of living crisis; the shameful watering down of net zero targets; the mishandling of the covid-19 pandemic; the personal protective equipment scandal; partygate; the wrecking of the economy through an unfunded mini-Budget; constant incidents of sleaze; and court delays and backlogs. We have already heard about many of those issues in the Chamber today. We have also seen high mortgages and rents; school buildings crumbling; sewage pouring into our streams and rivers, while water companies are allowed to get away with paying large bonuses; long NHS waiting lists; a shortage of doctors and nurses; and an inability to get GP and dentist appointments.

The cost of living crisis has seen a hike in the cost of food, high gas bills, high electricity bills and high rents. People are even struggling to buy clothing and furniture, and children are going to school hungry. The use of food banks is becoming a norm—they are used by middle wage earners and low wage earners, by people on benefits and people on none. It is an example of deprivation, disadvantage and, ultimately, poverty existing in our country. I have to ask: is this the best the Conservative Government have for our country? It is shameful. Some people are not able to wash their clothes or to have frequent showers. Poverty is on the increase, and this Government are closing their eyes to it.

Child poverty stops our young people from reaching their full potential. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the number of people experiencing extreme poverty increased by 61% between 2019 and 2022. Children are particularly hard hit: the number of children experiencing destitution has almost tripled. Furthermore, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, there is evidence that children from minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in poverty. That is not acceptable, but the Government have not addressed it. Why have they not done so?

The King’s Speech clearly does nothing to combat the major challenges facing families in Lewisham East and across our country. Meanwhile, Labour will provide breakfast clubs in every primary school to prevent children from coming to school hungry, which will break down the barriers to learning. A potential Labour Government will ensure that there are more specialist teachers, a modern curriculum and better training and apprenticeships, so that every child and young person is geared up to learn and ready for work. Housing is also crucial to support a child’s learning—a warm home and no overcrowding, as well as a place to eat, to study, to play and to sleep, and no mould or damp.

Why is it so difficult for this Government to support their people and their country? Is it because of five Prime Minister and seven Chancellors in 13 years? Labour will improve the standard of living for families and communities, and it will build, build, build more homes. In fact, if elected, Labour will build 1.5 million homes over the next Parliament. It will also ensure that people receive a fair wage. We need to raise the floor on wages to reverse the Tories’ low-wage economy. I ask again: why is it so difficult for this Government to support their people and their country? I think it is because we know that at the heart of the Conservative Government is the ability to sound plausible, but the inability to be responsible.

As I close, I will focus on the lack of funding and national guidance to tackle the delays in and the unavailability of respiratory diagnosis. This has been a well-known issue since the pandemic. According to the organisation Asthma + Lung UK:

“Right now, thousands of people with lung conditions across the UK are suffering. They’re scared, alone and exhausted.”

Those are not my words, but its words. I call on the Health Secretary to set out funding and national guidance to tackle the current crisis in respiratory diagnosis. If people cannot work or receive proper education because they are off sick due to their loved ones’ or their own health condition, that is a barrier to their learning. When will the Government fix it?

17:41

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak on His Majesty’s first King’s Speech, but in communities such as the one I represent in Batley and Spen there is a growing feeling that Britain is no longer working. People are facing a struggle to get a GP appointment, hospital appointment or dentist appointment; they rarely see a police officer on the streets, despite feeling that crime and antisocial behaviour in their community are rising; they are waiting months or even years for an education, health and care plan for their child with special educational needs, seeing them struggle without the support they need and witnessing the impact on their mental health; they are sending their children to school knowing that teachers are overworked, overstretched and without the resources they need to give their child the best start in life; they are just accepting that home ownership is not a likely reality for the younger generation; or, at the end of the month, realising that their hard-earned pay or pension barely covers the increasing bills.

This is the broken Britain the Conservatives have presided over during 13 years of national decline. This King’s Speech could have started the hard work to get Britain’s future back. Instead, what we saw yesterday was a Government desperate to distract from their appalling record by engaging in dangerous and divisive culture wars and announcing yet more gimmicks. Rather than getting on with the serious job of governing, they announced a series of Bills that fail even to scratch the surface of the fundamental reform and renewal that our country needs.

In the area where I live and that I represent in Batley and Spen and across the Spen valley, this sense of broken Britain is clear to see, and I hear it from my constituents all the time. Over the last few months, we have seen the closure of Batley baths, and I and others are currently fighting hard to save Batley sports and tennis centre, Cleckheaton town hall and Claremont House dementia care home in Heckmondwike from closure. The loss of these precious public buildings and services would have a severe impact on local families and communities. For example, local leisure centres are not just places where residents go to exercise and keep physically healthy, although that is crucial if we are to reduce the long-term pressure on the NHS; they also provide opportunities to socialise and meet new people, combating loneliness and social isolation, and significantly improving mental health and wellbeing.

The loss of such facilities hits towns and villages hard and for many years, so we need to act quickly to save them, but since 2010 Kirklees Council has lost £1 billion in funding. If the Conservatives had kept Labour’s funding formula, Kirklees would currently be in surplus. Instead, Kirklees Council is forced to make impossible decisions about which public services it has to cut. The King’s Speech should have included a Bill to fix the broken funding formula for councils and to save vital local services, but it did not. Instead, it leaves us in Batley and Spen facing the loss of facilities when we need them the most. After last year’s disastrous mini-Budget, our communities are paying the price for the Conservatives’ costly mistakes and mismanagement. It breaks my heart to see the impact of this on the community I love, that I am so incredibly proud to represent and that has stood by me in the most difficult of times. Unlike the current Home Secretary, I believe that strong leadership does not need to be devoid of compassion. It should be about bringing people and communities together, not pushing them apart, and that can take many forms locally, nationally and internationally.

Events in the middle east are at the forefront of many of our minds after the despicable terrorist attack on 7 October. The pain of the Jewish community around the world and the intense human suffering we see in Gaza at the moment are unbearable. Israeli hostages are being held in what must be terrifying conditions. Palestinian civilians, families and children—people who have nothing to do with the terrorists of Hamas—are being killed in their own homes. The international community must work night and day to stop the hostilities, to get desperately needed aid—food, water, medicines and fuel—into Gaza immediately and to call loudly and clearly for the release of all hostages.

We must also ensure that international law is upheld, particularly with regard to the principle of proportionality and the serious issues of forcible transfer and the taking of precautionary measures when it comes to protecting civilians. The actions of Hamas on 7 October are to be fully condemned, but the suffering of thousands of innocent civilians, many of whom were not even born when this conflict began, cannot be seen as collateral damage. As the Leader of the Opposition said last week, we absolutely defend Israel’s right to protect itself as a sovereign state, but that is not a blank cheque.

As hard as it feels, we must also stay resolute in the hope that there can be a prospect of a lasting peace in the future. I, for one, will work with colleagues and friends across the House—Jewish, Muslim, Christian or, like me, of no particular faith—to do everything I can to make the all-too-distant vision of a two-state solution more than just words repeated periodically in this place to make us all feel better, but an actual reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, because they have been let down for far too long.

It takes hard diplomacy, however, and a Government willing to bring people together to de-escalate tensions and provide the leadership and road map to discussions and a political settlement. The Government’s Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which has been carried over into this Session of Parliament, does nothing to help that situation. It is a badly drafted and unworkable piece of legislation. It restricts councils and other public bodies from taking ethical investment and procurement decisions, and it singles out individual countries for different treatment. That cannot be the basis of a foreign policy that seeks to heal divisions and unite people, especially when the stakes are so high. In the light of recent events, I hope that the Government will reconsider their approach to that divisive Bill.

As we head towards a general election next year, people across Batley and Spen and the Spen valley will be looking for a Government who bring people together, who value and protect our communities and who are willing to get on with the serious, hard work of governing. This King’s Speech does not offer the change we need. It offers more of the same to a country desperate for change.

We on the Opposition Benches have begun setting out how the next Labour Government will get on with the hard work involved in getting Britain’s future back, by giving back control to local communities and by rebuilding Britain as a country where opportunities spread across the United Kingdom, where a hard day’s work is valued again, where public services are cherished, where communities are enriched, where families have the security and prosperity they deserve, and where our children and young people can look to the future with hope. That is the change that the country and the people of Batley and Spen are crying out for, and that is the change that I know the next Labour Government will deliver.

17:48

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in response to the Gracious Speech, and it is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater). There have been so many speeches from the Opposition Benches, and not very many from the Government Benches. Interestingly, some of those on the Government Benches were not particularly supportive of the Gracious Speech.

This King’s Speech fails to undo the damage of 13 long years of Conservative rule inflicted on this country and most of its people. There are any number of topics that I could have chosen to speak on to illustrate the damage that the Government have done to my constituents’ lives and hopes, and how the Gracious Speech has failed those constituents. However, I have time to cover only one topic: housing. The topic on the Order Paper for today’s debate is opportunity, but we know that opportunity is only possible if someone has a safe, secure and truly affordable home.

Politicians often use the term “housing crisis”, but we are seeing multiple housing crises. There is a crisis in the private rented sector, a crisis for leaseholders—in fact, a crisis for most mortgage holders—a crisis for those entangled with shared ownership, a crisis among housing associations, and a crisis for those with no home and no hope of having a home. There is also a crisis in home building, with far too few homes being built.

What do we see in the King’s Speech to tackle that multi-headed hydra on housing? A ban on no-fault evictions, first promised in 2019, and a weak, watered-down version of leasehold reform. The party of Macmillan, which once built hundreds of thousands of homes for our heroes, has been reduced to banning tents. The once-grand Conservative party has been reduced to declaring war on tent fabric. How does the housing crisis look to my constituents in Hounslow, Isleworth, Osterley, Brentford and Chiswick—those in what we euphemistically call “housing stress”?

I will start with homelessness and homeless families. All the schools in my constituency have a number of homeless children. Can the Education Secretary imagine the impact that has on children and their parents? First, being homeless means having no settled future; not knowing when children will start a new school, or whether they will need to be pulled out just as they have made friends or move on before their next set of key exams. It means no space to do homework for those in overcrowded conditions. It means mothers living in one or two rooms in a big shared house wondering whether it is safe to leave the baby or the toddler alone while going to the toilet or to the kitchen. It means families with three or four children living in a one-bedroom flat or bunking up with friends or relatives, and children sleeping on sofas and sitting on buses for hours to get to and from school.

The housing crisis is a poison; one that is touching so many in west London who are priced out of even being able to rent a home, let alone buy one. Ending no-fault evictions will not help my constituents who do not have a tenancy, or those who do but whose landlord is selling up. How can one expect one’s children to grow up healthy when there is mould in every single corner of one’s home? How can someone look after their own wellbeing when the threat of eviction is hanging over their head and no landlord will rent them a home because they do not earn at least £60,000? The monthly rent for a one-bedroom flat in even the cheapest part of my constituency is £2,000—more than many of my constituents earn. No wonder home ownership is but a distant dream.

We need a multi-pronged approach with a proper programme of house building and a sweeping set of reforms to the current systems, especially in regard to leasehold—perhaps I should call it “fleecehold,” as many of my constituents do. It is a “feudal” practice—not my word, but that of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—that has left many of my constituents trapped in a serf-like position. He promised me in the Chamber that he would grasp the issue and used rather emotive language about “Applying a vice-like” pressure, yet it appears that his grip has soon weakened. I am sure that the developers and freeholders are relieved about that.

I will give just some examples of the impact on my constituents. One constituent had a 300% increase in building insurance costs despite no change in the building. Another constituent had service charges doubling in a block even though the lifts have been left broken and the intercom out of action. A constituent was unable to move with their partner and children to a bigger home because of a quirk of the Help to Buy system. I could go on. Those problems all stem from the huge flaws in the leasehold system—huge flaws that the Government’s modest set of tiny, limited changes does not start to address.

The shadow of the building safety crisis still hangs over many of my constituents. It has been six years since more than 70 people died in the Grenfell fire, and more than a decade since six people died in the Lakanal House fire. Constituents—mine and others across the country—are still waiting for vital building safety work to begin, despite it being promised months ago for their blocks. Many are not even eligible for support, because their building is less than 12 metres high.

The Government have once again failed leaseholders with the crumbs on offer. No more leasehold houses to be built—big deal. Developers should never have started building leasehold houses in the first place. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) has said what a Labour Government will do: ban the sale of new leasehold flats as well as houses, and fix the mess in the leasehold system to ensure that existing leaseholders can move to commonhold. Commonhold must become the default for flats and render leasehold obsolete, and freehold must be the norm for new houses. Labour would enact the recommendation of the Law Commission’s report. We will do what this Government have failed to do.

The Government’s failure to fix our broken leasehold system is part of a much wider problem: a failure to understand the housing crisis across this country. Once again, the Prime Minister is out of touch with the crisis in the country. This King’s Speech should end the myth that the Conservatives are the party of home ownership. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, the Prime Minister caved in to the demands of his own Back Benchers and got rid of housing targets. He caved in to pressure from freeholders and dropped real leasehold reform. He caved in to the pressure from private landlords and watered down rental reform—a watered down Government, with a watered down King’s Speech.

17:56

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I want to start by acknowledging the lifetime of service and commitment of Her late Majesty. I also acknowledge that, yesterday, we heard the first King’s Speech in more than 70 years. It was an historic day.

I am pleased to be speaking in this debate on such an important area—breaking down barriers, inspiring the next generation, and making our country fairer and more equal. That is why we are all here. It is certainly why I stood for election to this place back in April 2019. But, after the last 13 years, this Conservative Government have given up on governing. Rather than tearing down barriers to opportunity, they are putting them up—left, right and centre. They have left our country with stagnant growth, skyrocketing mortgages, crumbling schools and hospitals, a cost of living crisis, and the people of Newport West with very little faith in this UK Government.

The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has set out clearly the five missions that drive us. Of the five, three are especially relevant to Newport West. We will take back our streets from gangs, drug dealers and fly-tippers, with stronger policing, guaranteed patrols in town centres and more criminals put behind bars. We will break down barriers to opportunity so that every young person is ready for work and ready for life. We will switch on Great British Energy, a new British company giving us cheaper bills, new highly paid jobs and security from tyrants such as Putin. That is a plan to get our country on track, move us on and forward, and bring our country together.

When I spoke in the debate at the start of the last Session, I shared an email that I received from a resident of Newport West, and I want to mention part of it again. She said:

“We are in a position right now where we’re not coping. Our energy bills have risen by 54% and I am afraid that myself and many others will not be able to provide for our families.”

Nothing has changed since my constituent wrote to me, and nothing the Government have said this week will address those concerns or deliver the change that all my constituents need.

I heard from a carer in Newport West who earns just over the universal credit threshold. She said:

“I literally can’t afford to be sick. Statutory sick pay doesn’t cover my wages.”

In other words, in 2023, British workers have to make a choice: do they do the unthinkable and go to work while sick, or stay home and go hungry? The cause of their fear and concern, and the uncertainty facing so many people in Newport West and across the country, sit firmly at the door of this Prime Minister and his tired Conservative Government.

Thanks to the Tories, we find ourselves in a desperate situation, not just in all parts of the United Kingdom but here in this House too. The Tories closed up shop and sent us home early on nearly half of all sitting days in the last Session. I was elected to deliver, to get things done and to make life better for the people who sent me here, and I should be allowed to do that, but this Conservative Government are stopping us all from doing that. They are a zombie Government, paralysing Parliament, with Ministers unable to fill parliamentary time with substantive legislation to tackle the problems the country faces because, after 13 years in office, they have already failed.

The Prime Minister promised to halve inflation, yet our country is set to have the highest inflation of any G7 country this year. We see food prices soaring and petrol prices are once again on the rise. Inflation is set to be higher at the end of this year than forecast when the Prime Minister took office last year. Meanwhile, Labour analysis has found that mortgage holders are hundreds of pounds a month worse off compared with last year. The Tory mortgage bombshell is alive and well and causing misery to thousands of people across the UK.

The Prime Minister promised to grow the economy, yet the UK’s growth is set to be almost non-existent this year—the second lowest in the G7 and three times lower than the advanced economy average. The tax burden is at a record high, on the watch of every Tory MP sitting here in this House—or not, given the empty Government Benches. The next time they send us home early, let us remember that they are making the choice to avoid their responsibility to the people who elected us to this House.

The Prime Minister and his friends have let down the people of Newport West, of Wales and of our United Kingdom. The only way—the best way—to change course, to deliver for our people and to move forward is with a Labour Government, and the sooner the better.

18:01

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I think the best word to describe what was in the King’s Speech is “inadequate”. It is clear that the Government have neither the energy nor the vision to deal with some of the difficulties facing so many people in our country. The disappointment of the speech adds to the general feeling of decline over the past 13 years. What the country really needs is change. That is the sense I get from each and every person I go out and speak to: it is time for a change. What they really need is a mission-led Labour Government focused on putting right the mistakes of the past 13 years.

We heard a perfect illustration of the Government’s governing by slogans from the Education Secretary at the Dispatch Box earlier when she talked about the idea of low-value degrees. She and other members of the Government often use that phrase, but they have utterly failed to define it. Every time they try, they realise that it is impossible to work out.

I am going to quote that well-known socialist Lord Willetts, who I believe still holds the Conservative Whip over in the House of Lords. We talked at the Treasury Committee about the impact of somebody’s degree on their life chances. I questioned him about evidence from the Resolution Foundation, which said that

“it is clear that much of what happens post-university is still determined by certain socio-economic characteristics chosen for us by chance at birth”.

It added that

“the IFS have utilised anonymised tax records and student loan data to show that”—

this is the bit that I hope the Education Secretary is listening to—

“even accounting for institution attended and subject studied, graduates from wealthier families earned more.”

That is the evidence that we have been given. It was collected from anonymised tax data, and it shows that even among people who do the same course at the same university, if someone comes from a wealthier background, they go on to earn more.

I put that to Lord Willetts—I am sure Members understand that he is not a well-known socialist—and he said, “That is absolutely fair.” He absolutely acknowledged that that is the case. He said:

“It is indeed the case that your background, even if you partly overcome it in your time at university, for any given degree, then has an impact in the labour market. The presumption”—

this is how he explained why some people do better at university than others, and why background is important—

“is that this is to do with all the networks and the social capital and the wider opportunities you bring to your hunting for jobs after you have finished your time or in your last year at university.”

So the background, the networks and the social capital of the parents had the greatest impact on how well someone did at university.

That is exemplified by the way in which this Government seem to operate, and their apparent view of teachers. Teachers do an amazing job, as do many of the people in universities, but they are not divorced from the environment in which they exist. Someone may go to university and have to work without that social capital or network. Another example given by Lord Willetts related to the unpaid internships that many employers continue to offer. If people are not able to take those up, they will not have the same opportunities as others.

Lord Willetts also gave some interesting evidence about degrees. He said that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tended to go for degree courses in which they were trained specifically for one occupation, because, he said, they were unable to take the risk. Those people do not want to study a subject such as history—which, I should point out, is the degree held by most top CEOs in the FTSE 100—because they sense the risk of not being employable. We already have a two-tier system in our university jobs market and in our degrees market. This attack that suggests that somehow universities are responsible for the inequalities in our country that so many people face is ludicrous. Once again, the Government are pushing the blame on to someone else rather than accepting the fact that inequality has grown on their watch. If they really want to address the need for aspiration and social mobility, they need to consider addressing the background that so many people come from.

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)]

rose—

[Emma Hardy]

Of course I will always give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Robert Halfon]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We used to serve on the Education Committee together, but I think that her argument is fundamentally wrong. If it is not wrong, why are there some incredible universities—I am thinking of Nottingham Trent University, the University of East London, which I visited last week, and Staffordshire University—with an extraordinary number of disadvantaged students, who do not have the networks and so on to which the hon. Lady referred, but many of whom get good jobs and good skills? If that is the case, it is not to do with networks; it is to do with good teaching at good universities.

[Emma Hardy]

I have the utmost respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I remember his love of Nottingham Trent University from when we served together on the Education Committee. There are some examples of universities doing great things to generate the correct networks for pupils, but the anonymised data, including the anonymised tax records, show that even when all that is taken into account—and of course there are excellent universities doing excellent work—what determines the jobs that people get when they leave university is their parents’ background. Those are the facts. The right hon. Gentleman can have alternative views, but he cannot have alternative facts.

In the context of schools and teachers and the difficulties that people may experience when they go to work, I now want to say a little about women with endometriosis. I have spoken about this many times in the Chamber. One in 10 women have the condition—it is as common as diabetes or asthma—but if I asked everyone in the Chamber about it today, I would probably find that many had never heard of it. It is a debilitating condition that affects a woman’s entire body, and is often linked to the menstrual cycle.

Many of the women I have spoken to who have the condition want to work and to do well. Indeed, many work as teaching assistants in schools or as teachers, because it is a female-dominated profession. Our survey established that half of them took time off work often or very often because of their condition, two fifths worried about losing their jobs because of their endometriosis and a third believed that they had missed out on promotion opportunities because of it, while 90% said that it had had an impact on their long-term financial situation, and one in six—remember, this condition is as common as diabetes or asthma—had had to give up work all together.

All that is required to keep these women in work are the usual reasonable adjustments and a consideration of the way in which work is structured. Some great cross-party work has been done on the menopause, and policies in the workplace seem to be changing, but I would have really liked to see in the King’s Speech a measure to address endometriosis and some of the other conditions affecting women.

Locally in my constituency, the Hull and East Yorkshire endometriosis group, which is full of amazing, formidable women, is working with the trade unions to create a rights charter and to encourage workplaces to look at how women with endometriosis are treated. But again, we did not see anything on rights at work in the King’s Speech. There was no employment Bill. There was no new deal for working people. There was nothing. Fundamentally, if we want to get the changes that people need—the genuine opportunities for all people from all backgrounds and the opportunities for women to continue in work—what we need is a Labour Government.

18:10

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

What was known as the Queen’s Speech, now the King’s speech, was seen as an opportunity by the incumbent Government to lay out an ambitious policy agenda for the future. What we have seen from this King’s Speech, at what many might call the fag end of this Government’s time in office, is anything but ambitious. It is a collection of measures to try to cause division in the country. This Government do not want to fight the next election on their record in office, so they will fight it on what they say Labour will do. They will try to describe what is mainstream as extreme in order to promote their right-wing agenda as moderate—for example, by watering down our climate change commitments.

I will go even further and suggest that the Government want to placate even more of the Prime Minister’s right-wing colleagues by bringing about the notion of climate scepticism, as though our nation’s fears and worries about climate change are overblown and unfounded, when in fact the evidence of excessive flooding and heatwaves has appeared before our own people’s eyes. The use of the word “scepticism” is designed to conjure up a vision of the past, where Euroscepticism appeared to vanquish those who wished to remain in the European Union. Well, we have all seen how that played out. If climate scepticism catches on in the UK, it will do the same damage to our emissions targets and our reputation that Euroscepticism did to our trade, our economy and our reputation.

This Prime Minister, in order to try to distance himself from the previous Conservative incumbents in No. 10, is now trying to make out that he is a break from the past, where there was once cross-party consensus, through environmental measures and the likes of the cancellation of HS2. He is trying to dissociate himself from 13 years of Conservative Government failures, and to present himself as something new. The trick that he is trying to deploy is to bring forward measures that I would describe as counterintuitive. By playing down the need for strong environmental protective measures and the need for HS2 to go to Manchester, he is being different for difference’s sake. Climate science tells us that cleaner cars and well-insulated homes will save energy and help the progress towards net zero. Economists do not just look at the cost to the nation of HS2; they look at the best estimates, which by the Government’s own analysis suggest that the completion of HS2 to Manchester would have brought £24 billion a year to the north’s economy and created 96,000 jobs. It would have improved capacity and connectivity and closed the productivity gap with London.

The Prime Minister thinks that the public will be fooled into thinking he is a different Prime Minister with a fresh agenda for the future and forget the fact that he has been in government since 2018. The crime—I nearly said “the crime minister”; it is a crime, some of the things that I think are going on on the Government Benches. The Prime Minister has been in the Cabinet for more than four years, was Chancellor of the Exchequer for two and has now been Prime Minister for a whole year, so it is not as though he is new to being in government.

Providing solutions to problems that do not exist is part of the Prime Minister’s agenda. Labour is not in government now, so it is irrelevant whether we would promote the annual issuing of North sea oil and gas licences. If we were in government and those licences had already been granted, as is likely to be the case, the decision would already have been taken. If those licences were not already granted, a Labour Government would have the choice and do what was best for the UK. In addition, the Government are fabricating policies that the country would get under a Labour Government, such as a meat tax, car sharing and seven different types of bins.

What have we seen in this King’s Speech? We have a sentencing Bill that will require whole-life sentences for the worst murderers. It would mean that rapists could not be released early and make shorter sentences more likely for lesser crimes. That sounds okay on the face of it, but it has more to do with the fact that prisons are full and the Government’s building programme cannot keep pace with convictions. I have a constituent who is a victim of rape and has had to wait five years for her case to come to court. There is more of a problem getting rapists into prison in the first place, with a conviction rate of only 2%, never mind letting them out early. There are many problems with the criminal justice system. Sentencing is a good headline, but it is not the answer to the system’s many woes.

This Government are running out of steam. They should call a general election tomorrow, because the country is crying out for change.

18:15

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to close today’s debate for the Opposition on what we hope will be the last King’s Speech from a Conservative Government for many years, because the general election cannot come soon enough and the British people should have the opportunity to have their say.

Opening the debate today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) powerfully and movingly set out Labour’s case that this Government have let down our country and our people: our schools—crumbling; our skills system—broken; our housing market—failed. Our country cannot go on like this. What we need is change, and the time for change is now. Crucially, the only party to deliver the change that we all need is today’s changed Labour party.

Today’s contributions from so many of my colleagues have spelled out the urgency of that change. We heard from many of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the challenges our country is facing right now and the actions a Labour Government would be taking on the side of working people. My right hon. Friends the Members for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) all set out very clearly the difference a Labour Government would make to our country.

One of the divides that such debates show so powerfully is between the core beliefs of our parties. Today it is distinctively Labour to believe that government can be and must be a force for good in people’s lives—not just administration but transformation, and not just keeping the show on the road but defining the road ahead—and only Labour understands that the purpose of government is to extend freedoms, to extend opportunities, for each of us and for all of us.

When we talk about opportunity, we mean that in its widest sense: educational opportunity for all of our children to be ready not just to live and work in our world but to understand and enjoy it. We want a country in which all our children, regardless of background, can achieve and thrive—economic opportunity, setting up our young people to achieve and succeed in the economy of today and tomorrow, with the chance not just to get by but to get on; social opportunity, so that families are not judged but supported, and so children and young people know that the future is for us all to shape together, not to face alone; cultural opportunity, to experience art, music, sport and drama, to get involved, to engage, to write, to participate, to pursue and to perform.

That is what we mean when we talk about opportunity: opportunity for each of us and for all of us. The change that Labour will bring is our determination to ensure that background is no barrier to opportunity, that excellence must be for everyone, and that high and rising standards for all our children and in all our schools are once again reality.

The speeches we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister and earlier from the Education Secretary were not about breaking down barriers to opportunity; they were missed opportunities. Let us think of all the issues that we might have heard about today. After all, the Department for Education’s own risk register, published back in the summer, lists six of them—six issues that the Government know they need to tackle, and on which they refuse to act. What of them? On industrial action, they have overseen some of the most sustained strikes in our schools for decades and have no plans to address the reasons for them. On education recovery after the pandemic, the Prime Minister said in his own words that he had “maxed out,” and the Education Secretary has given up.

On school building collapse, we heard not a word—although the Secretary of State has been keen to tell us that kids love nothing more than a Portakabin. On looked-after children, we heard not a word. On high-needs cost pressures on the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision system, we heard nothing at all. On cyber-security, we heard zero. On issue after issue, we have seen no evidence that the Government have learnt and no sign that they are ready. They are sleepwalking into disaster.

This goes far wider, as there are no plans for early years education; no plans to tackle the persistent absenteeism in our schools; no plans for a better and more effective school inspection and improvement system; no plans to tackle the growing problem of children who are missing altogether from our schools; no plans to deal with the exodus of qualified teachers from our schools and the growing crisis in recruitment; no plans for children’s social care or to tackle the crisis in provision facing children with special educational needs and disabilities; and no plans for fairer student finance. There is not a thing.

What did the Government give us in that very thin set of priorities? We got just a post-dated cheque on post-16 qualifications—a promise and no plan; an attack on our universities, on the young people who attend them, and on their hopes, dreams and aspirations. The Conservatives’ determination is never clearer and never sharper than when they see the chance to kick at the ambitions of their favourite target: other people’s children. Of course, it would be easy to stand here and say that the answer is simply fiscal, but it is not just about levels of spending—it is also about choices and priorities.

We heard some imaginative and creative storytelling from the Secretary of State about Labour’s record in government, but I am very proud of what we achieved. I saw with my own eyes and experienced the difference that our record in power made in my community and for a generation of children. Millions of children were lifted out of poverty; and we had high standards in our schools, better supported teachers, Sure Start, the education maintenance allowance and Building Schools for the Future.

That is a record of which we are very proud, and the Government have nothing to speak to on this. Thirteen years ago, the share of total public expenditure on education and social protection relating to families was 16.3%, but by last year it had fallen to just 11.6%. There has been an almost 30% drop in the share of Government spending on the next generation. This is a story not of tough decisions for long-term change, but of Conservative Members making easy choices for short-term gain. For 13 long years, they have chipped away at opportunity, Budget after Budget, with law after law, chasing headlines, not tackling issues, and taking chances away from our children, ravaging the opportunities of a generation. I would say that the Government have balanced the books on the backs of our children, but they have not even managed that. Taxes on working people are at the highest level for almost 70 years and public sector net debt has risen to almost 98% of GDP. Theirs is a record of failure and of shame.

Labour’s focus on opportunity will start with our youngest children. The Government’s childcare entitlement expansion comes with no plan for delivery and no workforce to make it happen. Labour is determined that childcare is more than work choices for parents—it is life chances for children. That is why we have asked Sir David Bell, the former chief inspector of Ofsted and former permanent secretary in the Department for Education, to lead our work on setting out the standards and workforce we need for the early education our children deserve. We need high and rising standards, right from the start. We need the best start to every education and every life. We will bring early language interventions—some of the best evidenced of all of our educational approaches—into settings and classrooms across our country. We will bring high and rising standards for all our children, into all our schools. We will bring breakfast clubs to every primary school, in every corner of our country. We are determined to tackle the huge surge in mental ill-health among our children, with mental health support in every secondary school and mental health hubs in every community. We will address the growing challenge of persistent absenteeism, which is now on track to mean 2 million children regularly missing school by 2025—that is one in four of our children.

That is because today there is no greater failing by this Government than standing by, as more and more children miss school for days on end, term after term. They are a lost generation, missing from England’s schools. High and rising standards mean children must be in school for the education they deserve. It means a reset of the relationship between families, schools and government. I pay tribute to the Children’s Commissioner for England, for whom the epidemic of student absence from our schools has rightly been a concern that she has pressed with the Government, and to Sky News, which has been relentless in pursuing the issue.

We will review the curriculum so it is fit for the age we live in and the future we need, filled with the knowledge our children need to achieve and thrive, woven through with the speaking, listening and digital skills that our children need to succeed—high and rising standards in every classroom and every school.

We will use the money raised from ending the tax breaks that private schools enjoy to invest in 6,500 more teachers. We will ensure all new teachers are qualified. We will drive change in how Ofsted reports on our schools, ending one-word summaries and empowering parents to be partners in the push for better. And we will deliver proper careers guidance and worthwhile work experience for all our children, in every school—high and rising standards, through every year of school, so our children are ready for work and ready for life.

We will reform the failed apprenticeships levy into a growth and skills levy. We will devolve skills budgets to combined authorities to bring decisions closer to our local communities and economies. We will bring in a new national body, Skills England, to drive the change we need to see across Government and beyond. And we will reform student finance to bring fairness to a system that punishes new graduates, young workers, those starting a family and those delivering our public services—high and rising standards for all our young people throughout their education and their lives.

By-election after by-election, from Tamworth to Rutherglen, from Selby to Mid Bedfordshire, makes it clear that Britain is longing for change. Speech after speech from Ministers tells us they are out of ideas, out of ambition and out of time. The choice, whenever it comes, in the months ahead, will be a simple one. Today, it is clearer than ever that only Labour can bring the change Britain needs. I call upon Government Members to end the wait, to put country before party and to deliver a general election now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I encourage the Member leading the Adjournment debate to make themselves available, as I am sure we will be starting that debate in a matter of minutes, before 7 pm. That is not to encourage the Minister not to give us a full response.

18:27

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Both she and I entered the House of Commons aged just 26, grew up in working-class families in the north-east and think that she would be a better leader of the Labour party than the current one.

The title of the debate is “Breaking down barriers to opportunity”. It is testament to the progress that the country has made that myself, the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, are all from working-class families in northern towns and are now responding to the King’s Speech in the mother of all Parliaments. I think that is a good thing.

It is a huge honour to close the debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech, the first in over 70 years, and on the vital issues of unlocking the great potential of our young people and unleashing opportunities across all parts of our country, on behalf of the Government. As has been widely acknowledged during the debate, education is one of the most powerful levers we have to help achieve this Government’s defining mission of levelling up economic growth, improving people’s quality of life and restoring the pride in the places they call home.

I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), and who could forget the chair of the APPG for Shakespeare, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris).

Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, I started my career as an apprentice, before spending nine years in Teesside’s chemical industry, so I am especially passionate about ensuring that the next generation has the best possible choices and opportunities.

As the Prime Minister has said, for the next generation, and indeed for our country, that means taking difficult decisions for the long term, so that we lay the foundations for sustained success, enabling people everywhere to build a brighter future. And in that, as my right hon. Friend, the Education Secretary, has rightly said, we are building on a proud record.

Huge credit must go to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), for their ambition and vision back in 2010 for taking on the soft bigotry of those who believed that some are pre-destined for success while others are not.

None the less, we know that there is more to do to equip children starting school today to take up the jobs of tomorrow, starting with no more rip-off degrees, no more arbitrary targets for university, and no more assumptions that university is the only route to success. Instead, we are giving every generation real choices and a commitment to a real return on their investment.

[Emma Hardy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jacob Young]

The hon. Lady has spoken many times in this debate, so I think I shall make some progress.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Jacob Young]

We are giving a commitment to a real return on their investment, their hard work, their hard cash by delivering more high-quality technical education—

[Emma Hardy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If the Minister was going to give way, I am sure that he would give an indication that he wishes to do so.

[Jacob Young]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, we are giving every generation real choices and a commitment to a real return on their investment, their hard work and their hard cash by delivering more high quality technical education than any other Government, through T-levels, Higher Technical Qualifications and apprenticeships. We are also delivering for adults looking to learn new skills through skills bootcamps, the Lifelong Learning Entitlement—bringing universities, colleges and businesses together through Institutes of Technology. We are demanding excellence all round for academic and technical routes.

Our family hubs and “Strong Start for Life” programmes will also provide wide-ranging support that joins up services, including targeted help during those first critical days of a child’s life, giving the next generation the best possible start in life.

Just as we are making sure that all children and young people are set up to succeed, so we are making sure that every part of our country is set up for success. The White Paper that preceded our great Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I am delighted to say is now on the statute book, recognised a fundamental truth: that while talent is spread equally across the UK, opportunity is not. Although our country is such a success story, not everyone shares equally in that success. We are putting that right by shifting opportunity and power decisively towards working people and their families. We will empower local leaders and invest billions to: create high-skilled, well-paid jobs; improve transport; improve health outcomes; protect community spaces; invest in research and innovation; and increase pride and belonging. Since taking on the job of Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, I have seen what a difference this is making in places such as Middlesbrough, where I grew up, Keighley, Grimsby and Hull, because, for prosperity to be shared, we must first attract the good jobs that our towns and regions need by creating the right environment for businesses to operate in.

A wind farm manufacturer who is looking at where to base their next production facility needs a reason to pick Redcar or Hull over Antwerp or Rotterdam. Only by investing in the full package of incentives—from skills to infrastructure, business environment to quality of life—can we make this happen. That is exactly what we are doing through the UK’s network of freeports, which offers a comprehensive package of measures, comprising tax reliefs, customs, business rates retention, planning, regeneration, innovation and trade and investment support. They also create opportunities in left-behind communities. I am thinking of my own constituency of Redcar and Cleveland and the Teesside freeport where BP is investing in carbon capture and storage. It has partnered with Redcar and Cleveland College to provide scholarships for young people to train as clean energy technicians. We are providing the skills that are preparing people for the jobs of the future, so that they can embrace the opportunities that are being created by this Government. But that is not all. We have listened to those who feel that their communities have been left behind. Through our £1.1 billion long-term plan for towns, we are putting power and flexible funding in the hands of local people, so that they can invest in what is most important to them. Towns such as Mansfield, Great Yarmouth, Blyth, Oldham, Grimsby, Merthyr Tydfil are just some of the 55 communities that will receive this support.

As this Government invest in creating opportunity and driving aspiration across our Union, we are channelling the investment that our towns and regions need to succeed, led by local leaders who know their communities best. In 2010, Greater London was the only area in England with devolved powers. We want more to follow, bringing decision making closer to the people it affects. Now, under this Government, we have 10 areas with implemented mayoral devolution deals, and five deals in the process of implementation.

Devolving education and skills is at the heart of our devolution framework, because unless there are good schools with high standards, and institutions offering qualifications that employers value, prosperity cannot be shared across all communities. When we think about disadvantage, all of us will be acutely aware that disadvantaged children have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. We are determined to support them to catch up and reach their potential, which is why we have invested in education recovery programmes such as the recovery premium, the national tutoring programme and the 16-19 tuition fund.

Unlike the Labour party, we will never accept that family background or geography should ever dictate destiny. Long before there was a levelling-up Minister, levelling up was exactly what we had been doing over the past 13 years in our schools, in our world-class universities, on skills and through apprenticeships, reversing a decade of decline, low expectations and low ambition. The rewards that we are reaping now are very real. We have better schools than ever before, with schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country producing some of the best results. More young people from state schools are going to our best universities. Our nine and 10-year-olds are topping the league for reading in the west. We have the best universities in Europe.

While others talk the talk, we walk the walk, and just as we have succeeded in turning the tide in education and skills, so we will succeed in turning the tide for people and places long taken for granted by the Labour party. As we have seen from today’s debate, levelling up growth, opportunity, prosperity, pride and belonging for everyone in all parts of our country to contribute to and share in is a mission for us all—but there is only one party that can be trusted to deliver.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Football Regulation

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

18:37

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about football regulation and about Reading football club in tonight’s Adjournment debate. Before I start, I will say a few words of thanks to Reading fans and to all those campaigning to secure the future of football clubs around the country. I also thank the Minister for his support; I appreciate that he is standing in for a colleague at the last minute. I particularly thank the Reading fans who set up the Sell Before We Dai campaign, which is calling on the current owner to sell the club to a new, more responsible owner. I would like to mention Ian Morton, who is here tonight, Eleanor Flood and many others. I also thank our supporters trust, and many other fans groups.

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

As a supporter-run club, Chester football club has not-going-into-debt written into its constitution. For them, it means that they will never again lose the club to the whim of feckless owners. Chester FC competes against clubs that do not have that safeguard and is therefore always at a competitive disadvantage because it is committed to a sustainable future for the club. Football regulation must mean that that is tackled. Does my hon. Friend agree that meaningful regulation, and financial incentives to promote good governance with supporter representation at its heart, has to be the way forward, from the premiership to the grassroots?

[Matt Rodda]

I thank my hon. Friend; of course, the interests of fans and clubs must come first.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on such an important topic. Southend United football club is the heart of the new city of Southend, but it has had a terrible time and is currently under new ownership. Will he join me in welcoming the football governance Bill in yesterday’s King’s Speech, which we hope will pave the way to protect clubs such as Southend United for generations to come?

[Matt Rodda]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. In fact, the point of my speech is not only to thank the Minister for that Bill, but to probe and ask questions about it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are going for a hat-trick of interventions, one after the other. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. It is critical not only for those here, but for many others who are unfortunately not able to make it. I agree with the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) that the football governance Bill appearing in the King’s Speech is a significant step forward. In Strangford, we have many fantastic local clubs, including Ards football club in the major town of Newtownards. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a football regulator for finance must apply to all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and especially to support small, local clubs so they can reach their full potential? This is not just about Reading or Southend; it is about all of us in this great United Kingdom, if we do the thing right.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the action the Government are proposing is brought forward and has the widest possible impact across the UK.

I take this opportunity to thank the thousands of local fans who have shown their support for a change of ownership of Reading FC, including the 1,400 people who joined a march from our town centre to the stadium a few days ago. It was an incredible show of support, and one that led to the unexpected closure of the A33 due to the huge numbers who took part. I thank all the drivers on the other side of the road—a two-lane trunk road—who hooted in support and cheered us on. I thank Reading FC legend Dave Kitson for leading the march and for his support for both the club and the campaign.

I thank our local council, including the council’s leader, Jason Brock, Councillor John Ennis, who has been a Reading fan since 1975, Councillor Adele Barnett-Ward and others. I thank John in particular, because he took part in a previous march in 1983 against Robert Maxwell’s ill-thought-through plan to merge Reading with Oxford United. I should add that John has been our lead councillor for transport for just four months and already he has shut a major road, which is not something that many councillors get to do.

I also thank my fellow Berkshire MPs, particularly the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Sadly, the hon. Member for Bracknell cannot attend the debate due to illness, but he is a fan and hugely enjoyed the march. Despite the local political differences, he marched next to John and other seasoned campaigners and marchers from the Labour council—although, funnily enough, he seemed to feel more at home when the fans started chanting “Blue Army” as we walked down the road. I thank him, the Minister and colleagues from across the House for their support.

I turn now to the substance of the debate. It is clear to us all that there is an ownership problem in English football. I will use the debate to explain the terrible impact of that ownership problem on Reading and, by implication, on many clubs across the country, and to ask the Minister to reassure fans, players, staff and local communities. As I said earlier, I welcome the Government’s announcement that they plan to bring forward a Bill to regulate football. That is an important step.

I call on the Government to live up to that promise. Ministers must ensure that the Bill includes proper powers for the regulator and, crucially, that there is enough parliamentary time for the Bill in the last months before a general election. Above all, the Government need to show us that they have the determination to press forward with what they have promised. I know my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is willing to work with them, as are we MPs, fans and the whole football community. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government are serious and will commit to them taking this vital work forward as a matter of urgency.

I will turn now to Reading football club. To put it clearly and simply, as loyal fans did on the march last week, we want our Reading back. The story of what is happening to our wonderful club is quite simply heartbreaking. It is terrible, and I could use much less parliamentary language—as was occasionally heard as we marched down the A33. The situation we face stands in stark contrast to the history and traditions of our great club.

Reading was founded in 1871, and it is one of the oldest clubs in English football. The fans, the players of the men’s and women’s teams, and the staff have all been badly let down. In men’s football, Reading has been a championship club, knocking on the doors of the premier league. It has enjoyed three seasons in the top flight. In fact, we were one place outside getting into Europe at the end of our first premier league season, in 2006-07. Fans have vivid memories of the nineties, the noughties and our most recent time in the premier league 10 years ago—the proudest possession of one of my children is a ball signed by the whole team from that heady time—under the wise leadership of brilliant managers such as Steve Coppell, who guided gifted players, many of whom were local and came up through the club’s academy, and the committed support of the then owner, Sir John Madejski, whom I thank for his wise stewardship of the club.

The club and the wider football community used to talk about “the Reading way”: developing and motivating players at a local family club, and achieving far more than others would have thought possible. That includes—I particularly like saying this—beating Watford 4-1 to win the Simod cup at Wembley; winning the championship a number of times, most recently in 2011; knocking on the door of the premier league in successive play-offs; and great FA cup runs, including sadly losing to Arsenal in the semi-final in 2015.

Crucially, the women’s team were also punching above their weight, and were a real success story. Until recently, they were playing in the women’s super league thanks to brilliant players and management, and were on the brink of doing something amazing. Sadly, that run of success has now ended.

The club was sold in 2013, and a succession of owners have presided over a worsening situation. Unfortunately, our men’s team is now languishing at the bottom of league one, through no fault of their own—16 points have been deducted from the club in the last few months for an array of financial mismanagement by the current owner, Chinese businessman Dai Yongge, not for anything that has happened on the pitch. That financial mismanagement includes Mr Yongge failing to pay wages and national insurance. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had lodged winding-up petitions before the NI was paid. Mr Yongge’s term as owner started well, with investment in players and the training ground, but sadly he seemed to lose interest. This may be a familiar story to others who follow the history of many of our clubs.

The effect of those points deductions has been absolutely appalling. Reading’s men’s team was relegated from the championship to league one at the end of last season, and further points deductions have left us at the very bottom of that league. To make matters worse, it now looks as if the club will be relegated again at the end of this season. That would leave us playing in league two. The owner has also pulled the funding for the women’s team, which made them unsustainable as a professional outfit—sadly, the players are no longer fully professional—and they too have been relegated.

Let me say a brief word about players, staff and fans. Quite simply, they are doing a determined job to remain positive in an extremely difficult and challenging situation that is not of their making. We are all extremely proud of them, and I pay tribute to them all. Young, less experienced players—the men’s team are the youngest in the league—who in some cases should still be in the academy or on the bench, are playing with grit and determination despite everything that has been thrown against them. Fans with families and busy jobs have come together to fight for our club in a community campaign that has made the national news. We are all very proud of them, and I want to say: “Come on you R’s!”

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I apologise for being late to the debate—I was caught out by the earlier start. My hon. Friend is making a good point about the way in which football is often run by individuals who can, in the end, bring a whole club and its community down because of the way the club is managed. At Sheffield Wednesday, Dejphon Chansiri has put a lot of money into the club—great—but he has been saying recently that he may stop the funding, which is obviously a considerable threat. In the end, clubs are not just about the person who owns them, or the chairmen; they are about fans. Clubs belong to them, and they should have the right to be consulted right the way through on all those issues. We hope that the regulator, when it comes in, will have the powers to do precisely that.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will address later in my speech. I hope the Minister will offer further detail about what he proposes, and I urge him to use his speech to give us some hope, some cheer, some optimism, and some fire in our bellies to help fight for the future of our beloved club.

The Government have announced a Bill to introduce a football regulator, which is welcome. That Bill has the potential to lead to real change in English football, but sadly it is not clear how far the Government will respond to fans’ concerns, and indeed to those of the football authorities. We are all concerned about owners, such as Dai Yongge, who seem to swoop in, hope to make money, and then lose interest if they are not successful. We are at a very early stage with the Bill, so I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us about the thrust of that Bill. I ask him to provide some detail on a number of key points.

For example, can the Minister spell out what the Government hope the Bill will achieve? Can he be clear about the powers he is considering for the regulator, and will he reassure fans that they will actually have a say? Will he also put an end to clubs being punished for the actions of irresponsible owners? In short, will he commit to doing what it takes to make sure that no more clubs and no more fans have to suffer what we have had to suffer?

Dai Yongge has announced that he plans to sell Reading. He made that announcement in October, and so far there appear to be three bidders who have shown an interest in the club. That means that the sale could go through before the Bill is passed, so is the Minister able to reassure me about the club’s immediate future? If the sale does go ahead, will he commit to Reading becoming a pilot for new regulation to protect the club, and indeed to other measures that may be necessary to offer support?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you once again for allowing me to have this debate tonight, and I thank Members who have intervened on me. Most of all, I thank Reading fans and our whole community. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

18:51

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Sir John Whittingdale)]

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on securing this debate. As he mentioned at the start of his remarks, it was the intention of the Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), to respond to the debate, but he has had to return to his constituency urgently for reasons that I think colleagues will fully understand.

In his remarks, the hon. Gentleman highlighted the deep concern that he and many of the fans he represents have expressed regarding football ownership. I pay tribute to his commitment, and to theirs; having listened to his description, we understand how difficult it must have been for those fans over the past few years. We are very much aware of the passion and interest that many hon. Members feel about the long-term sustainability and governance of English football, and their commitment to their local clubs. I thank the hon. Members for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) for their contributions to this debate. In particular, as a Member of Parliament for Essex, I am very much aware of the difficulties faced by Southend United, and my hon. Friend has been a fantastic champion for the fans of that club.

The presence of those hon. Members in this debate demonstrates how important football clubs are to the lives of people in this country. In 2011, when I chaired the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—quite a considerable time ago now—we conducted an inquiry into football governance. It is somewhat depressing that, 12 years later, we are still debating many of the same issues. However, I hope that the inclusion of the football governance Bill in the King’s Speech yesterday will reassure the hon. Member for Reading East and others that this Government are intent on delivering and safeguarding the future of football clubs for the benefit of communities and fans.

The hon. Gentleman has talked about his own local club, steeped in the fabric of its community. It has been relegated, suffered sporting sanctions and faced financial penalties because of reckless decisions made by owners and terrible mismanagement. We have also heard about poor and non-existent governance practices, with fans being prevented from influencing key decisions that affect them and having to petition local councils, in some cases to protect stadiums. All such incidents threaten the long-term health and sustainability of all clubs, not just Reading.

We have heard about how English football clubs make significant contributions, and also about what happens when the community is let down by irresponsible owners in charge of football clubs. No employee, be they a player or, indeed, someone in the club shop, should fear not being paid. It is the local communities and fans that are the lifeblood of these clubs, and they bear the brunt and fallout of bad ownership decisions. They see where the structures are not working for the good of the game, and they can articulate most clearly how these are set right.

My colleagues in the ministerial team have prioritised engaging with fans and listening to their concerns, and I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for leading the fan-led review of football governance. This has been of immense value in developing the White Paper and during the period of the consultation we held earlier this year. I would like to thank the Football Supporters Association for its support; its contribution has been extremely valuable.

Too many clubs have been brought to the brink with unsuitable owners taking over, stripping them of their assets and refusing to fund them any more. We are committed to breaking this cycle of inappropriate ownership, financial instability and poor governance practices. That is why the inclusion of the Bill in yesterday’s King’s Speech is so important. The Bill will establish an independent football regulator, which will put fans back at the heart of football and help to deliver a sustainable future for all clubs. It will strengthen the governance and financial resilience of football clubs to protect the national game and clubs linked with communities and fans. Crucially, the regulator will address systemic financial issues in football, while providing the certainty and sustainability required to drive future investment and growth. This will ensure that English football remains the global success story and tackles the harms that exist.

The Bill will give fans more of a voice in the running of their clubs by setting a minimum standard of fan engagement. Clubs will need to meet this, and will be required to comply with the FA on its new rules for club heritage. It will give fans a veto over changes to the badge and home shirt colours, in addition to the strong existing protections for club names. Most clubs have a strong relationship with their fans and consciously engage them in decisions about club heritage, but not all do. For instance, fans of Cardiff City and Hull City will understand the importance of these measures after they recently had to battle to bring back or to keep their club’s colours and badge. Likewise, the new system will create strengthened owners and directors tests to make sure a club’s custodians—their owners and directors—are suitable.

[Mr Betts]

I think the consultation with fans is absolutely at the heart of this. It was at the heart of the fan-led review, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for that. For the fans, it will be really important that the legislation specifies how fans groups will be appointed as part of the consultation, and it should not be left to the owners of clubs to decide which fans they want to talk to and which they do not, because that is at the heart of the current problems in many clubs.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I just remind the Minister that at 7 o’clock the Whip will once more move the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I do understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). Certainly, we would not wish to have a system in which the directors decided who they do and do not wish to talk to. It will be part of the licensing requirements that fans are involved. I am sure we will wish to explore that further during the passage of the Bill, but it is certainly the intention that that is one of the conditions for licensing.

We have seen other examples of fans fighting back against their owners to save their clubs at Blackpool, Charlton Athletic and, as we have heard tonight, Reading. That should not have had to happen.

[Matt Rodda]

Does the Minister agree that part of the issue here is about the test for ownership? It was interesting in Reading’s case that Dai Yongge was refused as a potential owner for Hull City when it was in the premiership —unlike Reading, which was in the championship at the time. The English Football League allowed him to become the owner of Reading. There is an issue there and a question about the fit and proper test for owners.

17:49

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern on that point, particularly given the record of the owner of his particular club. The Bill will insert as one of the duties of the new football regulator the requirement to conduct an owners and directors test, to make sure that clubs and fans are protected from irresponsible owners. I am sure that we will want to explore that matter in greater detail when the Bill comes to be debated in this House.

The Bill will also require clubs to seek the regulator’s approval for any sale or relocation of the stadium and to demonstrate how they have consulted their fans as part of that. To give another example, at Derby County we saw the issues caused by the decision to sell the club stadium to a separate company owned by the club’s owner. More recently, as the hon. Gentleman has graphically described, we have seen fans at Reading petition the council to list the ground as an asset of community value, to make sure that it cannot be sold quickly and without warning by the current owner. The stadium that the club plays in not only has significant value to fans, but can be a club’s most valuable asset.

In addition, the regulator will prevent clubs from joining breakaway leagues. As Members will be aware, in 2021 fans were faced with the prospect of a breakaway European super league that was fundamentally uncompetitive and threatened to undermine the footballing pyramid. Fans will no longer face the prospect of seeing their club sign up to such ill-thought-out proposals. Ultimately, we want a thriving footballing pyramid and more money must flow through the game to make that happen.

On financial distribution, it remains our firm belief that the best solution is a football-led solution, but if one is not found, the regulator will have a backstop power to intervene and force a solution. I hope a resolution on that point will be found soon, and I urge both sides to reach a deal as soon as possible. It is in the game’s interests to avoid the risk of further financial uncertainty.

In short, through this legislation we are protecting the fundamentals of the game we love while ensuring a more sustainable future with fans at its heart for generations to come. Meanwhile, alongside the introduction of legislation, the Government will take the time to explore the extent to which preparatory work can be done ahead of the regulator being established in law.

I fully recognise the plight of Reading football club, as the hon. Gentleman described, and I understand his wish that measures should be brought in as soon as possible. I am afraid that I cannot commit to a pilot at this stage, but I can tell him that the experience of Reading FC and other clubs will continue to inform policy development and decisions about how the regulator is set up. Likewise, any sale that takes place in advance of the regulator is a matter for the football authorities’ existing rules and checks on owners and directors, but I urge hon. Members who are concerned on that point to encourage clubs and their leaderships to engage with the team in the Department as we take the policy forward.

If the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns, I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, will be happy to talk to him further. I thank him for bringing the matter before the House. I think we all look forward to the introduction of the Bill and the establishment of a regulator in due course. I certainly share his view that that needs to happen quickly, and before a general election.

Question put and agreed to.

19:04

House adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

Wednesday 8 November 2023

Post Office Ltd: Horizon

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Post Office Ltd is compensating postmasters for the suffering they have experienced due to the Horizon IT scandal, which arose following the installation of the Horizon software in the late 1990s.

In parallel with this, Post Office Ltd has continued to review its operational processes and policies to ensure that, where any further issues are identified, it takes steps to investigate and address these. Through this work, Post Office has found previous operational issues such as processes and/or policies regarding certain services that impacted postmasters financially. As a result, Post Office is establishing a compensation scheme to provide redress to postmasters affected by these issues. This is separate to its work compensating postmasters for Horizon shortfalls and for those with overturned convictions.

The Government are supportive of Post Office’s programme of reform, putting right the wrongs of the past, and its aim to help rebuild trust with its postmasters. The Government therefore intend to support Post Office’s process review scheme with funding to cover the cost of compensation to postmasters affected by the issues identified.

The compensation will be exempt from income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax and corporation tax.

Post Office will communicate with current and former postmasters and publish details on its website in due course, to outline the scope of the review. The Department for Business and Trade will provide oversight to ensure that this compensation is delivered quickly and effectively to affected postmasters.

This funding is subject to compliance with subsidy control requirements, including referral to the Subsidy Advice Unit (part of the Competition and Markets Authority) under the Subsidy Control Act 2022.

[HCWS8]

Employment Rights Regulations

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I am pleased to update the House that the Government laid the Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 on 7 November.

Under this Government we have seen employment reach near record highs. The number of payroll employees for September 2023 was 30.1 million, 370,000 higher than this time last year and 1.1 million higher than before the pandemic. The UK’s flexible labour market is at the heart of this success. It enables businesses to start up, grow and create jobs and opportunity for people across this country.

To build further on this success the Government have been conducting a comprehensive review of all retained EU law, to ensure that our regulations are tailored to the needs of the UK economy—seizing the benefits of Brexit.

During the passage of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, Ministers made it clear that the Government have no intention of abandoning our strong record on workers’ rights, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world. And of course, this SI keeps to that pledge.

We identified and consulted on several areas of retained EU employment law where we saw opportunities for improvements following our exit from the EU. The Government’s response to the REUL employment law consultation, published on 7 November, sets out three areas we believe will benefit from reform to ensure that they are fit for purpose for employers and employees alike:

Record keeping requirements under the Working Time Regulations;

Simplifying annual leave and holiday pay calculations in the Working Time Regulations;

Consultation requirements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)—or TUPE—Regulations.

These reforms will support businesses as the economy continues its recovery from the impact of the covid-19 pandemic and the impacts of war in Ukraine. For example, reducing time-consuming and disproportionate reporting requirements for businesses on specific elements of the Working Time Regulations could save employers around £1 billion a year.

These changes are made under powers provided by the Retained EU law (Revocation and Reform) 2023 Act—the REUL Act—and are designed to minimise unnecessary bureaucracy for businesses without reducing levels of worker protections.

A core objective of the REUL Act is to remove interpretive effects and thus allow our courts to interpret retained EU law the same way as other domestic law. The Act also provides “restatement” powers to maintain any existing policy effects which we want to keep. The SI therefore restates the following principles to retain existing rights, including:

The right to carry over annual leave where an employee has been unable to take it due to being on maternity or other family related leave or sick leave;

The right to carry over annual leave where the employer has failed to inform the worker of their right to paid annual leave or enable them to take it; and

The rate of pay for annual leave accrued under regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations.

The SI revokes the European Cooperative Society (Involvement of Employees) Regulations 2006 and the Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 as these regulations are no longer necessary.

The scope of the SI is limited to Great Britain, other than the revocation of the European Cooperative Society (Involvement of Employees) Regulations 2006, which extends to Northern Ireland. Employment law in Northern Ireland is a transferred matter. My officials will continue to engage with the territorial offices and the devolved Administrations on the implementation of these reforms.

By ensuring that employment regulations are fit for purpose, entrepreneurial businesses will have more opportunity to innovate, experiment, and capitalise on the UK’s global leadership in areas like clean energy technologies, life sciences and digital services, and important workers’ rights will be protected. This will cement our position as a world-class place both to work and to start and grow a business.

[HCWS2]

UK-Turkey Free Trade Agreement

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)]

On Thursday 2 November, the Department for Business and Trade has launched a public call for input on an upgraded free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Turkey. The call for input can be accessed via the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/trade-with-turkey-call-for-input

The UK is committed to enhancing our existing trade relationship with Turkey, a dynamic and rapidly modernising economy that is expected to be the 12th largest in the world by 2050 and the fourth largest in Europe. The UK and Turkey are the two major powerhouse trading economies at each edge of the European continent and our current trade is valued at £23.5 billion.

Our current FTA, signed in 2020, replicates the effects of various outdated agreements between the EU and Turkey from the 1990s. It only covers goods and is not tailored to the strengths and demands of our modern economies. We want to establish a modern, 21st-century agreement tailored to the evolving economies of both nations to cover crucial sectors, including digital trade and services.

Over 7,500 UK companies already export to Turkey, including well-known brands such as Vodafone, HSBC and Dyson. Turkey’s thriving tech, manufacturing, transport and infrastructure sectors have generated a surge in demand for international expertise in areas such as digital technology. This is an opportunity to negotiate an upgraded FTA that is aligned more closely with the interests and priorities of British businesses than our existing provisions and positions them advantageously for future opportunities.

The call for input, which will run for nine weeks, will offer businesses, individuals, and other interested stakeholders the opportunity to provide valuable feedback and highlight their priorities for our future trading relationship with Turkey.

The input gathered from stakeholders will play a pivotal role in defining our mandate, guiding comprehensive negotiation preparations, and shaping our policy positions. The Department for Business and Trade is dedicated to ensuring that our final approach benefits the best interests of the British economy.

In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. Protecting the NHS is a fundamental principle of our trade policy: the NHS, the price it pays for medicines and its services are not on the table.

Next steps

Prior to launching negotiations, the UK Government will publish their approach to negotiations. This will include a response to the call for input and our strategic objectives, as well as an economic scoping assessment. The Government are committed to transparency and will ensure that Parliament, the devolved Administrations, UK citizens and businesses are kept regularly updated on negotiations.

[HCWS3]

Broadcasting

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)]

Today, the Government are introducing the Media Bill into Parliament. The Bill will support our broadcasters and radio stations to further thrive by delivering on the key commitments set out in “Up Next”, our broadcasting White Paper published in April 2022.



As part of that overall package, the Bill will deliver reforms to support the long-term sustainability of the Channel 4 Television Corporation, which is a vital part of our globally-renowned public service broadcasting system. This statement updates the House on those measures in particular.



For over 40 years, Channel 4 has commissioned innovative and distinctive content that challenges the status quo and represents unheard voices in society, alongside supporting independent producers who are the bedrock of our hugely successful and dynamic television production sector.



However, like all our public service broadcasters, Channel 4 faces structural changes in the broadcasting landscape: changing consumption habits making audiences more fragmented and harder to reach than ever before, as well as unprecedented competition for viewers, programmes and talent, in particular from global streaming platforms.



That is why in January this year the Government set out a package of reforms to support Channel 4’s long-term sustainability while remaining in public ownership. This will include a new statutory duty on the Channel 4 board, introduced by the Media Bill, to consider the corporation’s long-term sustainability alongside the delivery of Channel 4’s public service remit. Alongside this new duty, we have also worked with Channel 4 to agree updated governance structures to support financial management and other assurance processes, including an updated memorandum of understanding between my Department and Channel 4 which has been published today.



The Media Bill will also remove Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster restriction to enable Channel 4 to make its own content, should it choose to do so, and as other public service broadcasters are able to do. This will open up new options for Channel 4 to diversify its revenues away from linear television advertising, the market for which is in long-term, structural decline. A stronger and more resilient Channel 4 will be best placed to continue playing its integral role within our broadcasting ecosystem for many more years to come.



When announcing the Government’s plans to remove Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster restriction, we were clear that we would work closely with the independent production sector and others to consider necessary steps to ensure that Channel 4’s important role in driving investment into the sector is safeguarded, in the event it does decide to develop its own production capability. Today we are therefore announcing a package of mitigations that we believe should achieve those aims.



First, the level of Channel 4’s independent production quota will be increased from 25% to 35% of qualifying programmes. This will ensure that Channel 4 continues to commission a significant amount of content from qualifying independent producers while still leaving sufficient room for non-qualifying independent producers, and potentially in the future Channel 4 in-house producers, to compete.

Alongside this, Channel 4 has committed to a range of measures that will ensure fair and open access to its commissions, in the event it does commence production. This includes commitments to: set up any new C4C production business as a separate company with its own board and governance arrangements; a new commissioning framework—outlining, for example, robust information sharing protocols and conflict of interest policies; a new, independent dispute resolution process for producers; and transparent reporting in Channel 4’s annual report. These arrangements will be underpinned by a new statutory role for Ofcom, which will have powers to intervene if the regulator decides this is required. These measures will help ensure that the high levels of competition and plurality that characterise our production sector, and that have made it so successful, will be maintained.



Channel 4’s support for producers across the whole of the UK remains a priority for this Government. I therefore welcome Channel 4’s commitment to continue to spend at least 50% of its budget for main channel commissions outside of London—against the 35% requirement in its licence—and that this will not be affected by the removal of its publisher-broadcaster restriction. The level of Channel 4’s regional programme making quotas is set by Ofcom. Ofcom will consider whether any changes are required to these quotas as part of its consultation on the terms of the next Channel 4 licence. We expect that consultation will begin later this year.



The Government appreciate that this is a significant change for the production sector. As a responsible Government, we want to make sure the right processes are in place to monitor the impact of this change and consider whether any further measures to support the sector are required in the future. That is why the Media Bill will also introduce a requirement on Ofcom to review the impact of Channel 4 commencing production, should it choose to do so, on the fulfilment of the public service remit for television. That remit, which will be updated by the Media Bill, includes requirements about the range and amount of programmes made outside of London as well as, for the first time, requirements about the range and amount of independent productions.



Taken together, the Government are confident that this package of reforms will deliver on our joint aims of helping to support Channel 4’s long-term financial sustainability, while ensuring that our world-leading television production sector continues to thrive.

[HCWS14]

Safety of Journalists

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)]

I am pleased to inform the House that HM Government have published an update to the UK’s national action plan for the safety of journalists. The original plan was published in 2021 with the intention of ensuring that journalists operating in the UK can do so free from abuse, violence and threats of harm. The Government are committed to a free and open media. In order to guarantee this, journalists must be able to carry out their vital roles free from threats and violence. Threats to journalists’ safety are not just threats to individuals—they lead to journalists leaving the profession, and to self-censorship of those that remain. The Government continue to act in this area to ensure robust challenge to those in power and to maintain a strong democracy.



Significant progress has been made since the action plan’s publication with successful delivery across all areas. Key outcomes include the appointment of a lead on crimes against journalists by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the launch of an online safety toolkit for journalists, and the introduction of a free e-learning course on journalism safety and resilience by the National Council for the Training of Journalists.



The plan was always intended to be a dynamic document that was updated to reflect the evolving nature of journalists’ safety issues. The journalist safety study, published alongside the updated plan, demonstrates the ongoing prevalence of abuse faced by journalists as well as new challenges. As our understanding of the scale of the problem increases, as well as how to effectively keep journalists safe, now is the time to build on progress made to date. This is why I am introducing new commitments designed to tackle behaviour that risks journalists.



The new commitments focus on the same five key areas which underpin the original plan: increasing our understanding of the problem; enhancing the criminal justice system response in tackling crimes against journalists; supporting journalists and their employers to build the resources they need to protect personal safety; and helping online platforms to tackle the wider issue of online abuse; and, improving public recognition of the value of journalists. Government, law enforcement agencies, and industry have made commitments, building on existing momentum while reflecting the new evidence base. These include a commitment to explore a new online tool to enable data gathering on safety issues; the provision of support for journalists from employers and online platforms (Meta and X); and action from police to tackle crimes against journalists.



One of the new threats the refreshed plan sets out to tackle is abuse of the legal system known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs pose a significant risk to the free press by ultimately seeking to silence journalists and curtail reporting on issues of public interest. The refreshed plan recognises the creation of the new SLAPPs taskforce, which launched in September this year.

The National Committee for the Safety of Journalists will continue to track progress on delivery of these commitments and overall objectives of the plan. It will review them regularly and update the plan in future if and when appropriate.



A copy of the refreshed plan will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS16]

Reserve Forces: External Scrutiny Team Report 2022-23

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Led by Maj Gen (Retd) Simon Lalor, the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations External Scrutiny Team provides an independent assessment on the health of the reserve forces on behalf of the Department. I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the 2022 and 2023 reports, along with a copy of the response to these reports. I am most grateful to the team for their work.



The 2023 report rightly mentions the occurrence of a reserve development “pause” as a result of the pace of geopolitical change and the subsequent Government decision to refresh the integrated review (March 2023) and the Defence Command Paper (July 2023). The integrated review was accompanied by an additional £5 billion of spending for Defence over the next two years and a commitment to increase spending to 2.5% of GDP in the long term. While the integrated review rightly addressed the pace of geopolitical change, the Defence Command Paper made a profound statement of intent on how Defence plans to meet present day challenges while modernising for the future; evidenced by a dedicated opening chapter on people. The message is clear,

“our People come first. They are our asset which underpins our strategic advantage”.

The Department’s commitment to prioritising our people is evidenced by the decision to take forward all 67 recommendations from the Haythornthwaite review (June 2023). These will improve armed forces terms and conditions and incentivisation. The work will include improving the inclusion of reserves in strategic workforce plans; working to streamline how service personnel transition between different terms of service throughout their career to better balance the service need with individual priorities for personal and family life; overhauling people management processes through the removal of unnecessary bureaucracy; developing a dedicated career path with a more flexible approach to training as part of a total reward approach and spectrum of service. This will amount to a new, more agile, digitally driven people system that genuinely puts individuals first; the reserves will continue to be fully integrated at every stage of this process.



The 2022 report stated that there was

“a real risk of a decline in the health of the Reserve”.

We are confident that the work being delivered by the Department is evidence of our commitment to arrest any such potential decline by initiating the start of generationally significant transformation programmes for the benefit of the whole force. Critically, reserves have been, and will continue to be, embedded throughout.



The refreshed integrated review, Defence Command Paper, Haythornthwaite review, and the reserve estate optimisation programme will enable a period of substantial transformation for our reserve forces. I am immensely proud of and thankful to our reserve forces and remain committed to removing barriers to service and improving the reserve experience.

[HCWS18]

Contingent Liability Notification

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)]

The independent Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England (“the Bank”) decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the Asset Purchase Facility (APF) by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and has since commenced sales of gilts acquired for monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022. The Bank commenced the sale of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022 and has since sold the majority of its holdings, with a small number remaining due to mature by April 2024.



The Chancellor at the time agreed a joint approach with the Governor of the Bank of England in an exchange of letters on 3 February 2022 to reduce the maximum authorised size of the APF for asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces.



Since 28 April 2023 when I last reduced the maximum authorised size of the APF, the total stock of assets held by the APF for monetary policy purposes has fallen further from £821.3 billion to £750.9 billion. In line with the approach agreed with the Governor, the authorised maximum total size of the APF has therefore been reduced to £750.9 billion.



The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.



There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.



The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. Provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.



A full departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.

[HCWS17]

Post Office Compensation Schemes: Tax Exemptions

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

Post Office Ltd is compensating postmasters for the suffering they have experienced due to the Horizon IT scandal, which arose following the installation of the Horizon software in the late 1990s.

In parallel with this, Post Office has continued to review its operational processes and policies to ensure that, where any further issues are identified, it takes steps to investigate and address these. Through this work, Post Office has found previous operational issues such as processes and/or policies regarding certain services that impacted postmasters financially. As a result, Post Office is establishing a compensation scheme—the Post Office process review scheme—to provide redress to postmasters affected by these issues. This is separate from its work compensating postmasters for Horizon shortfalls and for those with overturned convictions.

The Government are determined to ensure that any postmasters suspended without pay, or who may have been financially impacted due to Post Office Ltd operational issues, are fairly compensated for their losses.

The Government have announced today that they intend to provide funding support for the Post Office process review scheme. In addition, the Government are announcing that payments to be made under the suspension remuneration review and the process review scheme will be exempt from income tax, national insurance contributions and, where applicable, capital gains tax and corporation tax. The Government will legislate to exempt these payments in due course where necessary. HM Revenue and Customs will not collect any tax on any further payments made until that legislation takes effect.

Approximately 150 payments have already been made under the suspension remuneration review subject to tax. The Government are also announcing that they will support Post Office with funding to make additional top-up payments to these postmasters, exempt from income tax, national insurance contributions and, where applicable, capital gains tax and corporation tax, to ensure that their compensation offer was not unduly reduced by tax.

Additionally, approximately 150 postmasters who either have already or will have to complete a self-assessment tax return will be able to access funding for tax advice of up to £300—inclusive of VAT—to assist them in amending or completing their tax returns.

[HCWS10]

International Financing Facility for Education

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

I have today laid a departmental minute which describes a new liability the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) is undertaking to support education in lower middle-income countries (LMICs).

The departmental minute sets out details of a new liability undertaken by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The liability is a new guarantee of up to $102 million to the International Financing Facility for Education (IFFEd). The length of this liability is 23 years. In addition to the contingent guarantee, FCDO will also provide a paid-in capital guarantee of $18 million and grant finance up to £80 million over four years. This total FCDO contribution of up to £180 million will contribute to unlocking around $1 billion in new, additional and affordable education loans to address the learning crisis in lower middle-income countries (LMIC), with a focus on girls and the most marginalised.

It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the statement, except in cases of special urgency.

I am making a written ministerial statement (WMS) to the House for information and have separately notified the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, and International Development Committee of the UK’s intention to undertake this liability.

IFFEd is a new, innovative multi-donor instrument that will use a combination of donor guarantees and grants to unlock significant affordable finance for education in LMICs. LMICs are home to the largest number of children not in school. Some 77% of children in LMICs are unable to read a simple sentence by the age of 10. LMICs are unable to access suitable education financing at the required scale. Working through the multilateral development banks (MDBs), IFFEd will address this gap in the education aid architecture. The initial MDBs to participate in IFFEd are the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the African Development Bank (AfDB). More MDBs will be able and encouraged to join in the future.

IFFEd uses donor guarantees to provide portfolio support to MDBs. This allows MDBs to expand their total lending capacity for education by insuring their entire portfolio against the risk of late payment. In combination with the guarantee, IFFEd also provides grants which makes the additional education finance affordable for LMICs.

IFFEd unlocks seven times donors’ cash investments in additional affordable education finance. This represents an efficient use of official development assistance (ODA) finance, maximising donor resources for education in an unprecedented way.

FCDO will support IFFEd together with Sweden and another donor who is due to approve financing soon. FCDO will only sign its guarantee agreement with IFFEd when that third donor has approved its guarantee. The initial total guarantee amount is expected to be $245 million. This will unlock $1 billion of new, additional, and affordable finance for LMICs. The aim is for more donors to join during the first IFFEd replenishment period of five years, to increase the size of the IFFEd guarantee and unlock up to $10 billion of new, additional, and affordable finance.

IFFEd will contribute to the delivery of the Government’s commitment to “stand up for the right of every girl around the world to 12 years of quality education”. It will contribute to the International Development Strategy (2022) and to the FCDO’s International Women and Girls Strategy (2023) where girls’ education is one of the top priorities.

IFFEd will contribute to increasing the proportion of children and young people who achieve minimum proficiency in literacy, numeracy and transferable skills, with a focus on reaching the most marginalised children and youth.

The $102 million IFFEd contingent liability will be recorded by way of disclosure in FCDO’s annual report and accounts (ARA) and annual estimates in accordance with the applicable accounting standards. The guarantee has been reviewed by the Government’s contingent liabilities central capability (CLCC) and by the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD). The IFFEd guarantee is low risk. The maximum amount which could be demanded from the UK in a single year is $6 million. The impact of the guarantee on FCDO’s risk exposure has been scrutinized and approved by FCDO’s Accounting Officer. In the unlikely event that the guarantee is called the FCDO will have sufficient time to make the necessary budgetary arrangement to fulfil the requirements of the guarantee. Authority for any expenditure required will be sought through the normal supply procedure. HM Treasury has approved this guarantee with the FCDO. A copy of the departmental minute to Parliament has been placed in the Library of the House.

If any Member has questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

[HCWS11]

Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

On 7 November, Russia withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). The CFE is a cornerstone of Europe’s security architecture that sets limits on the amount of major military equipment, and aims to make a surprise attack on the European continent less likely.

The UK unequivocally condemns this step, which is the latest in a succession of Russian efforts to undermine strategic stability and the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. Russia’s decision further demonstrates its continued disregard for those arms control arrangements, based on key principles of reciprocity, transparency, compliance and verification, that have helped keep us safe since the end of the cold war.

Russia’s unilateral withdrawal undermines reciprocity, which lies at the heart of the CFE Treaty. To continue to implement the treaty would suggest that, despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and withdrawal from CFE, we think that the treaty continues to operate as intended. This is plainly not the case.

In response, the UK has decided to suspend its participation in the treaty and instead to work with likeminded nations to develop and implement voluntary stabilising measures.

Suspending participation while remaining a signatory is the best available option to preserve both the spirit and the content of the CFE treaty, while allowing us to resume implementation should future conditions allow.

The legal basis for suspension of the treaty is fundamental change of circumstances, as reflected in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). This is a well-established basis for suspension of a treaty in both customary international law and the VCLT.

We have reached this decision after a long period of consultation with our Allies and other signatories to the treaty. We do so in the confidence that many Allies and likeminded nations have reached the same conclusion that Russia’s latest assault on the international rules-based order cannot go unanswered.

We remain united with our Allies in our commitment to effective conventional arms control as a key element of Euro-Atlantic security. The UK is committed to reducing military risk, preventing miscalculation, building trust and confidence, promoting transparency and verification, and thereby contributing to peace and security.

To this end, we have already begun discussions on voluntary stabilising measures to replicate as many elements of the CFE Treaty as possible, to be implemented when conditions allow.

[HCWS4]

Long-term Segregation in Hospital: Baroness Hollins’ Report

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

Today we have published our response to Baroness Hollins’ final report as chair of the Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Review (IC(E)TR) Oversight Panel. This follows the completion of the second phase of the IC(E)TR programme, which Baroness Hollins has overseen, in order to reduce the use of long-term segregation for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Baroness Hollins’ final report includes recommendations for Government. A copy of both the report and our response will be deposited in in the Libraries of both Houses.

We warmly welcome Baroness Hollins’ report and the work of the oversight panel. The report and the examples of poor care reported are sobering. I continue to be deeply concerned by the examples of unacceptable treatment of people with a learning disability and autistic people in long-term segregation in hospital. The use of long-term segregation must be significantly and urgently reduced. Where it is used, it should only ever be in a way that respects human rights, and all treatment plans should aim to end long-term segregation.

The recommendations made in the report are critical in informing our work to reduce the use of long-term segregation for people with a learning disability and autistic people. They are also aligned with our wider work to reduce the numbers of people with a learning disability and autistic people in mental health hospitals, with more people living ordinary lives in the community.

In our response, we highlight some of the work being undertaken now to reduce the use of long-term segregation in people with a learning disability and autistic people. In particular, I am pleased to be able to confirm that in the very near term IC(E)TRs will continue, now led by CQC, to preserve regulatory oversight and understanding of long-term segregation for people with a learning disability and autistic people and crucially to support people to less restrictive settings and discharge to the community. We will also seek changes to the CQC regulations (subject to parliamentary approval) to improve reporting and notifications by providers to CQC on use of restrictive practices. Once in place, this will provide a better flow of information, supporting CQC to convene an IC(E)TR as soon as possible where someone is moved into LTS to scrutinise the care provided and protect rights.

We will also use Baroness Hollins’ recommendations to inform our longer term work. For example, using the report and accompanying framework code of practice to inform updates to the “Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice” when it is next reviewed. Work is ongoing on a number of recommendations as outlined in the report.

I am extremely grateful to Baroness Hollins and the oversight panel for their expertise and commitment to this work over a number of years. Their report will play a critical role in tackling the unacceptably high levels of long-term segregation and in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people to receive high quality care that is right for them. It is essential that Baroness Hollins’ report and recommendations drive that change.

[HCWS12]

Ambulance Services: Minimum Service Levels

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)]

The Government are focused on making the hard but necessary long-term decisions that are in the best interests of the country, to put the UK on the right path for the future. The Government’s priority is to ensure that when strike action takes place in the NHS, the safety of patients is protected as far as possible.



Minimum service levels are in place in a range of countries in Europe and beyond, as a way of balancing the ability of employees to strike with the needs of the public. The International Labour Organisation (an agency of the United Nations) recognises that this is justifiable for services where their interruption would endanger citizens’ life, personal safety or health. Disruption to ambulance services puts lives at immediate risk.



On 6 November 2023, the Government published the response to the consultation on “Minimum service levels in event of strike action: ambulance services in England, Scotland and Wales”. In it we confirmed that, subject to parliamentary approval, we will introduce regulations which set minimum service levels and cover the 10 NHS ambulance trusts in England, as well as the ambulance services provided by the Isle of Wight NHS Trust. While the UK Government think that people across the UK should be able to be confident about what types of situations the ambulance service will respond to on strike day, they recognise that responsibility for the operation of these services in Scotland and Wales lies with the devolved Administrations. We therefore intend for the regulations to apply to England only at this time, rather than also including Scotland and Wales.



The services included in the minimum service levels will be the 999 and healthcare professional (HCP) call handling and emergency ambulance response to those calls, inter-facility transfers (IFT) and non-emergency patient transport services (NEPTS). The overarching principle is that those cases that are life-threatening, and those for which there is no reasonable clinical alternative to an ambulance response, should receive a response as they would on a non-strike day. In the case of NEPTS, patients for whom there is no reasonable clinical alternative to the patient receiving health services on the strike day should have their transportation provided as they would on a non-strike day.



Our response to the consultation reaffirms our commitment to ensuring that patients can access ambulance services when they need them during a strike. We have laid regulations which will address the inconsistency and uncertainty of relying on the unions to agree arrangements on a case-by-case basis, by giving employers the power to issue work notices should they need to. This will increase public confidence in the service and better protect patient safety during periods of industrial action.



The Government will shortly lay a statutory code of practice in Parliament for approval on the reasonable steps trade unions should take in order to meet the legal requirements under the Act. This follows a commitment made during the passage of the Act through Parliament to bring forward such a code of practice and the recent conclusion of a public consultation on the draft code. Separate non-statutory guidance will also be published shortly on the issuing of work notices by employers, where the regulations apply, to secure minimum levels of service on strike days. The consultation response has been published on gov.uk. The Government wish to thank everybody who took the time to provide feedback as part of the consultation process.

[HCWS20]

Border Security: Minimum Service Levels

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

On 6 November, the Government published their response to a recent public consultation on establishing minimum service levels on strike days in the border security sector. The Government are focused on making these hard but necessary long-term decisions to deliver the change that the country needs to put the UK on the right path for the future. That is why the Government have now also laid regulations before Parliament, setting out the border security services which must be provided on a strike day, together with the level of service to be provided.



Under the regulations, the following border security services will be provided: the examination of persons arriving in or leaving the UK; the examination of goods imported to or exported from the UK; the examination of goods entered for exportation or brought to any place in the UK for exportation; the patrol of ports, the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the UK; the collection and dissemination of intelligence in respect of those services; the direction and control of those engaged in providing these services; and such passport services as may be necessary for national security reasons. These services must be provided at a level that means that they are no less effective than if a strike were not taking place.



The ability for staff to take strike action is an integral part of industrial relations. However, the security of our borders is something we cannot compromise. We must also consider the disruption caused to—and the costs incurred by—passengers and businesses, who expect essential services they pay for to be there when they need them.



We also have to consider the impact on those called in to cover for staff who are going on strike, including the impact on members of our armed forces, who have commendably stepped up to fill vital roles during recent industrial action. It would be irresponsible to rely on such short-term solutions to protect our national security.



Minimum service levels exist in a range of countries within Europe, and globally, as a legitimate mechanism to balance the ability to strike with the needs of the public. Outright bans on striking are usually in place where border security is provided by the police or by members of the armed forces. The exact picture is complex and differs from country to country. Minimum service levels are generally negotiated between employers and unions and can also cover issues like the notice period that has to be given before industrial action takes place.



These new border security minimum service levels will ensure a fair balance between delivering the best possible service to the travelling public, maintaining a secure border and the ability of workers to strike. Unions will be required to work with the Government to make sure minimum border security services are met on strike days, to keep our country safe.



A copy of the consultation response and an updated economic impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.



We are publishing further information on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/border-security-minimum-service-levels-during-strike-action/border-security-minimum-service-levels-during-strike-action

[HCWS15]

Government’s Legislative Programme 2023-24

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)]

Following the State Opening of Parliament, it is normal practice for the Leader of the House of Commons to list the formal titles of Bills to be introduced for the convenience of the House.

Other measures will be laid before the House in the usual way. The programme will also include Finance Bills to implement budget policy decisions, the Arbitration Bill which has been prepared by the Law Commission and estimates for public services. The list does not include draft bills.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Automated Vehicles Bill

Criminal Justice Bill

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Economic Activities of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Football Governance Bill

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill

Leasehold and Freehold Bill

Media Bill

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Pedicabs (London) Bill

Renters (Reform) Bill

Sentencing Bill

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Detailed information about each of these Bills can be accessed from the gov.uk website at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-kings-speech-2023

[HCWS6]

Government’s Legislative Programme 2023-24: Northern Ireland

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

The legislative programme for the fourth Session was outlined at the state opening of Parliament on Tuesday 7 November 2023. This statement provides a summary of the programme and its application to Northern Ireland. It does not include draft Bills, Law Commission Bills or Finance Bills.

The UK Government have held significant events this year to celebrate Northern Ireland’s success and progress. We have marked the historic 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which continues to be the bedrock for progress in Northern Ireland, as well as securing and protecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, in partnership with Invest NI, the UK Government showcased Northern Ireland’s innovation and technological strengths to around 200 global investors at the Northern Ireland investment summit in Belfast in September 2023. This was the largest ever gathering of its kind, reminding us just how much Northern Ireland has to offer and how much it benefits from its central place in the United Kingdom.

The UK Government are determined to build on Northern Ireland’s progress over the last 25 years by investing in its future. As a result of the 2021 spending review, the Northern Ireland Executive will receive a record block grant of, on average, £15 billion per year in each year of this spending review period. We are committed to ensuring Northern Ireland’s future is not only peaceful, but stronger and more prosperous for all its citizens.

Additionally, the UK Government will invest more than £730 million into the new €1.1 billion PEACE PLUS programme to support economic stability, peace and reconciliation. This is a concrete example of our commitment to helping Northern Ireland reach its full potential as a prosperous and stable part of the United Kingdom, as well as a huge investment towards peace and prosperity in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement’s 25th anniversary year.

In the third Session, legislation was passed to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past by providing better outcomes for victims, survivors and their families; to deliver a carefully balanced package of identity and language measures, negotiated as part of New Decade, New Approach deal; and to maintain the delivery of public services and protect public finances in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive. Legislation also allowed an opt-out organ donation system to be implemented in Northern Ireland.

In the fourth Session, the following Bills will extend and apply to Northern Ireland, either in full or in part:

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Bill

Criminal Justice Bill

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill

Media Bill

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

In the absence of a functioning Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly, it is not currently possible to seek and obtain their legislative consent. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a functioning Assembly and Executive, where locally elected representatives can address issues that matter most to those who elect them. The UK Government’s focus remains on restoring fully functioning power-sharing institutions as soon as possible.

[HCWS7]

Government’s Legislative Programme 2023-24: Scotland

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

The UK Government’s legislative programme for the fourth Session was outlined at the state opening of Parliament on Tuesday 7 November. This statement provides a summary of the programme and its application to Scotland. It does not include draft Bills, Law Commission Bills, or Finance Bills.

The UK Government will continue to deliver for people and businesses across Scotland, as part of a strong United Kingdom. The UK Government’s legislative programme for this Session will help us to deliver on the issues that matter most to people, including growing our economy, keeping people safe, and promoting our national interests.

Our United Kingdom is the most successful political and economic Union the world has ever seen—the foundation on which all our businesses and citizens are able to thrive. The UK Government are committed to protecting and promoting its combined strengths, building on hundreds of years of partnership and shared history.

When we work collaboratively as one United Kingdom, we are safer, stronger, more prosperous, and better able to tackle our shared challenges. That is why the UK Government are investing in infrastructure and communities right across the UK, including more than £2.5 billion of direct investment into Scottish villages, towns and cities. That includes more than £1.5 billion for 12 city region and growth deals covering the whole of Scotland, supporting the delivery of projects such as the National Robotarium at Heriot-Watt University and the cyberQuarter at Abertay University. The UK Government delivered £343 million from the first and second round of the levelling-up fund for 18 projects across Scotland, including a new ferry for Fair Isle, a green transport hub in Dundee, and regeneration of cultural assets in Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Peterhead and Macduff. More than £18 million has been provided to 56 projects via the community renewal fund, supporting community regeneration, employability, and business growth and innovation. To save community assets at risk of being lost, more than £6 million has been provided for the community ownership fund so far, funding 24 local community-led projects.

To grow Scotland’s economy, a new £150 million British Business Bank fund—the investment fund for Scotland—will support the growth of small and medium-sized businesses. Earlier this year, the Chancellor also announced more than £8.6 million of support to be provided to the Edinburgh International Festival and the Edinburgh Festival Fringe to help boost Scotland’s status as a destination for the creative industries.

We are creating two new green freeports in the Inverness and Cromarty Firth region and the Firth of Forth region, working jointly with the Scottish Government. These will play a key role in supporting the regeneration of communities, bringing jobs and prosperity. Following the success of this programme, we have also announced that Scotland will host two investment zones, in the Glasgow city region and the north-east of Scotland.

Furthermore, the Scottish Government are receiving a record block grant of £46 billion a year.

This legislative Session, we will be delivering on protecting our energy security, securing the benefits of Brexit, and ensuring we have the right framework for tech firms to compete and grow in the UK. We will be protecting the health of young people, supporting those who rent, and eradicating antisemitism everywhere. We are backing our armed forces, supporting Ukraine, and leading the way on the challenges of the future: climate change and AI.

The following bills will extend and apply to Scotland—either in full or in part:

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Automated Vehicles Bill

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Bill

Criminal Justice Bill

Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill

Media Bill

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

The UK Government will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government to secure legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament where appropriate.

[HCWS13]

Passenger Rail: Minimum Service Levels

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

I am pleased to inform the House of the laying of The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023 before Parliament, following publication of the Department’s response to its consultation on implementing minimum service levels for passenger rail. This represents an important step towards meeting the Government’s manifesto commitment.



The Government are focused on making the hard but necessary long-term decisions that are in the best interests of the country, to put the UK on the right path for the future. The railways enable millions every day to travel to work, access vital services like education and healthcare, and visit family. They also provide choice about where to live and work. Passengers, however, are unable to go about their daily lives when unions take strike action. Rail workers deserve a fair deal, but it is not fair to let the trade unions undermine the livelihoods of others. Minimum service levels already operate in other countries, such as Italy, Spain, and others. There are a number of different approaches to deploying minimum service levels for transport and we have developed a specific approach that will work for passenger rail in the UK.



The Government are firmly committed to striking a fair balance between delivering benefits to passengers, supporting them to make important journeys, and the ability of rail workers to take strike action. The public need reliable and consistent services, and any strike action should not disproportionately impact this, or the wider economy.



The consultation response sets out the evidence received from the public consultation and further engagement, as well as the approach to specifying the relevant passenger rail services and designing the minimum service levels that can be applied to strikes affecting those services.



The regulations will apply in England, Scotland, and Wales and specify three categories of services that will be in scope: train operation services; infrastructure services; and light rail services. Each category has a separate MSL. We have designed the regulations in this manner to address the particular nature of strike action in passenger rail, while ensuring that minimum service levels are proportionate and operationally viable for in-scope employers, given the complex nature of the rail industry.



Relevant rail industry employers are able to make use of minimum service levels as soon as these regulations come into force, which is anticipated to be early December, subject to parliamentary approval.

[HCWS19]

Roads

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to make this written statement. This statement confirms that it has been necessary to extend the deadline for the decision on the application by National Highways under the Planning Act 2008 for the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Development Consent Order.

Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the Examining Authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline and make a statement to the House of Parliament announcing the new deadline.

The Secretary of State received the Examining Authority’s report on the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Development Consent Order application on 7 August 2023. The current deadline for a decision is therefore 7 November 2023.

The deadline for the decision is to be extended to 7 March 2024—an extension of four months.

The reason for the extension is to allow for further consideration of matters including those not resolved at the time the Examining Authority’s report was received by the Secretary of State. This will include the consideration of information submitted by the applicant regarding impacts on the North Pennine Moors Special Area of Conservation, to ensure compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent for the above application.

[HCWS5]

Government’s Legislative Programme 2023-24: Wales

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

The legislative programme for the fourth Session was outlined at the state opening of Parliament on 7 November. This statement provides a summary of the programme and its application to Wales. It does not include draft Bills, Law Commission Bills or finance Bills.

The UK Government govern for the whole of the United Kingdom, working for people in every part of the country. The legislative programme furthers our commitment to grow the economy, strengthen society, keep people safe and promote our national interests.

We are delivering on the issues that matter most to people—driving down inflation, growing our economy, and maintaining the UK’s energy security by making Britain more energy independent. For example, our unprecedented support for households right across the UK to help with higher energy bills is worth £94 billion, or £3,300 per household, on average, across 2022-23 and 2023-24.

The UK Government are committed to growing the Welsh economy and supporting people, communities and businesses across Wales. We are working with the Welsh Government and local leaders and are investing almost £2 billion to level up in Wales and grow the Welsh economy. This includes £52 million to support two new freeports, £790 million across the four Welsh city and regional growth deals and £330 million towards 21 levelling-up fund projects in Wales. In addition, our £1 billion investment for the electrification of the north Wales main line will support economic growth and strengthen our Union by better connecting parts of north Wales with the north-west of England.

Furthermore, we are providing a record £18 billion a year to the Welsh Government through the block grant—ensuring that Wales receives £120 of Barnett-based funding for every £100 per person of equivalent UK Government spending in England.

The following Bills will extend and apply to Wales, either in full or in part:

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Automated Vehicles Bill

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill

Criminal Justice Bill

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Football Governance Bill

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill

Leasehold and Freehold Bill

Media Bill

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Sentencing Bill

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Victims and Prisoners Bill

The Government will continue to work constructively with the Welsh Government to secure the legislative consent of the Senedd where appropriate.

[HCWS9]

Decommissioning Temporary Jobcentres

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

I previously provided updates on decommissioning temporary jobcentres: “Expanding Our Services” on 23 March 2021, and “Expanding Our Services Update” on 21 October 2021. These statements reaffirmed the Department’s commitment to reducing its jobcentre estate back to pre-pandemic levels by decommissioning these temporary jobcentres—or the additional space in established jobcentres—in a phased approach, where the increased capacity is no longer needed. The full list of temporary jobcentres and their current status can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/temporary-jobcentres-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

As part of this ongoing, phased approach to decommissioning the temporary jobcentres, the Department is today announcing the fifth and latest phase, which consists of decommissioning a further 25 temporary sites— or additional space in existing jobcentres. This latest phase brings the total number of temporary sites announced to date to 139. Subsequent phases of decommissioning will follow in 2024 and Parliament will be kept updated. Details of the sites being decommissioned are listed below.

The decommissioning of temporary jobcentres will not reduce the levels of service, or access to face-to-face appointments. Customers will return to being served by an established jobcentre and there will be no reduction in the number of work coaches supporting customers as a result of the decommissioning.

The Department continues to support and update colleagues in a timely and sensitive manner. We also remain committed to ensuring that all relevant stakeholders, organisations and Parliament are engaged and regularly updated on our work. Letters are being sent to each right hon. and hon. Member with changes in their constituency, to explain what this means for their local jobcentre, its staff and their constituents.

Finally, in conjunction with this carefully planned decommissioning programme, we are looking to improve and upgrade jobcentres over time. It is important that all those who come to jobcentres are given the highest level of attention and service in the best possible environment.

The 25 temporary jobcentres or additional space in existing sites to be formally decommissioned are:

House of Lords

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 8 November 2023

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leeds.

Cessation of Membership

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:07

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I have to notify the House that the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Dixon-Smith, yesterday ceased to be Members of the House under Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 by virtue of not attending any proceedings of the House during the parliamentary Session 2022-23. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[The Lord Speaker]

That is what it says here.

Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]

1st reading
Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:07

A Bill to regulate the use of automated vehicles on roads and in other public places; and to make other provision in relation to vehicle automation.

The Bill was introduced by the Earl of Courtown (on behalf of Baroness Vere of Norbiton), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]

1st reading
Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:08

A Bill to amend the Investigatory Powers Act 2016; to make provision about information supplied by, or relating to, the Judicial Commissioners; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by the Earl of Courtown (on behalf of Lord Sharpe of Epsom), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

1st reading
Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:09

A Bill to make provision for regulating pedicabs in public places in Greater London; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by the Earl of Courtown (on behalf of Baroness Vere of Norbiton), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

1st reading
Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:10

A Bill to enable the implementation of, and the making of other provision in connection with, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Bill was introduced by the Earl of Courtown (on behalf of Lord Johnson of Lainston), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Built Environment Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Communications and Digital Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Conduct Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Joint Committee on Consolidation etc. Bills

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Constitution Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Economic Affairs Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Education for 11 to 16-year olds Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Environment and Climate Change Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

European Affairs Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Finance Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

House of Lords Commission

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Joint Committee on Human Rights

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Hybrid Instruments Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Industry and Regulators Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Integration of Primary and Community Care Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

International Agreements Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

International Relations and Defence Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Justice and Home Affairs Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Liaison Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Procedure and Privileges Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Public Services Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Science and Technology Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Committee of Selection

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Services Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Membership Motions

15:10

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the use of artificial intelligence in weapon systems, and to make recommendations; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Browne of Ladyton, L, Clement-Jones, L, Doocey, B, Fairfax of Cameron, L, Grocott, L, Hamilton of Epsom, L, Hodgson of Abinger, B, Houghton of Richmond, L, Lisvane, L (Chair), Mitchell, L, Sarfraz, L, Triesman, L.

That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes;

That the Committee do report by 30 November 2023;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Built Environment Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider matters relating to the built environment, including policies relating to housing, planning, transport and infrastructure; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Berkeley, L, Best, L, Carrington of Fulham, L, Cohen of Pimlico, B, Eaton, B, Faulkner of Worcester, L, Greenhalgh, L, Mawson, L, Moylan, L (Chair), Russell, E, Thornhill, B, Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Communications and Digital Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the media, digital and creative industries; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Featherstone, B, Foster of Bath, L, Fraser of Craigmaddie, B, Griffiths of Burry Port, L, Hall of Birkenhead, L, Harding of Winscombe, B, Healy of Primrose Hill, B, Kamall, L, Leeds, Bp, Lipsey, L, Stowell of Beeston, B (Chair), Wheatcroft, B, Young of Norwood Green, L.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Conduct Committee

That a Conduct Committee be appointed; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Blair of Boughton, L, Garnier, L, Mallalieu, B, Manningham-Buller, B (Chair), Scriven, L.

That the following be appointed as lay external members of the Committee:

Cindy Butts; Mark Castle OBE; Andrea Coomber; Vanessa Davies.

That the quorum of the Committee shall be three Lords members and two lay members;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Joint Committee on Consolidation etc. Bills

That, in accordance with Standing Order 50, the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation etc. Bills:

Andrews, B, Bridgeman, V, D’Souza, B, Eames, L, Eccles, V, Hanworth, V, Mallalieu, B, Razzall, L, Rowlands, L, Seccombe, B, Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L (Chair), Thomas of Winchester, B.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chair;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Constitution Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the constitutional implications of public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution and constitutional aspects of devolution; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Anderson of Ipswich, L, Andrews, B, Drake, B (Chair), Falconer of Thoroton, L, Finn, B, Foulkes of Cumnock, L, Hope of Craighead, L, Keen of Elie, L, Mancroft, L, Strathclyde, L, Suttie, B, Thomas of Gresford, L.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed:

(1) To report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny;

(2) To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of:

(a) sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006,

(b) section 7(2) or section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, or

(c) section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004; and to perform, in respect of such draft orders, and in respect of subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the functions performed in respect of other instruments and draft instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and

(3) To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of:

(a) section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,

(b) section 17 of the Local Government Act 1999,

(c) section 9 of the Local Government Act 2000,

(d) section 98 of the Local Government Act 2003, or

(e) section 102 of the Local Transport Act 2008;

That the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, B, Carlile of Berriew, L, Cunningham of Felling, L, Goodlad, L, Hendy, L, Humphreys, B, Janvrin, L, Lindsay, E, McLoughlin, L (Chair), Rooker, L.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Economic Affairs Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs and business affairs; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Blackwell, L, Bridges of Headley, L (Chair), Davies of Brixton, L, Griffiths of Fforestfach, L, King of Lothbury, L, Kramer, B, Layard, L, Liddell of Coatdyke, B, Londesborough, L, Noakes, B, Rooker, L, Turnbull, L, Verjee, L.

That the Committee have power to appoint a sub-committee and to refer to it any of the matters within the Committee’s terms of reference;

That the Committee have power to appoint the Chair of the sub-committee;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Education for 11 to 16-year olds Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider education for 11 to 16-year olds with reference to the skills necessary for the digital and green economy, and to make recommendations; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Aberdare, L, Baker of Dorking, L, Blower, B, Evans of Bowes Park, B, Garden of Frognal, B, Johnson of Marylebone, L (Chair), Lexden, L, Mair, L, Massey of Darwen, B, Knight of Weymouth, L, Storey, L, Watson of Invergowrie, L.

That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the Committee do report by 30 November 2023;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Environment and Climate Change Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the environment and climate change; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Boycott, B, Bray of Coln, B, Bruce of Bennachie, L, Duncan of Springbank, L, Grantchester, L, Jones of Whitchurch, B, Lilley, L, Lucas, L, Oxford, Bp, Parminter, B (Chair), Wellington, D, Whitty, L, Young of Old Scone, B.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

European Affairs Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed:

(1) To consider matters relating to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union and the European Economic Area, including:

(a) The implementation of any agreements between the United Kingdom and the European Union, including the operation of the governance structures established under those agreements;

(b) Any negotiations and further agreements between the United Kingdom and the European Union;

(c) The operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland;

(2) To consider European Union documents deposited in the House by a minister;

(3) To support the House as appropriate in inter- parliamentary cooperation with the European Parliament and the Member States of the European Union; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Adonis, L, Anelay of St Johns, B, Blackstone, B, Hannay of Chiswick, L, Jay of Ewelme, L, Lamont of Lerwick, L, Liddle, L, Ludford, B, Nicholson of Winterbourne, B, Ricketts, L (Chair), Scott of Needham Market, B, Trenchard, V, Wood of Anfield, L.

That the Committee have power to appoint a sub-committee and to refer to it any matters within its terms of reference;

That the Committee have power to appoint the Chair of the sub-committee;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committee in the previous session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committee;

That the evidence taken by the European Union Committee in the 2019–21 session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Finance Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to support the House of Lords Commission by:

(1) Considering expenditure on services provided from the Estimate for the House of Lords,

(2) Reporting to the Commission on the forecast outturn, Estimate and financial plan submitted by the Management Board,

(3) Monitoring the financial performance of the House Administration, and

(4) Reporting to the Commission on the financial implications of significant proposals;

That the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Altrincham, L, Courtown, E, Davies of Brixton, L, Kennedy of Southwark, L, Lee of Trafford, L, Levene of Portsoken, L, Reay, L, Stoneham of Droxford, L, Tomlinson, L, Vaux of Harrowden, L (Chair).

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

House of Lords Commission

That a Select Committee be appointed to provide high-level strategic and political direction for the House of Lords Administration on behalf of the House; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Gardiner of Kimble, L (Deputy Chair), German, L, Hill of Oareford, L, Kinnoull, E, McFall of Alcluith, L (Chair), McIntosh of Hudnall, B, Newby, L, Smith of Basildon, B, True, L, Vaux of Harrowden, L.

That Charlotte Moar and Nora Senior be appointed as external members of the Committee;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Joint Committee on Human Rights

That a Select Committee of six members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

To consider:

(1) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

(2) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(3) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order 74 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments);

To report to the House:

(1) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(2) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and

To report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:

(1) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

(2) the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

(3) the order should not be approved; and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order;

That the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Alton of Liverpool, L, Dholakia, L, Henley, L, Kennedy of The Shaws, B, Lawrence of Clarendon, B, Meyer, B.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chair;

That the quorum of the Committee shall be two;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Hybrid Instruments Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments; and that the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Addington, L, Dykes, L, Grantchester, L, Jenkin of Kennington, B.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Industry and Regulators Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider matters relating to industry, including the policies of His Majesty’s Government to promote industrial growth, skills and competitiveness, and to scrutinise the work of UK regulators; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Agnew of Oulton, L, Bowles of Berkhamsted, B, Burns, L, Chandos, V, Clement-Jones, L, Cromwell, L, Gilbert of Panteg, L, Hollick, L (Chair), McGregor-Smith, B, O’Grady of Upper Holloway, B, Reay, L, Taylor of Bolton, B.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Integration of Primary and Community Care Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the integration of primary and community care, and to make recommendations; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Altrincham, L, Armstrong of Hill Top, B, Barker, B, Finlay of Llandaff, B, Kakkar, L, Osamor, B, Pitkeathley, B (Chair), Redfern, B, Shephard of Northwold, B, Tyler of Enfield, B, Watts, L, Wyld, B.

That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the Committee do report by 30 November 2023;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

International Agreements Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider, and where appropriate report on, 1) matters relating to the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of international agreements, and 2) treaties laid before Parliament in accordance with Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Fox, L, Geidt, L, Goldsmith, L (Chair), Grimstone of Boscobel, L, Hayter of Kentish Town, B, Howell of Guildford, L, Kerr of Kinlochard, L, Kingsmill, B, Marland, L, Razzall, L, Udny-Lister, L, Watts, L.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the International Agreements Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee in the 2019–21 session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

International Relations and Defence Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the United Kingdom’s international relations and issues relating to UK defence policy; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Anderson of Swansea, L, Ashton of Hyde, L (Chair), Boateng, L, Campbell of Pittenweem, L, Coussins, B, Morris of Bolton, B, Robertson of Port Ellen, L, Soames of Fletching, L, Stirrup, L, Sugg, B, Teverson, L, Wood of Anfield, L.

That the Committee have power to appoint a sub-committee for the purposes of any inquiry under section 3 of the Trade Act 2021;

That the Committee have power to appoint the Chair of the sub-committee;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committee in the previous session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Justice and Home Affairs Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider justice and home affairs, including the domestic criminal justice system, and international cooperation in respect of criminal justice, civil justice, migration and asylum; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Beith, L, Blunkett, L, Chakrabarti, B, Filkin, L, Hamwee, B (Chair), Henig, B, McInnes of Kilwinning, L, Meacher, B, Prashar, B, Sanderson of Welton, B, Sandhurst, L, Shackleton of Belgravia, B.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Liaison Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for Special Inquiry Committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of members to serve on committees; and that the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Bach, L, Bichard, L, Blencathra, L, Collins of Highbury, L, Haskel, L, Howe, E, Kinnoull, E, Scott of Needham Market, B, Taylor of Holbeach, L, Walmsley, B.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy

That a Committee of ten members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, to consider the National Security Strategy; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Butler of Brockwell, L, Crawley, B, Dannatt, L, Fall, B, Reid of Cardowan, L, Robathan, L, Sarfraz, L, Snape, L, Stansgate, V, Strasburger, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chair;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster in the United Kingdom;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Procedure and Privileges Committee

That a Select Committee on Procedure and Privileges be appointed; and that the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Bull, B, Butler-Sloss, B, Faulkner of Worcester, L, Humphreys, B, Kennedy of Southwark, L, Kinnoull, E, McFall of Alcluith, L, McIntosh of Hudnall, B, McNally, L, Newby, L, Sanderson of Welton, B, Sherbourne of Didsbury, L, Smith of Basildon, B, Stoneham of Droxford, L, Strathclyde, L, Taylor of Bolton, B, True, L, Williams of Trafford, B;

and that the following members be appointed as alternate members:

Alderdice, L, Caithness, E, Collins of Highbury, L, Gohir, B, Laming, L.

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairs of sub-committees;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Public Services Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider public services, including health and education; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Bach, L, Bertin, B, Blencathra, L, Campbell of Surbiton, B, Carter of Coles, L, Laming, L, Morris of Yardley, B (Chair), Porter of Spalding, L, Prentis of Leeds, L, Shipley, L, Stedman-Scott, B, Willis of Knaresborough, L.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to meet to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Science and Technology Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology; and that the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Borwick, L, Brown of Cambridge, B (Chair), Hanworth, V, Holmes of Richmond, L, Krebs, L, Neuberger, B, Neville-Jones, B, Northover, B, Rees of Ludlow, L, Sharkey, L, Stansgate, V, Wei, L, Winston, L.

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairs of sub-committees;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the Committee or a sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to meet outside Westminster;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to scrutinise secondary legislation.

(1) The Committee shall report on draft instruments and memoranda laid before Parliament under—

(a) section 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and

(b) sections 11, 12 and 14 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.

(2) The Committee shall, with the exception of those instruments in paragraphs (4) and (5), scrutinise—

(a) every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an instrument, which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament;

(b) every proposal which is in the form of a draft of such an instrument and is laid before each House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament, with a view to determining whether or not the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (3).

(3) The grounds on which an instrument, draft or proposal may be drawn to the special attention of the House are—

(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;

(b) that it may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act;

(c) that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives;

(d) that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation;

(e) that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instrument;

(4) The exceptions are—

(a) remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998;

(b) draft orders under sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001;

(c) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them.

(5) The Committee shall report on draft orders and documents laid before Parliament under section 11(1) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 in accordance with the procedures set out in sections 11(5) and (6). The Committee may also consider and report on any material changes in a draft order laid under section 11(8) of the Act.

(6) The Committee shall also consider such other general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of secondary legislation and arising from the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1) to (5) as the Committee considers appropriate, except matters within the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to them any matters within its terms of reference;

That the Committee have power to appoint the Chairs of sub-committees;

That the quorum of each sub-committee be two;

The Committee’s power to appoint sub-committees shall lapse upon the expiry of the power to make instruments under section 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on a sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee and its sub-committees be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee or its sub-committees so wish;

That the following members be appointed to the Committee:

De Mauley, L, Harris of Richmond, B, Hunt of Wirral, L (Chair), Hutton of Furness, L, Lea of Lymm, B, Powell of Bayswater, L, Randerson, B, Ritchie of Downpatrick, B, Rowlands, L, Russell of Liverpool, L, Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L.

Committee of Selection

That in accordance with Standing Order 62 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the members to form each select committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) or any other body not being a select committee referred to it by the Senior Deputy Speaker, and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Bichard, L, Jones, L, Kennedy of Southwark, L, Kinnoull, E, Newby, L, Smith of Basildon, B, Smith of Hindhead, L, Stoneham of Droxford, L, True, L, Williams of Trafford, B.

Services Committee

That a Select Committee be appointed to support the House of Lords Commission by:

(1) Agreeing day-to-day policy on member-facing services,

(2) Providing advice on strategic policy decisions when sought by the Commission, and

(3) Overseeing the delivery and implementation of both;

That the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Clark of Windermere, L, Deech, B, Haselhurst, L, Howard of Rising, L, Hussein-Ece, B, Kinnoull, E, McIntosh of Hudnall, B (Chair), Stoneham of Droxford, L, Wheeler, B, Williams of Trafford, B.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee

That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private bills be appointed; and that the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Finlay of Llandaff, B, Geddes, L, Jones, L, McColl of Dulwich, L, Naseby, L, Thomas of Winchester, B.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

That in accordance with Standing Order 74 and the resolution of the House of 16 December 1997 that the following members be appointed to join with the Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments:

Beith, L, Chartres, L, D’Souza, B, Sahota, L, Sater, B, Smith of Hindhead, L, Watson of Wyre Forest, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chair;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Motions agreed.

British Steel

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

15:11

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (The Earl of Minto) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security to an Urgent Question in another place on British Steel. The Statement is as follows:

“Steel is vital to the UK economy. I fully recognise the importance of British Steel to local communities, particularly in my honourable friend’s constituency of Scunthorpe, where the company is a major contributor to local economic growth, and where she campaigns incredibly hard for the steel sector.

Global conditions have been tough for steel companies around the world. That is why we have changed the competitive landscape for British Steel and other energy-intensive industries by announcing the British industry supercharger—a decisive package of measures to reduce the long-term electricity price gap that exists between UK energy-intensive industries and competitor countries. This support will mean that strategically significant UK industries, such as steel, are safeguarded against the high industrial electricity prices that they have faced in too many recent years. We have also provided over £730 million in energy costs relief to the steel sector since 2013, in addition to the energy bill relief scheme. Steel producers will continue to receive support until 31 March 2024 through the energy bills discount scheme.

As my honourable friend is aware, the Government made an extremely generous offer of support to British Steel earlier this year to help it invest in a decarbonised and sustainable future. We have continued to work intensively with British Steel since then and will continue to do so. However, she will also understand that the detail of those conversations remains highly commercially confidential and that any public discussion risks undermining talks.

I know that this must be a deeply concerning time for British Steel employees and others in Scunthorpe following the company’s announcement on Monday regarding its plans for future operations. I can very much assure my honourable friend that we will help affected workers, their families and others impacted in the local area, and that we are committed to finding solutions to enable the ongoing sustainable and decarbonised production of steel. Just last month, for example, we announced a £1.25 billion joint investment package with Tata Steel to secure a decarbonised future for steelmaking in Wales. That has the potential to safeguard some 5,000 jobs across the UK. In 2020, the Government provided an emergency loan to Celsa Steel to help it continue trading during the Covid pandemic, saving over 1,500 jobs, with a further 300 jobs created since the loan was made.”

15:14

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to be back on Labour’s Front Bench. I thank the Lord Speaker and his office for their support in my time as one of the Lord Speaker’s deputies; it was a real pleasure.

I turn to today’s Urgent Question. The loss of up to 2,000 jobs at the Scunthorpe plant clearly will have a devastating effect on the local community. However, this transition will also leave the UK more reliant on steel imports, meaning that we will no longer be able to produce virgin steel made from smelting iron ore. What assessment have the Government made of the national security challenges that are posed by the UK no longer having this sovereign capability?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, obviously the loss of any jobs, particularly in a sector as important as steel, is to be deplored. However, there are commercial necessities that we are all fully aware of. The activity that the Government took in Port Talbot shows very clearly the commitment that we have to supporting the transition from historic steel-making to something more modern. As far as the production of virgin steel is concerned, the noble Lord is absolutely right that it will be affected by the closure of the smelting plants, but we will still be able to import limited amounts of iron ore pellets, which can be put towards the other steel that we have already within this country to produce what is required.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Opposition spokesperson back to his Front Bench and thank the Minister for his answer. However, I do not think that he is grasping the point. Steel is vital to the economy, as the Answer said, but it is also vital to our strategic interest. At a time when we are talking about the need for secure supply chains, does the Minister recognise that this weakens the supply chain for our defence, aerospace and automotive industries?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I completely understand the position of the noble Lord. During this transition period there is bound to be some effect. However, once the new systems are in place, there should be no change.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord I support the UK steel industry. Can my noble friend the Minister say how much ferrous scrap the UK economy generates and how much we export overseas?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. We generate just over £11 million-worth of ferrous scrap each year, of which about £8 million-worth is exported.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister can clarify a policy issue here. The Government are handing billions of pounds to steel, railway, broadband, car makers and others. Why do they not take an equity stake in those businesses? That way, the businesses still get the money and the public has some kind of asset. Should the business then make a recovery, there would be a return.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, that sounds to me rather like the thin end of the wedge. Any return to some form of nationalisation is not appropriate. We operate in a global market now, in all sorts of categories. We must allow the commercial viability of each individual market.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, many of us around this House will have experience of what happens in communities when these devastating redundancies happen. I was Bishop of Sheffield in South Yorkshire for many years and saw the effects at first hand. Can the Minister say more about the Government’s plans to invest in the area to help those affected transition through? In particular, what industries and areas of employment does he see as appropriate to the Scunthorpe area, given all the technological and industrial changes that we are seeing?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

Since 2018, the Government have provided about £200 million-worth of investment into the north and north-east Lincolnshire, across a range of different categories. As far as this specific transition is concerned, I ask the House to consider the level of support that has been agreed by the Government —new government money managed by both the Welsh and Westminster Governments—which is providing some transition from the historic steel jobs of Port Talbot to the future.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, it is this side. Does my noble friend recall that the second crossing of the Forth Road Bridge was made of steel, most of which came from China, where they are opening one coal-fired power station a week? Is it not insane to pursue a green agenda which will destroy jobs on this scale and at the same time cost many millions of what my noble friend describes as “government money” but which is taxpayers’ money or borrowed money that taxpayers will have to pay for?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

I completely understand the point about it being taxpayers’ money. There is no such thing as free money and it is very important that we do not lose sight of that. The issue of dealing with China has been well rehearsed, and the Chinese ownership of British Steel is widely known. We are supportive of that relationship.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, it is our turn now, I think. The Minister says that we should leave the fate of these workers and our strategic interests as a nation to the market. Will he reflect on the ownership of the company in question? It is a Chinese company; every Chinese company is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Would he apply the same strictures to the Chinese and, if not, why should we subordinate our national interest to the market, when the Chinese—our competitors —do not?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I said that we are throwing employees into a wide market. In fact, I think I said that we would provide support to see them through the transition. We have a fair and open market for Chinese investment in this country. It is a major world trading relationship and, while I understand some of the political issues behind it, just to avoid a country of that weight is slightly isolationist.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the industries that use steel employ many more people than the industries that make steel? We have 34,000 steelworkers and 176,000 people making cars. We have the better part of 0.5 million working in agriculture and 2 million working in construction. The way to protect jobs is to bring the price of steel down, not raise it. Will my noble friend confirm that our Trade Remedies Authority found no case whatever for the tariffs that we have inherited from the EU and continue to maintain on imported steel? Will he make clear that the way to make this country competitive is to remove excess costs on energy so that our industry can compete? By the way, we are still our own biggest supplier by far, and no foreign country accounts for more than 14% of our imports.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

That was a very detailed question indeed, with which I entirely agree.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the concern among the workforce, particularly in south Wales, about the way in which this has rolled out. Does he agree that there is a need to ensure that the workforce are in the picture, at every stage? If, at present, we cannot afford to manufacture our own steel, which is so vital for defence and to many other industries, what happens when we cannot afford to import it?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

To answer the first part of the noble Lord’s question, we will keep key people fully informed, subject to commercial sensitivities, as I am sure everyone in the House understands. As far as the cost of steel is concerned, we trade in an open market and generate funds within this country, and I am sure that we will never lack availability of steel from somewhere in the world.

King’s Speech

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Debate (2nd Day)

15:25

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning]

Moved on Tuesday 7 November by

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this adjourned debate on His Majesty’s most gracious Speech. Today’s debate will focus on home affairs, justice and devolution. It will give us an opportunity to consider some of the central themes of the gracious Speech; in particular, the actions that we are proposing to reflect modern needs and public opinion and to use evolving technology to best effect. I suggest that the overarching theme of the different aspects that I will cover is keeping us safe and secure; in particular, with sensible, practical, long-term measures. Respectfully, I will take our subject matter today in three parts: first, sentencing and offender management; secondly, measures for safety and security; and, thirdly, devolution.

I say at the outset how much the Government value the contribution, experience and wisdom of this House. The Government will be listening most carefully to the contributions today and on subsequent days of the debate on the King’s Speech.

I come first to sentencing and offender management. I couple those words together deliberately, because they are two sides of the same coin; they go together. In general terms, as your Lordships know, the Government’s policy is to make tougher penalties available to the courts for the worst offenders, while at the same time aiming to reduce prison sentences for lower-level reoffending to make the British public safer.

To take the tougher side, as it were, first, we will introduce statutory aggravating factors at sentencing that will capture grooming a child for the purposes of sexual abuse, including those involved in grooming gangs, and those who murder their former partner at the end of a relationship. We will also create an expectation for judges to use whole life orders where they can be applied, unless there are exceptional circumstances, as well as adding the murder of a single victim that involves sexual or sadistic conduct to the list of instances where a whole life order must be given. We recently changed the law so that rapists could no longer be released at the halfway point of their sentence and instead had to wait until they had served at least two-thirds. We will now legislate so that those convicted of rape and associated serious sexual offences will serve their custodial term in full.

Thus, through these measures, we will ensure that the courts have available to them the ability to impose the most severe sanctions for those who commit the worst possible crimes, just as, I suggest, the public want and expect.

However, protecting the public and reducing reoffending is not simply about custody. The fact is that over 55% of adults who leave prison after serving under 12 months go on to commit further crime. At the same time, those on suspended sentence orders with conditions reoffend at a rate of around 24%.

Many of these lesser offenders have problems with addiction, homelessness, poor mental health, or a combination of all three. Short custodial sentences may entrench them in criminality, cutting them off from community connections or employment that could support them or turn their lives around.

We will therefore introduce a presumption in favour of suspending short custodial sentences. The offender would then serve their sentence in the community, where sentencers can impose strict requirements, such as electronic tags, curfews, exclusion zones, and bans on drink or drugs. If an offender breaches the terms of their suspended sentence, they could be recalled to prison to serve the rest of their sentence behind bars. As the Lord Chancellor recently announced, we will double the number of GPS tags available to the courts to ensure that relevant community sentence requirements can be electronically monitored to support compliance and help to deter further offending.

We will also expand the use of the successful home detention curfew scheme to allow more lower-risk prisoners on standard determinate sentences to be safely managed on electronic tags in the community, rather than in prison. Eligible offenders will be subject to strict curfews. When not at home, they will be expected to be at work or undertaking other core resettlement tasks, such as meeting their probation officer or attending addiction courses. This will enable them to reintegrate into law-abiding lives and even take up employment so that they can become contributing members of society once again.

These measures will also assist us in using our prison capacity effectively, ensuring that we can lock up dangerous criminals for longer without further criminalising redeemable offenders by trapping them in a cycle of reoffending. We also continue to make progress with our programme to build 20,000 new prison places—the most expansive prison build since the Victorian era. All these go together with other policies we have discussed previously in this House to provide more employment, training and education opportunities and accommodation for prisoners being released, which are contributing significantly to a reduction in reoffending rates.

However, we have been clear that safeguarding prison capacity in the longer term will require further changes to our approach. We will therefore establish powers to transfer prisoners detained in England and Wales to rented prison space overseas, subject to future agreement with a partner country. This has been done successfully in other countries, such as Belgium and Norway.

The Government will, of course, carefully use the experiences of our colleagues on the continent to understand how best the policy can be enacted, paying particular attention to calibrating it properly for those prisoners with close family ties in the United Kingdom. This will include ensuring due consideration of a prisoner’s rights in international and domestic law, and ensuring sufficient opportunities for family contact. No decisions have yet been made about the cohort in scope of any agreement. However, the Prisons Minister is working with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and stakeholders to take account of this issue and others arising from this change.

Finally on this aspect, the Government are also determined to ensure that victims of crime see justice done. The appalling Lucy Letby case shocked the nation this year, and she compounded the pain she had inflicted by refusing to face up to her crimes and attend her sentencing hearing. We will therefore create a new power for judges to order offenders to attend their sentencing, with up to two years added to their sentence if they refuse. We will also make it clear in law that reasonable force can be used to make convicts appear in the dock to receive their sentence, as victims, their families and the general public would expect.

I move on to my second subheading: measures for safety and security. There are five different aspects to this. The first is knife crime. It is the case, perhaps contrary to public belief, that violent crime generally is trending down and has been for some years. In his 2023 report, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Andy Cooke, said:

“England and Wales are arguably safer than they have ever been”.


However, knife crime continues to plague too many communities. This is often the case in larger cities, London in particular. Indeed, just last month a 16 year- old boy was stabbed to death in north London. The entire nation was shocked when Elianne Andam, a 15 year-old girl, was brutally murdered with a knife in Croydon in September. Only yesterday, Alfie Lewis, aged 15, was stabbed to death in Leeds. The Government extend deep condolences to all those families affected.

We already have some of the strictest knife legislation in the world, but we could go further. We will therefore introduce measures to enable the police to seize, retain and destroy bladed articles found on private property; increase the maximum penalty for selling weapons to those under 18; and put into law a new offence of possessing a blade with the intent to do harm. This is a zero-tolerance approach which the public expect.

I move now, under this subgroup, to protecting victims. We will introduce new measures to protect more victims of crime and tackle crimes which disproportionately affect women and girls. We will update the criminal offences tackling the taking of intimate images without consent, expand the offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm to cover non-communication activity, and strengthen multiagency management of those convicted of offences of controlling or coercive behaviour. I have already mentioned the steps we are taking in relation to those convicted of rape and the other most serious sexual offences.

I next move to homelessness and begging. We are absolutely clear that no one should be criminalised for simply having nowhere to live. We are committed to repealing the outdated Vagrancy Act, passed only 199 years ago—possibly the last Act still in general use passed in the old Palace of Westminster before it unfortunately burned down. We are determined to update the framework and to end rough sleeping and prevent people ending up on the streets in the first place. Last year, we published our strategy to end rough sleeping for good and have already made available a £2 billion commitment over three years to accelerate those efforts.

As we set out in the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan published in March, we want to go as far as possible to ensure that vulnerable individuals on the streets can be directed to the support they need, while cracking down on conduct that is anti-social, intimidating or criminal. This includes giving police and local authorities tools to tackle activity that is causing a public nuisance, such as obstructing doors and pavements.

At the same time, the Government are aware of increasing instances where begging is being organised by criminal gangs, with potentially trafficked people transported across major cities to beg and funds then used to support further criminal activity. We are determined to put a stop to this and will therefore introduce a specific offence of organising or facilitating begging for gain.

I move to the next group: tackling evolving criminal methods. The Government’s first duty is to keep the public safe, and we must be alive to constant advances in technology. We will therefore introduce new powers to tackle serious and organised crime, to render criminals’ toolkits ineffective, for example by prohibiting the templates used for the 3D printing of firearms and pill presses, and banning devices such as signal jammers used in vehicle thefts.

We will also limit the use of tools to carry out fraud and economic crime, such as SIM farms, which can hold multiple mobile phone SIM cards and are often used for scam texts or calls or to send phishing messages. We will prevent their supply, except where suppliers can show significant due diligence and a legitimate business rationale. We will also extend the powers to suspend internet domain names and IP addresses used for fraudulent purposes and create a scheme whereby government will work with the financial sector to use moneys held in accounts suspended on suspicion of wrongdoing to fund projects to tackle economic crime.

Another aspect of safety and security is bolstering investigatory powers. We must ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the capabilities and data insights to respond to threats to the public from terrorists, hostile state actors, child abusers and criminal gangs, so we are bringing forward a targeted and limited package of reforms that will recalibrate the existing legislation on investigatory powers. This includes making certain changes to the bulk personal dataset regime to expand the oversight regime to support the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and to reform the existing notices regime so that the UK can anticipate the risk to public safety posed by the rollout of new technology, as well as updating the conditions for use of internet connections records. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—I am not sure whether he is in his place—for his valuable work in reviewing these aspects of the Investigatory Powers Act. We are closely following his recommendations.

Finally, I turn to the union. The United Kingdom is the most successful political and economic union the world has ever seen. Together, we are much more than the sum of our parts, with each nation making an immense contribution which ultimately makes us all safer, stronger and more prosperous. It puts us in the best possible position to respond to the challenges we all share, such as the cost of living, public security, the international response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the ultimate defence of all corners of the realm.

The Government are working to deliver on the issues that matter most to people in every part of the United Kingdom. We are providing the devolved Administrations with a record block grant settlement over this spending review: £41 billion for the Scottish Government, £18 billion for the Welsh Government and £14 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive. On top of those funds, additional funds have been made available in the Autumn Statement, in the spring Budget and in levelling-up funding.

The devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have significant powers to make important decisions closer to their communities and we are rolling out devolution deals in every part of England that wants one so that there is more local decision- making through local mayors and local organisations.

Devolution is, however, not a single moment in time. It must be nurtured if it is to carry on working effectively at all levels of government in the interests of people, businesses and communities, and that work of nurturing continues. In particular, for far too long, power sharing at Stormont has been suspended, and we are determined to see its return so that devolution can carry on developing and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, the measures in the gracious Speech build on the Government’s record so that we can reflect modern needs and the opinions of the British public—so sensible as they are—and bend and use evolving technology in the national interest. The changes are designed to ensure that our law and regulatory frameworks are up to date in this changing world, so that the United Kingdom remains a safe, modern and forward-looking country. My colleagues and I on the Front Bench representing departments greatly look forward to the debates over the coming days. I commend the measures that I have outlined to the House.

15:44

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to open by saying how sorry I am to hear of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He was personally very kind to me, and I know he was very kind to many other Members of this House.

I also welcome our three maiden speakers to today’s debate: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble Lords, Lord Houchen of High Leven and Lord Bailey of Paddington. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, has reached the very pinnacle of the judiciary in England and Wales, but I have to say that I feel more affinity with the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, as we share an interest in youth justice. I very much look forward to his contributions to this House on that subject.

Yesterday, my noble friend Lady Smith moved the Motion to adjourn the debate on the gracious Speech. It was a good-humoured speech by convention, but also because of her temperament. Nevertheless, my noble friend expressed her frustration with the lack of ambition expressed in the gracious Speech. She said:

“For a country to thrive requires good governance, with competence, optimism, confidence and vision”.—[Official Report, 7/11/23; col. 11.]


She then went on to analyse the gracious Speech against those criteria. I want to do the same, while directing my comments towards justice and home affairs. My noble friend Lady Taylor will comment on the devolution and union aspects of this debate.

I will be judging the proposals against good governance, competence, optimism, confidence and vision. After 13 years of Tory Government, over 90% of crimes are going unsolved, meaning that criminals are less than half as likely to be caught now compared with under the last Labour Government. More criminals are being let off and far more victims are being let down. When the Government claim that overall crime is going down, that excludes fraud and computer misuse. Computers, of course, play an ever-greater part in all our lives.

Stronger sentences for rape and child sexual abuse and tougher powers to retrieve stolen items are welcome. But they mean little when only 2% of accused rapists receive a court summons, two-thirds of child abuse cases are closed due to evidential difficulties, and arrests for theft are down 40% on just a few years ago. Recorded serious violence is up by 60% since 2015. Knife crime, gun crime and robbery have all increased, with over 50,000 knife crimes this past year alone and a 70% rise in recorded knife crime since 2015. But there was no mention of tackling this in the King’s Speech.

Under the Tories, shoplifting has reached record levels, driven by organised criminal gangs, with a 25% surge in recorded crime over the last 12 months alone. But the Tories’ shoplifting charter means that offences under £200 are rarely enforced and town centre police patrols have been cut, as there are still 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police officers than in 2015. There was nothing in the King’s Speech to turn things around.

Near record numbers of victims are dropping out of criminal proceedings—1.6 million last year alone. Record numbers of crimes are being dropped due to no suspect being identified—2.3 million last year. The proportion of crimes charged has dropped by 60% since 2015, and the average time it takes for a crime to be charged has trebled since 2016, from 14 to 42 days. Regarding victims, I look forward to the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and to working with her and other colleagues on the forthcoming Bill.

So, what will Labour do? We will put 13,000 more officers and PCSOs on our streets, with guaranteed town centre patrols, and give every community a named officer they can get in touch with. We will reverse the Government’s decision to downgrade the response to shoplifting under £200, which will make it easier to take action against repeat offenders. We will also create a specific new offence of assault against retail workers. Our ambition is to halve violence against women and girls after the next election. We will put domestic abuse specialists in police control rooms and set up dedicated courts for rape trials.

We will get tough with those who blight our towns, with new powers to ban repeat anti-social behaviour in town centres and stamp out public drinking and drug use. Over the summer period, I travelled to the United States and visited Portland, in Oregon, and Seattle, in Washington state. The level of public drug use and homelessness, and the lack of medical care for homeless people, was truly shocking. I have never seen anything remotely like that in London or other British towns and cities. But the message I took from that trip is that things could get worse here if we do not provide homes and medical treatment for the homeless, and action to stamp out public drinking and, in particular, drug use.

Turning to asylum and migration, the Prime Minister promised to stop the boats, yet the asylum backlog has surged to a record high of 175,000, and 33,742 people have come across in 708 small boats since he has been in power. Spending on hotels has reached £8 million a day, and convictions of people smugglers are 30% lower than under the last Labour Government. During the passage of the Illegal Migration Act, the Government voted against amendments proposing tougher action on criminal gangs. Already, £140 million has been sent to Rwanda to fund an extortionate deal that is currently stuck in the courts and is likely to be ineffective.

The Labour Party would crack down on criminal smuggler gangs through a new cross-border police unit and deeper security co-operation with our European friends; end hotel use, clear the asylum backlog and speed up returns to safe countries; reform resettlement routes to stop people being exploited by gangs; reach new agreements with France and other countries on returns and family reunion; and tackle humanitarian crises at their source by helping refugees in their regions.

I return to my noble friend’s tests of how our country can thrive: good governance, competence, optimism, confidence and vision. The record on good governance and competence speaks for itself. The degradation of our criminal justice system has led to a lack of trust that undermines our communities and fails my noble friend’s tests. But what of optimism, confidence and vision? Where are they? Where are the optimism, confidence and vision for our Probation Service, which is surely at the heart of any strategy to contain our ever-growing prison population? Where are the optimism, confidence and vision for our courts service, with victims, witnesses and defendants too often feeling poorly served and lacking confidence that justice will be done in a timely manner? Where are the optimism, confidence and vision for our Prison Service, as we lurch from one predicted crisis to another, and the core purposes of security, rehabilitation and protection of the public are barely met? No, the party opposite has failed my noble friend’s tests. But we on these Benches will scrutinise the Bills to the best of our abilities while we wait for the election to come.

15:53

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I too express my sorrow at hearing of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He was a great lawyer, a wonderful judge, a brilliant parliamentarian and defender of liberty, and, quite simply, the kindest of men.

I will address the Government’s justice proposals in the King’s Speech and the lack of other proposals for which we see a crying need, and which are unaddressed in the Government’s programme. Others among my noble friends will address the Government’s home affairs and devolution proposals later in this debate.

I will start positively by welcoming the arbitration Bill. I declare an interest as a barrister who often appears as an advocate in arbitrations; although not sitting as an arbitrator, I am qualified to do so. England, particularly London, holds a pre-eminent position as an arbitration seat for heavy international commercial arbitrations, and it is a tribute to our arbitrators that our arbitration services are so widely respected.

London is a top choice for arbitrations, and English law is the governing law for many international contracts. Substantial foreign earnings and the enhancement of our commercial reputation follow. But our arbitration law must be kept up to date, and these targeted reforms follow extensive consultation and careful consideration by the Law Commission over the last two years. We will support that Bill’s speedy passage. However, it is a shame that other proposals from the Law Commission are not implemented as quickly. The Government often quail at the slightest prospect of controversy. I mention my Cohabitation Rights Bill, which would implement the Law Commission’s reports from 2007 and 2011, on which the Government have long deferred any action. However, now that the Labour Party is committed to such reforms, I hope for its support and have resubmitted the Bill.

The Victims and Prisoners Bill, expected from the Commons soon, could have been so much better. Giving the victims’ code the force of law would be excellent if the proposal had teeth. My noble friend Lady Brinton has been at the forefront of a long campaign for such a measure. But the Bill is insufficiently robust. There are, for example, no protections for victims of stalkers. The victims’ code is liable to be revised by the Secretary of State, and there is no redress for victims in the event of non-compliance with the code.

On Part 2, it is right that we should have independent public advocates for victims of major incidents but, again, this proposal is not tough enough. Truly independent advocates must be able to hold the Government to account. That may be uncomfortable for government, but it is all the more misguided then that the appointment of advocates by the Secretary of State is purely voluntary—and how can it be right that the Secretary of State can dismiss independent advocates at will?

Part 3 of the Bill weakens the role of the Parole Board in releasing offenders serving life and longer-term sentences and gives powers to the Secretary of State to overrule Parole Board decisions. Strangely, it also permits the board itself to refer decisions to the Secretary of State. Then there is a right of appeal from the Secretary of State to the Upper Tribunal, which is hardly a body suitably equipped to take this kind of decision. Indeed, that right of appeal appears to have been inserted to avoid the decision-making power of the Secretary of State being found in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to liberty and security, and in particular the right to have the lawfulness of detention determined by a court and not by a Minister. Then, disgracefully, it is proposed to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act in respect of release on licence, so that there would no requirement to construe the legislation compatibly with the convention where possible. That would undermine one of the fundamental protections of the convention in our domestic law.

I turn to the centrepieces of the proposed legislation—the criminal justice Bill and the sentencing Bill, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, called sentencing and offender management. In both Bills, we have what Christopher Grayling, when Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, used to call “throwing red meat” to the Conservative Party conference. The Prime Minister’s introduction to the briefing for the King’s Speech said:

“We are keeping people safe by making sure the police and security services have the powers they need and that criminals receive proper punishment”.


Frankly, that is just the Grayling formula in slightly more restrained language.

The briefing on the sentencing Bill puts it more starkly:

“This Government will make sure that the prison estate is used to lock up dangerous criminals for longer”.


But there is no evidence that longer sentences keep people safe, beyond the limited point that keeping offenders in prison keeps them out of the community while they are still in custody.

There are some redeeming features of the proposals. We have long called for a presumption against short immediate sentences, so we welcome the proposal for such a presumption. All the evidence demonstrates that short sentences are useless at preventing reoffending, proved by appallingly high reconviction rates, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. Such sentences disrupt family and community ties, wreck chances of re-employment, leave no time for rehabilitation, education and training, or for addressing mental health issues or addiction, while they create damaging opportunities for low-level offenders to make criminal contacts to support a future life of crime.

Also welcome is the commitment to increase the use of home detention curfews, and technology makes that an achievable ambition, but the overwhelming direction of travel is to lock people up for longer, in many cases without hope of release, blind to the facts that hopelessness, by definition, leads to despair and that redemption then ceases altogether to be a purpose of punishment. The proposals for imprisonment without remission completely ignore the needs for recognition and reward for good behaviour in prison and for sanction for bad behaviour. Remission and the threat of its loss fill those needs.

The criminal justice Bill continues the theme. True, there are some welcome proposals. These include: compulsory reporting of sexual abuse concerns; multi-agency management of offenders convicted of coercive control; criminalising the sharing of intimate images—cruel and humiliating behaviour. But the general trend is just for tougher punishment, fortified by measures that are, frankly, purely symbolic, such as forced attendance of offenders at sentencing hearings.

This programme fails lamentably to address the crisis in our penal system. Our prisons are overflowing, even into police cells. The building programme, as the Minister acknowledged, is stalled. The Government rely on sticking-plaster pre-fab extra cells, without additional services, so that these are no more than prisoner containers. They double up cells, increasing overcrowding and violence. They bring back into service squalid cells that were supposed to have been taken out of service for the maintenance required to relieve dire conditions. The pitifully small number of available spaces are scattered around the prison estate, so prisoners are sent to where they fit and not to where they need to be, disrupting training and education, continuity of care and links with families and communities, particularly approaching release. We have desperate staff shortages, low retention rates and insufficient recruitment, all caused by low morale. The continuing plight of IPP prisoners is a stain on our penal system.

What we needed was a new approach: lower prisoner numbers; statutory minimum prison standards; a fully resourced Probation Service for prisoners, pre and post release, and to make community sentences work; a comprehensive, multi-agency approach, co-ordinating efforts to promote rehabilitation, involving prison and probation services, local authorities’ housing and social services, training providers, health and addiction services and potential employers. We must replace the mantra, “Lock them up for longer”, with a new and constructive emphasis on supporting rehabilitation and reform. I fear we will not see that change while this Government survive.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will permit me a brief moment, I was completely unaware when I made the opening speech of the sad death of Lord Judge. He was a personal friend, a colleague and a mentor over many years, and I associate the Government entirely with the tributes already made and say what a wonderful leader of our legal community he was while Lord Chief Justice and what an amazing job he did as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. I am sure that there will be suitable tributes in due course and on behalf of the Government, we express our deep regret at his very sad passing.

16:05

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, this is a difficult, sombre time and I rise with a heavy heart. It is a shocking thing to lose a friend and mentor. The death of Lord Judge will be announced in the usual way tomorrow by the Lord Speaker. I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for confirming to me just now that there will be an opportunity to pay tributes at that time, which I will use to pay my tribute to Igor.

It was, as ever, very special to hear the gracious Speech yesterday—the first, I hope, of many from our King and the last of this Parliament. I will restrict myself to a subject on which very little was said—devolution—but I start by saying how much I am looking forward to the three maiden speeches today, from my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett of Maldon and from the noble Lords, Lord Houchen and Lord Bailey. I also look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Meston, who is making his first speech on returning to the House.

During the previous Session, quite a lot happened in devolution terms. Many times, the importance of clarity and consistency in devolution settlements has been remarked on. Lack of clarity and consistency and too much complexity inevitably lead to the risk of clashes between layers of government, and poor dispute resolution mechanisms exacerbate matters. The citizen in the street generally wants none of this, and it is in their interests that this Parliament does its bit in trying to prevent poor outcomes.

The core of the relationship between the UK Government and the Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is the intergovernmental relations structure that surfaced at the start of last year. It is a vastly improved and updated structure, replacing its 2013 predecessor with ambitions to achieve regular dialogue and an effective dispute resolution mechanism between the parties. There was a substantial diet of common framework issues to be worked through the revised intergovernmental arrangements. The committee structure of this House has been riding shotgun alongside these matters, and in reports and correspondence continues to seek to nudge things to be better.

However, my impression is that this is unfinished work. Some of the ministerial strands—Defra should be complimented here—have got to something akin to what was hoped for by the parties as the IGR review was settled; others have not. The suspicion is that dialogue has been wanting. I dare say that the blame for this lies with more than one party.

Our work as a House on common frameworks has not ended. Although the committee—which I warmly salute, along with its doughty chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—has now stood down, these frameworks replicate similar arrangements that existed in the EU when we were a member and which were scrutinised by the EU committees of this House. I know therefore from long experience that the common frameworks will necessarily change over time—perhaps quite often, as was the case in the EU—and this House will inevitably continue its scrutiny.

I say all this without even having mentioned the devolution difficulties posed by the situation in Northern Ireland, which others will no doubt cover fully in their contributions on the gracious Speech. The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, with the Windsor Framework agreement that so welcomely surfaced in February this year, presents further devolution complexities. Here I salute the work of our Select Committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Jay.

It is against this background that we are now starting out on the road for devolution in England. The White Paper of February last year set out the goal of every part of England having a devolution settlement by 2030 and that there would be three general levels of devolution deal on offer. That is a lot of complexity.

The trailblazers—deals for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands—were announced in March this year and their full implementation is expected by the end of 2025. The enabling measures for all this are in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act which spent so many months going through your Lordships’ House until very recently. I fear this Act is hard to construe, even though I have spent much time in the Chamber, and indeed in the Chair, and with the Act’s written materials. This would seem to me to make consistency and clarity in new devolution under the LURB, as I still think of it, a challenge.

So many Bills that come before us contain important elements of devolution. Just as much as we patrol Henry VIII clauses, we must patrol these elements. Clarity, consistency and lack of complexity will remain the enablers of successful devolution, underpinned by dialogue and good dispute resolution mechanisms. Parliament and Government together should look to these principles in the new Bills that will be put before us.

16:10

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, from these Benches I too express our sadness at the news of the death of Lord Judge and offer prayers and condolences to his family. I look forward with others to the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Houchen of High Leven and Lord Bailey of Paddington.

The focus of my speech is devolution, looking particularly at devolution in and within the regions of England, not least because devolution and devolved government allow us to seek consensus in our decision-making, and therefore to be better able to take a longer view, which in turn is the best way of tackling some of the huge issues facing us that were mentioned in the gracious Speech: the greening of the economy; poverty; and criminal justice. Yesterday, the order was laid by the Government for the establishment of the mayoral combined authority for York and North Yorkshire, the area where I live and serve. This is very good news for the north and is the first deal of its kind that includes a large rural area in combination with a small city, and therefore is an opportunity for a new model that does not require a big city for its success.

I know, or at least I think I know, that I do not need to tell this House about the benefits of this kind of devolution. The understanding and representation of local needs allow for good value for the money spent and it is something we have often discussed. Certainly, in York and North Yorkshire, a regional view is required to understand the area’s huge variety and opportunities, but also its inequalities, and to address them. What is needed in our Government is consensus and longer-term planning, which is the sort of thing devolved government can deliver. Last week I was with people who have been working on this in York and North Yorkshire, and I was struck most by the incredible renewed hopefulness and togetherness that longer-lasting change could be achieved. This will renew our regional identity and enable us to better face issues of huge inequality. In turn, therefore, it will tackle the hopelessness that so often leads to crime.

I know today’s theme is not transport but that is inextricably bound up with the conversation about devolution. I welcome the designated powers and funding allocated as part of the deal that have been a success in other cities. However, transport is the most contentious part of all devolution work and, to state the obvious, the failure to join up the east and the west in national-scale transport projects remains a very serious issue for all of us who live in, but sometimes struggle to travel across, the north. The Network North proposals given in lieu of HS2, and announced yesterday, feel like an afterthought. They were announced so quickly that they eluded consultation. They do not seem to point to a well-measured decision that prioritises levelling up or investment in the north. Although the gracious Speech said that the most frequently taken journeys are prioritised, it is unfortunate that those journeys are mostly and most frequently made by car. Whatever anyone feels about HS2, I suggest that the contrast in functioning transport systems within regions and between them demonstrates a problem with the length of our view.

We have heard in the gracious Speech the legislative ambitions of the Government for this forthcoming Session, many of which I look forward to engaging with, as do my fellow Bishops on these Benches, including the Media Bill. Although I am glad to see that the measures trailed over the weekend around homelessness were not brought forward, there are other worrying inclusions, such as the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill and the announcement of new oil and gas licences. We on these Benches will be looking at all this in detail as it emerges.

What is missing is any recognition of the serious hardship that families are currently facing. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s most recent statistics note almost a million children in destitution, triple that from 2017. The Trussell Trust is expecting its worst winter ever and is planning to provide more food parcels than ever before. We need to take a longer view. We need to stay awake to the persistent and debilitating inequalities that exist in our nation, and to the danger of dividing communities with polarised voices. These things will get better only if we take a longer view, build cross-party consensus and change the way we do our politics. We look forward to taking opportunities to work together in this House and in other places to engage with this as we move forward.

16:16

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I very much echo the words of my noble friend the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others who have said something about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I am glad to hear that there will be an opportunity soon for the House to pay a proper tribute to him.

I am delighted to follow the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I was going to follow him also in speaking about devolution, although it would have been of the Scottish variety rather than the English variety. However, yesterday afternoon, we heard my noble friend the Leader of the House speak, and I was so inspired by his words that I thought I would say a few words about something that affects us all, for which all of us bear some responsibility: namely, our behaviour in this Chamber and what we do as a House.

Over the course of the past few years there have been many occasions when we have debated the overall numbers of this House. But I do not think it has been at all helpful to look at those overall numbers. What we should be looking at are the overall numbers of Peers who actually vote. There were 180 votes during the course of the last Session, but only in about 30 of them did we produce more than 400 Peers to vote, and never did those numbers achieve 500—considerably less than the 800 which so many of us complain about. This House is a part-time House. It derives so much strength from Peers being able to do work outside it, volunteer outside it and play an important role in their own communities. For that reason, with this diversity of talent, experience and age, such diversity maintains the quality of the House and I think we should not forget it. My conclusion is that we should complain far less about our overall numbers and look at the numbers in the voting Lobbies to demonstrate our working capacity and our ability to effect change.

That leads me on to the number of government defeats. As I said, in the previous Session we had 180 votes. In those, the Government were defeated 125 times; the Government managed to win only 55 times. That is a loss ratio of 70%. It is too much. I have said before that this House should never become a House of opposition, but that is what these figures demonstrate it has become. Of course we should challenge the working of government by all means, but should it really be so often? How can we, on this side of the House, make the case for restraint on the number of new Peers when every day Members of the Government in another place are faced with that record?

That leads me on to the role of the Cross-Benchers, who play an important part in this House. But I wonder how many of us realise that, during the previous Session, the average Cross-Bench Member voted only 28% of the time in favour of the Government and 72% of the time against the Government. I suppose that we should be grateful for that. I wholly expect that sort of behaviour from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, who are accountable for what they do, in a tangential way, through their representation in the House of Commons, but that is not true for the Cross-Benchers, who should perhaps keep a watchful eye on their voting records before people outside this House ask, “What are Members of the Cross Benches for?” A few weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia wrote an extremely well-researched paper criticising, in the Spectator magazine, the right reverend Prelates for their voting records; I would not want him to cast his eye, or his pen, over the role of the Cross-Benchers. This makes it so much harder for those of us who have, in the long term, been great defenders of the role of the Bishops in this House and the role of the Cross-Benchers.

My real role today is to talk about conventions of the House. Yesterday, my noble friend the Leader gave us the example of the Attlee Government, who managed to govern radically and successfully at a time when they had such a small percentage in this House. Out of that was born one of our premier conventions, the Salisbury/Addison convention, which regulates our ability to vote down manifesto Bills at Second Reading—although it does not, of course, stop us from suggesting amendments. A few years ago, I chaired a report on conventions and secondary legislation, and I am glad to say that was unnecessary. But if we are going to develop increased anti-government activism—in relation to any Government—against the elected House, perhaps it is time to look again at these conventions and see whether we should continually, again and again, vote for amendments and send them back to the House of Commons when the Government clearly have no intention of accepting them.

This is a great and noble House, and long may it continue in that manner.

16:24

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I make no apologies for saying just a word about the sad death of Lord Judge. Some Members will know how closely I worked with him over the past few years, both on the Elections Bill and primarily on criminal justice measures, including the issue of imprisonment for public protection. I shall sorely miss him personally.

I will not go down the rabbit hole offered by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, except to say that, if a large number of Members are not participating in voting in this House, they might consider why they are still in it. If the Government got Bills right in the first place, we would not have to amend them so frequently. In fact, as the Leader of the House pointed out yesterday, rather tongue-in-cheek, out of the 8,000 amendments tabled, over 2,500 were tabled by the Government. That demonstrates how appalling legislation was in the first place—but let us move on.

This King’s Speech is sadly denuded of anything that will offer Britain hope; it is a last hurrah. I am sad because this opportunity could have been taken to deal with some of the central issues facing the nation, not least on ageing and on the impact that artificial intelligence is likely to have.

The Minister who introduced today’s debate, for whom I have a lot of time, raised a few things with which I agree. One of them is the absurdity of short prison sentences. Led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee will shortly produce a lengthy and detailed report on this issue, which I hope the Government will take seriously; it will help to accelerate sensible sentencing and support the judiciary to do so.

However, there were murmurs that this King’s Speech was to develop clear blue water between the Government and the Opposition. I fear that this will fail, because some of the measures thrown up in recent times by the current Home Secretary do not really appear at all, and some measures denoted by the Justice Secretary, such as life means life, have been in place for 20 years. The whole-life tariff extension, for those crimes that would warrant it, is likely to have a minimal impact— I should know, because the words “life means life” were ones I issued back in 2003. I hope that, when the Victims and Prisoners Bill reaches this House, we will be able to do something substantive on IPP.

There were many things in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with which I agreed; I will not repeat them because we have an indicative time limit. I will say just this: we have had so many Justice Secretaries that it is hard to keep count of them. The present one is a great improvement on the last, and I hope that he will be able, over the next nine months or so, to demonstrate that still further. The Crown Prosecution Service is in meltdown—there are 75,000 outstanding cases, the courts are under enormous pressure and the Prison Service is on the edge of collapse—so what we need is decisive action to ensure that we get this right. Of course we need tough sentences for those who commit the most horrendous and heinous crimes, including those spelled out by the Minister at the beginning of today’s debate, but we also need to use common sense.

My noble friend from the Front Bench mentioned something as simple as shoplifting causing havoc to both retailers and the public, such as in the small shop in south London that last week put up a notice saying, “We are sorry we can’t put the goods on the shelves any more. You will have to ask at the counter”, because of the number of organised thefts that had taken place and the inadequacy of the police to deal with them. These are issues which, alongside the very big ones, affect people day in, day out in our communities, so we should take them seriously.

I will say something about the current Home Secretary. Floating the idea that you should punish those who are homeless on the streets, or even to suggest that those charities which befriend and try to bring some comfort to those on the streets should be prosecuted, is an outrage. I know that many Conservatives agree with that. In fact, the twist here is that the Leader of the House yesterday reminded us of the returned convention of the Lord Chancellor walking backwards. If I were the Lord Chancellor, I would not turn my back on the present Home Secretary either. It is quite clear that some parts of the briefing on the King’s Speech were more about future elections within the Conservative Party than the well-being of the British people—that is very poor. For a Government who may be on their way out, they could at least, in their last breath, show that they care about the real issues affecting the British people.

16:30

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, today is a personal anniversary for me because it is 50 years since I entered Parliament—I did 42 years in the Commons and have done eight in the Lords—after I won a by-election in 1973. During that time, I have always tried to stand up for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to get legislation properly in order. However, my efforts pale into insignificance beside those of the late Lord Judge in his relatively shorter time in this House. He was so stalwart in ensuring that legislation was left open to parliamentary scrutiny and did not preclude it. We will have to continue that work in his memory.

I want to devote my time today to just two issues raised in the gracious Speech. The first is prisons and sentencing.

“A bill will be brought forward to ensure tougher sentences for the most serious offenders”,


but it does not work like that. Every time Ministers call for or legislate for tougher sentences, whatever specific offence is involved, they contribute to a ratcheting upwards of sentences for a wide range of other offences. It is a long-standing trend and the Government contribute to it on a regular basis—more or less every year. Often, it is applied to people who will not be improved by time in prison and really need a more appropriate sentence.

When I was elected in 1973, there were just short of 37,000 people in prison. There are now nearly 86,000 of them, with the possibility of that heading for 100,000. Promoting longer prison sentences is a huge commitment of resources to a system of punishment that does so little to advance rehabilitation and to change those involved. Even so, the resources are not sufficient to deal with a collapsing prison system that cannot cope with the number of people sent to it. Clearly, many offenders must be jailed for significant periods for the protection of the public. However, as anyone who visits prisons regularly will know, many imprisoned people suffer from mental health problems, are otherwise inadequate or lack basic education and could have been dealt with differently, in various ways, so that resources could have been used more effectively.

I support and commend the recent recommendation from the House of Commons Justice Committee, which I used to chair, that there should be an independent sentencing policy council to provide policy advice to Ministers. We might get some evidence-based policy then. I also look forward to the forthcoming report of this House’s Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. We have had witnesses in front of us complaining about the fact that community sentences are underused, partly because of lack of information and partly because the Probation Service is so badly understaffed. We must end the weaponising of sentencing policy. Claims that one party will lock up more people than another really do not contribute to sensible, evidence-based policy.

My second point is about migration. The gracious Speech skates over the chaos of policy and administration in this area. Thankfully, it does not repeat the Home Secretary’s inflammatory language about multiculturalism. We are simply told that the Government will deliver on the Illegal Migration Act and stop illegal channel crossings. That is a triumph of hope over experience, particularly the experience of the Home Office. I fear that we are in real danger of losing our values and sense of proportion in all this. I mention our sense of proportion because the small-boat people represent a tiny fraction of the half a million net inward migrants we currently accept. We have to go after the criminal gangs who exploit desperate people, but those who take risks in search of a new life should not be treated as criminals. Their asylum claims may well be valid—currently, about 82% of claims are found by the Home Office to be valid in that category—and those who are economic migrants are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Why do we deny asylum seekers the opportunity to work while their claims are considered, so that they can contribute to the society they want to join? Why do the Government disapprove of and disparage economic migrants?

For poor and desperate people to seek opportunities in another country used to be seen as a sign of initiative and enterprise, not a disqualification from welcome to a new country. The Prime Minister ought to know that from his own family experience. Like most developed nations, we need migrants, because we will not have enough younger people to care for our elderly, maintain our public services or expand our economy. That is why we have quite a high rate of net immigration. It is why we invited the Windrush generation to come to Britain and accepted substantial inward migration from the Indian subcontinent. From Britain, we populated large parts of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Population movement is not new. It has been part of the human condition throughout history. It will continue to be. We should manage it as far as we can, in harmony with our basic values. If we want to reduce the growth in population movement, we must address the problems of poverty, warfare and oppression in the countries with the greatest outflow. If we fail to address the problem of climate change, we will see even greater pressures where countries disappear underwater or can no longer support food production because of the effects of climate change.

This has already been said by noble Lords: the gracious Speech and the legislative programme within it are really all about the election. The Conservative Party will not be judged on the slender legislative programme of this gracious Speech but by what has gone before—the chaos of years of dysfunctional government under a bitterly divided party. I think they know that.

16:36

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I start by echoing the sentiments of other noble Lords at the sad and shocking news of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, a great Chief Justice and an outstanding parliamentarian.

This maiden speech has been long in coming. It is six years since I had the privilege of being introduced to your Lordships’ House, but the statutory disqualification preventing serving judges from taking part in the proceedings of the House applied to me until almost six weeks ago. In the meantime, I have visited frequently and benefited from the unfailing assistance of the doorkeepers and staff of the House of Lords. Their continued assistance and courtesy have been especially valuable during the few weeks since I left office as Lord Chief Justice. I have had the pleasure of making regular appearances before the Constitution Committee to explain the workings of the judiciary and courts and, as counsel, many outings before the Judicial Committee—so, while a newcomer, I do not feel a stranger.

All this is a far cry from my visits as a schoolboy, sitting below the Bar, fascinated by the working of Parliament. A debate on fish farming has stuck in my mind and, within minutes of my asking, the Library staff were able to find it. Reading the speeches now, I must confess to being perplexed at why they struck such a chord with a 17 year-old in 1975.

Most of those who visit this Chamber are overwhelmed by its grandeur but have little time to study the lessons in history that adorn its walls. This schoolboy failed to notice the mural painted by Charles Cope of Prince Henry—later Henry V—acknowledging the authority of Lord Chief Justice Gascoigne. Its presence in the Chamber is a powerful reminder of the importance of the rule of law. In modern terms, it illustrates the Executive’s acknowledgement that they are subject to the law.

It is also striking that the armorials of Chief Justices from William FitzOsbern in 1067 to Lord Widgery in 1980, when the space was exhausted, surround the Library at ceiling height. The symbols speak of the centrality of the rule of law to our system of government. They resonate as your Lordships debate home affairs, justice and devolution following the gracious Speech.

The core features of the rule of law are not now in doubt. They include that everybody is subject to the same laws: wealth, power, status or privilege provide no special protection. Dr Thomas Fuller observed in 1733:

“Be you never so high, the law is above you”.


Governments and public officials are subject to the law and must exercise their powers lawfully. Laws must be accessible and clear. Disputes, if incapable of consensual resolution, must be determined by independent courts and tribunals. For the rule of law to have substance, there must be an effective court system. An independent judiciary is also a central feature of the rule of law—independent individually to decide cases on the law and evidence, and independent institutionally to resist pressure from any and all powerful actors. A vibrant and independent legal profession is necessary to promote liberty under the rule of law.

There was no mention in statute of the rule of law or the independence of the judiciary until 2005, when both well-established concepts were included in the Constitutional Reform Act. The rule of law was declared a constitutional principle, with special responsibility for its sustenance attaching to the Lord Chancellor. All Ministers and officials were enjoined to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary, including the judiciary of international courts whose jurisdiction the United Kingdom recognises. The Lord Chancellor was fixed with a special duty to defend judicial independence and secure adequate funding for the courts.

As Lord Chief Justice, I was concerned that much official thinking in connection with the courts and the law failed to raise its eyes above their direct financial contribution to the economy. Of course, that contribution is vast, but it does not begin to capture the real value of the rule of law. No one would tot up the annual economic value of the education sector and consider that to be its real worth: an educated population is necessary for prosperity and much else. Nor would they suggest that the worth of the health sector is represented by its direct monetary contribution. A society whose members are healthy will be capable of flourishing; one with excessive ill health will not.

So it is with the rule of law. Without the rule of law, underpinned by an independent judiciary and the courts, much else would fail to prosper. It is one of the foundations that supports economic activity, wider prosperity and a settled society. In short, the rule of law, the courts and an independent judiciary are not optional extras or simply a service, but one of the foundations on which all else is built. As such, they must be nourished.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make these observations and I look forward to playing my part in the work of your Lordships’ House.

16:43

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, it is a distinct pleasure and privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord—my noble and learned friend—Lord Burnett of Maldon, and to be the first in your Lordships’ House to congratulate him on his marvellous maiden speech. As he can see, it was deeply appreciated by all Members of the House.

My noble and learned friend has had a most distinguished legal career. He was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in 1980. In 1998, he became a Queen’s Counsel. In 2008, he joined the High Court. In 2014, he became a Lord Justice of Appeal. In 2017, he was appointed the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. It was at that time that I came to know him, because I was involved in that process as chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission. I then had the privilege of working with my noble and learned friend as we explored questions of judicial appointment together in the following six years.

My noble and learned friend is known not only for his brilliant intellect as a lawyer and the clarity and perfection of his judgments, but also for the fact that he is a kind, decent and compassionate man who brought those marvellous qualities together to ensure that justice was properly administered and that every citizen living in this great jurisdiction of England and Wales could go about their business with confidence, knowing that our judicial system was supervised in such a responsible and thoughtful way. My noble and learned friend did this throughout his career, always emphasising in equal measure a deep commitment to securing the rule of law, as we have heard, and to broader public service. Noble Lords will benefit in the years to come from his ongoing contributions to the work of your Lordships’ House.

That is why I find myself, unusually, participating in this debate on matters of justice, devolution and home affairs—my contributions in the House have been principally on healthcare and science. With the leave of your Lordships’ House, I will continue this contribution and build on some of the concepts regarding the rule of law that my noble and learned friend has so powerfully put to your Lordships today.

The rule of law is fundamental to the security, liberty and well-being of every citizen in our country, and this Parliament, and your Lordships’ House in particular, has a deep commitment and obligation to secure the rule of law in our country. We have heard that a number of elements are essential to securing this, one of which is to continue to protect an independent judiciary. As part of securing the independence of our judiciary, we must continue to support wholeheartedly the independence of the judicial appointment process. Indeed, since 2005, all political parties have continued to commit to the independence of that process through a continuing commitment to the elements of statute in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the regulations that attend it, which have secured the independence of that process for nearly 20 years.

Beyond the independence of the judiciary, which is secured on the basis of independent judicial appointment, Parliament, and your Lordships’ House in particular, has a second vital responsibility: to ensure that the legislation that eventually lands on the statute book is of the highest quality, and is sufficiently clear in its purpose that the courts can exercise their responsibility to the law and not be forced into excessive interpretation or overinterpretation because of a lack of clarity and appropriate purpose, and therefore applicability, of the laws they have to consider. Failure to provide high-quality legislation has the potential to draw the courts and the broader justice system, and therefore the judiciary, into unnecessary controversy, which could undermine the standing of the judiciary and therefore potentially generate calls for interference in its independence. That could substantially undermine the rule of law, which would be a serious and unfortunate consequence of Parliament not legislating in a properly thoughtful and effective fashion.

In that regard, the scrutinising role of the upper Chamber has a particular importance and resonance. We have heard already in this debate—yesterday from the noble Lord the Leader of the House and then further today—about not only the number of amendments your Lordships had to consider in the previous Session of Parliament, but the number of votes undertaken in this House. This is all absolutely appropriate if we go about it in the right fashion for the right purpose, but it also provides the opportunity to be misunderstood and, in being misunderstood, for the standing of your Lordships’ House to be undermined. If that were to happen, there might be a risk that the quality of future legislation is further diminished and, in a circular way, we start to undermine all those things that are so important to us, to this Parliament and to all our fellow citizens. That must not be allowed to happen.

Inevitably, of course, politics dominates the work of a Parliament, but in that political environment there must be the opportunity not only to undertake appropriate scrutiny of legislation but to propose amendments, and for that to be considered in a constitutional fashion, between two Houses of Parliament, to ultimately deliver the obligation we all have to our fellow citizens.

16:51

[Lord Houchen of High Leven (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

I am humbled to be able to address your Lordships today for the first time. I start by thanking the doorkeepers and the House staff, who have been kind with their assistance and time since my introduction in July. I also thank Black Rod for the support she has given me. Indeed, she told me that she lived in Teesside for many years, which leads me to the suggestion that I always knew to be true, which is that, ultimately, all roads lead back to Teesside.

I also thank probably the most important people: my dear wife Rachel and my family, without whom I would not be where I am today. My final “thank yous” are to my two supporters: my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, who has always been very generous with his time and advice, and my noble friend Lord Wharton, who is a dear friend. I also thank him because he paved the way for devolution within the region that I am from during his time as Northern Powerhouse Minister.

Indeed, I stand before your Lordships today as the directly elected mayor for the Tees Valley, which I feel very proud and lucky to be when I wake up every day. It was not always that way, though. I think it fair to say that, when I was first selected for the candidacy in December 2016, very few people, if anybody, thought I would win that election just four months later. I think my Labour opponent was already measuring the curtains and deciding on the wallpaper. Nowhere is that demonstrated more than by the fact that Ladbrokes had me at 200:1 to win that election. But how things change, and they changed specifically for one reason: we were very clear that we wanted to be bold and ambitious for a region that had been neglected by Governments of both colours for decades and decades before.

I made a very clear promise to save Teesside Airport, using the powers and the money given to me as the directly elected mayor. It was a very clear pledge that raised a lot of eyebrows. We did that because it had been successful as a regional airport. Unfortunately, it was owned by the Peel Group and, aided and abetted by the local Labour councils, it was driven into the ground over many years and was due to be closed. Sadly, colleagues and communities across Doncaster and Sheffield will be very familiar with this story of the Peel Group, aided and abetted by Labour councils. Sadly, they have seen their airport close altogether.

I am pleased to say that, having been elected unexpectedly in 2017, we were able to deliver on that promise to the people of Teesside, Darlington and Hartlepool. We saved Teesside Airport from closure using the powers and money given to me as part of the devolution settlement in 2017, and it has gone from strength to strength. We have not just saved it; it is going gangbusters and doing incredibly well. We are home to the first security scanners in the country that mean, if you ever travel through Teesside Airport, you do not have to take liquids or electronics out of your hand luggage. We were the first in the country for that.

We are also home to the UK hydrogen transport centre. We have opened new cargo facilities, and have seen our highest number of passengers this year for the last 12 years. All that culminated just a few weeks ago in Teesside Airport being named the UK airport of the year by the travel industry. There is no higher accolade.

An important reason for why we were so successful was that this is a very parochial and important issue to people across Teesside, Darlington and Hartlepool. It is also a fantastic case study for what devolution can actually deliver. By having a directly elected and accountable politician who has power and money to decide what is best for their region, who can be held to account by their local population and not have to go back to Whitehall, cap in hand, every single time they want to get something done, saying: “Please can I have some more”, we were able to deliver real change. We delivered change in infrastructure that was going to unlock more investment and a lot more jobs for local people, which is ultimately what this is all about, right? It is about more jobs for local people and putting more money into people’s pockets, so they can look after themselves and their family.

I have always believed that Teesside is a region that, having been neglected for so long, has not had the investment, the infrastructure or the opportunity that many regions— cities in particular—have enjoyed over the last 50 years. My aim was to try and make sure that, with the infrastructure that we put in place and the public money that we spent—whether on the airport, our public transport system, or other infrastructure that we have invested in—we did the most we could to unlock the private investment that ultimately delivers those jobs. I am a firm believer that international investment does not arrive on a bus; it comes through an airport terminal.

We have been able to leverage that as well, because with the powers given to me by the Government, I was also able to establish the first mayoral development corporation outside London, on the former Redcar steelworks site that sadly closed in October 2015, a project that was hugely problematic for the Government. It was hugely damaging to the local community; more than 3,000 people lost their jobs. It was a black hole of taxpayers’ money since 2015; between £16 million and £20 million a year was poured down the drain due to legal complexities with Thai banks, charges and diplomatic issues since the closure, something I hope we will learn from and look towards should we find ourselves in a similar position in the future.

We have been able to turn what was a millstone around Teesside’s neck since the closure into a fantastic opportunity. It is now the largest brownfield site in western Europe. It is home to 14 and a half million square feet of approved planning applications, which means that if people want to come and invest, they can deliver it quickly, with the speed that internationally mobile capital wants to deliver. We also have the deepest river on the east coast of the United Kingdom in the River Tees. All that is overlaid with the UK’s first and largest freeport in Teesside, which I am very proud to have delivered the policy for for this Government, and which could not be delivered if not for the powers that we have taken back as a result of Brexit.

What does that mean to the average person that I represent within my region? It means jobs and investment, and we are seeing that come to fruition. We are already home to what will be the world’s first industrial-scale carbon capture and storage facility, with BP and Equinor jointly investing £1.5 billion in an almost 1 gigawatt gas-fired power plant—decarbonised power that will power 1.3 million homes a year. That is 10 million tonnes of carbon that will be captured and buried under the North Sea in the depleted oil caverns we were once taking carbon from. We are also seeing BP invest in 1.5 gigawatts of hydrogen. Teesside is already home to more than 50% of all the hydrogen production in the UK.

We are seeing SeAH Wind, a large Korean company, make the single largest investment ever by a South Korean company in the UK, building the world’s largest monopile factory. Monopiles will be built in Britain and exported into the North Sea, and will be building wind farms. In the future, no doubt, they will be building wind farms across the world.

All this is possible only because of the powers that we have been given. We need to make sure that this Government and future Governments do not reverse, detract from or slow down what I think is a one-way street. We have to continue with devolution, and trust local people and local politicians to be able to deliver for their areas.

There is a long-standing phrase in Teesside: “We built the world”. From the Sydney Harbour Bridge to the Burj Khalifa, to the Cabinet War Rooms where Winston Churchill helped defeat the Nazis, Dorman Long, a steel company, is imprinted in the steel of all of those buildings. I make no apology for saying that I will use this place, and this very privileged position, to continue to fight for the people of Teesside, Darlington and Hartlepool, and make sure that that phrase is not a part of our past, but that Teesside will build the future once again.

17:00

[Lord Wharton of Yarm (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Houchen of High Leven, not least because he is my friend who now happens to be noble, and it is a pleasure to sit with him on these Benches. We can see already the passion he for has the area of Teesside, the Tees Valley, where he is the directly elected metro mayor. I first encountered him when he was young, idealistic and enthusiastic and joined my campaign team in the run-up to the 2010 general election. In that general election, I was successful in the seat of Stockton South by the narrowest of margins, just as he went on to be successful in 2017 by being elected by an extremely narrow margin as the first metro Mayor of Tees Valley. A matter of weeks later, I was rather less successful when the electorate who had once supported me decided that my time was up, so it is a strange twist of fate to end up sitting next to him here. Whereas my electoral success came to an end, he has managed to combine continued—indeed, increasing—electoral success in Tees Valley with joining us and continuing, as we can all see, to passionately advocate for the area from which we both come.

When I was Northern Powerhouse Minister, I took the then Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill through the Commons. An unexpected benefit was that Tees Valley elected my noble friend as its first metro mayor. When I look back at that time, I do not think anyone in that area would have expected the extent of the achievement and development that has now been delivered, the improvement and transformation that has been possible and the investment that has flowed into an area that very much needed it.

It speaks to the more collegiate nature, sometimes, of this place than what we used to see in the elected politics at the other end of the building that my noble friend Lord Houchen’s promise to save the airport ultimately meant the nationalisation of that airport by him as the directly elected mayor. This policy presented some challenges to Conservative colleagues who found themselves visiting. I remember that the then party chairman, who was coming up for his first visit, rang me to ask whether there were any issues of which he should be aware just after my noble friend had been elected. I pointed out that one of the pledges was the nationalisation of the local airport, at which point he corrected me and said, “No, it’s not. It’s the regionalisation of the airport”. That is the advantage of devolution. It allows us to think outside the box to do what is right for areas in ways that cross lines that sometimes party politics in a national sense do not make quite as easy. It speaks to the importance in devolution of having a directly elected mayor as a figurehead, somebody who can drive that forward and become a spokesperson for their area, and who can, through the passion that they have for the area which they represent, lead and deliver improvements for its people.

That is why I want not just to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Houchen of High Leven but to talk today on devolution, the discussion of devolution which we have already had from some noble Lords and the Government’s agenda for it. When I was the Northern Powerhouse Minister, one of the things I had to do was to travel around the country to persuade local council and local authority leaders that devolution would offer something for their area and that the devolution of powers and the creation of combined authorities would benefit the communities they represented.

The policy of the Government at that time, although not required in the legislation, was that devolution must by necessity come with a directly elected metro mayor. We found that this presented challenges in some areas where local authority leaders saw a directly elected mayor as someone who would compete with their status, authority or power. We found that the idea of a directly elected mayor caused concern because local authority leaders were not sure who that person might be or what party they might represent. I found myself meeting groups of local authority leaders who came up with all sorts of governance proposals which fell short of directly electing an individual to speak for an area and to drive forward the policy of devolution and the powers that would be given to that area. I found myself often having to say in simple terms, “No mayor, no deal”, and it made me rather unpopular with a number of individuals who were against that element of the policy.

The experience since is that areas with devolution and a mayor—a figurehead, a directly elected person, to drive that agenda and be a single point of accountability for those devolved powers—have seen the greatest success. The Tees Valley in Teesside is a superb example of that, but there are others. Many of the mayors have now become nationally known names and individuals who genuinely speak for the areas which they represent. The Government propose to continue a programme of devolution, and there are a number of areas in which new mayors will be created. But there is also, of course, talk of devolution without mayors, or of mayors with limited powers, and of different models that may be considered and put forward.

For what it is worth, my experience has been that, where you get the right mayor, it can make the most significant difference and have the most significant impact. I encourage the Government to look very closely at where it has worked best—Tees Valley being a very good example—and to do everything they can to ensure that, where powers are devolved, it is in a way that also comes with accountability and the point of focus that an elected individual offers. That allows streamlining for businesses that want to invest; the strategic co-ordination that comes from having somebody with a vision for an area who is empowered to drive it forward; and the ability for the sometimes complex disagreements between local authorities to be overcome in the interests of economic growth. I hope that we will see more devolution and see it done in the right way.

There are significant challenges with some local authority boundaries and their inconsistencies—particularly, for example, when it comes to the interaction between police and crime commissioners and directly elected mayors. Where it is possible to do so, I think that combining those roles is a sensible thing. However, it is often not possible because combined authority areas do not entirely overlap with police and crime commissioner boundaries, which makes the electoral reality of merging those roles difficult. This is something the Government would do well to look at, whether that requires the reshaping of combined authorities and police force areas or whatever might be necessary in order to deliver it.

It is with pleasure that I got the chance to congratulate and speak after the maiden speech of my noble friend. I am sure that there will be many more speeches and I am sure that noble Lords will hear much more about the Tees Valley and Teesside and its successes. I am confident that, for as long as my noble friend remains in place there, there will be many more successes and investments to talk about.

17:07

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I too was shocked to hear of the death of Lord Judge. Although I did not know him as well as many others in this House, I always knew how wise and well-informed he was, and that anything he said was worthy of close attention. I know we will certainly miss him.

I congratulate the two maiden speakers. They were two quite different maiden speeches, but both coming, nevertheless, with information and commitment to the future as well as expertise from the past. What I have to say will have some reference to the noble Lord, Lord Houchen. Notwithstanding what he said, I still believe that the UK actually has a problem with governance.

We do not have a written constitution or a codified basic law. Some say that this is a characteristic USP of the UK, and that it is flexible, but it has led to a plethora of different mechanisms introduced by simple majority at the whim of the Government of the day to meet a political need of the time. Even referendums have been used for short-term political ends, rather than because they were in the fabric of our constitution.

Take the components of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland has had devolution off and on since 1922—although it is currently dysfunctional—and Scotland and Wales have had devolution since 1999, but both are different in their powers and elections. In Scotland, the three tiers of government all have radically different electoral systems. London has an assembly and elected mayor, and other regions, such as Teesside, have elected mayors and police and crime commissioners. The pattern is all disorganised. For example, in the 1970s, historic counties, centuries old, were swept away to be replaced by a hodge-podge of counties, districts, and unitary and metropolitan councils—some of which have not survived to today. Leaving the European Union —probably the most radical decision of our age—was determined by a referendum lightly embarked on in the belief that it would be won and with little thought of the historical impact and very few safeguards. We cannot go on like this if we are to sustain a stable and fair system of governance that people across the UK can trust.

I was a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to, and we scrutinised how the devolution settlements could be adapted following the return of powers that had previously been pooled within the EU. “Bringing back control” highlighted the unevenness of the relationships between the constituent parts of the UK. Most of the frameworks developed an elaborate and thorough approach to dispute resolution, although they have not been tested yet. But, without the existence of our committee, common frameworks would, I believe, have progressed little or not at all—they did not have ownership among many Ministers.

In that committee, we also saw a completely different approach to devolution in Scotland and Wales. The Welsh Government want devolution to work but are constantly frustrated by the UK Government neither consulting them nor understanding key areas of difference. The Scottish Government do not believe in devolution; they forget that Scotland has not voted for independence but has voted for devolution twice. Instead, they choose to act as if the country actually were independent, and they then complain when they either do not have the powers or exceed them. Fomenting grievance at every opportunity suppresses any idea of co-operation, let alone recognising that there are separate responsibilities for the UK and Scottish Governments.

All of this is different according to the whims of how it was introduced. As a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that laid out the blueprint for devolution in Scotland, I wanted a Parliament, not an assembly, with substantial powers, including tax raising, and a fair and representative voting system. To be fair, Donald Dewar, the shadow secretary and then Secretary of State for Scotland at the time, was persuaded of much of this. An early draft assigned customs and VAT revenues to the Parliament, but this was crushed by Gordon Brown. I secured a commitment for a more proportional electoral system, but what was adopted has a number of flaws. First, it is not very proportional. It enabled the SNP to secure a majority with a minority vote and it allowed smaller parties to game the system by contesting only the list. I had argued that there should be one vote and the additional members should be based on the outcome of that first vote and allocated accordingly. In other words, to qualify for list seats, a party would have to contest all or most of the seats across a region. The system also had the disadvantage of creating two categories of MSP: constituency and list. I believe that single transferrable vote would work better and, now that it has been tested successfully in Scottish local government elections, would be understood and acceptable to voters.

The customary response to this messy situation is to call for a federal solution, but we are always told that there is no call for that in England. Actually, there is considerable dissatisfaction with the way England is governed, but there is no agreement on how to change it, other than to call for more local decision-making and access to resources. Levelling up involves doing things “to” regions, rather than empowering them to do things for themselves. What I believe is required is for the devolution settlements to be entrenched in law, setting the powers and the resources and preventing this from being changed by a simple majority, rather than, for example, a supermajority of both Houses of Parliament. The strangling of local authorities should be stopped. Successive Governments in England and Scotland have squeezed local government while loading extra powers and responsibilities on to councils, pushing them, literally in some cases, to breaking point.

The UK is rich and diverse in landscape and character, and that is something to celebrate and unlock. I can be proudly Scottish and love, respect and value the differences across the whole of the UK—that is why we have the Scottish nationalists. Devolution should unlock the best, celebrate difference and be protected from wilful interference and control from changing popular or populist whims of passing Governments. Doing it piecemeal is not working and is not the way to secure a future that people can trust and have confidence in.

17:14

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, to the old adage that talk is cheap we might add the observation that legislation need not be much more expensive. Yet in both cases there may be inflationary claims or counterproductive outcomes that undermine liberty, equality and harmony in any society. As a close observer of our justice and home affairs over 28 years, I do not instinctively scoff at an apparently light legislative programme. I should add that I had the privilege of knowing and being advised and encouraged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, over that time; he was a great constitutionalist and a kind man, and I send my condolences to his wife and daughters.

I congratulate both today’s maiden speakers. To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, who has been left such large boots to fill, I say that I know that he will do it with enormous distinction.

There have been too many bad laws in this area over many years. Even finely crafted statutes are no substitute for the public investment that our crumbling justice system so desperately needs, or the moral leadership once provided by some of the greatest senior politicians of yesteryear from both sides of both Houses. Like other noble Lords, I shall of course engage with yet more sentencing, criminal justice and investigatory powers Bills as they come, and I shall seek to work with noble Lords across your Lordships’ House to strengthen protections in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It is particularly good, with that in mind, to see the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in her new and reinstated role. In remembering that the European convention has done more for victims’ rights in our system than any other single instrument, we should seek to remove the current disapplication of the Human Rights Act from that draft measure. I look forward to continuing positive dialogue with the new Lord Chancellor, who has been a relative breath of fresh air to his department.

I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for devoting my remaining minutes to things not explicitly included in His Majesty’s gracious Speech. If a week is a long time in politics, the last month or so has felt at times interminable. In 1960, the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan made his famous Cape Town speech, using the “wind of change” metaphor for both acceptance of decolonisation and disapproval of apartheid in South Africa. How sad that the present Home Secretary should use her recent party conference speech to turn his words of hope into pure populist fear of what she described as the “hurricane” of immigration to come, compared with the “mere gust” that brought her own parents to the United Kingdom.

The subsequent month has been a hellish eternity, I have no doubt, for the families of victims of Hamas butchery and hostage taking, and the besieged and bombarded civilian population of Gaza. No British politician, still less a Home Secretary, can unilaterally ease that distress, which inevitably extends to so many people in our own communities. However, they can at times make things worse—worse by collectively branding 100,000 mostly peaceful people as “hate marchers” in the context of a depressing rise in often non-protest related incidents of hate crime.

They can make things worse by repeatedly and performatively trying to influence or instruct a police service which, in this country at least, is supposed to be independent of government. Surely it is better to appeal to all those understandably moved by events overseas to show their aspirations for peace with calm and sensitive restraint in both conduct and tone—and better to let the Metropolitan Commissioner demonstrate the judiciousness that he has overnight, in watching the intelligence but seeking to allow safe outlets for collective expression, while keeping the King’s peace.

In dark times, they can make things worse by their language around homelessness. Big people and big leaders seek to build big tents, not ban them. That includes the flimsy makeshift shelters used by some of our homeless people—including, to our shame at this time of year, too many military veterans, in the middle of a cost of living and mental health crisis.

Once more, the Home Secretary’s campaigning language is lamentable. The only thing worse than a privileged person branding homelessness a “lifestyle choice” from the comfort of their warm home or office is throwing in yet more anti-immigrant rhetoric for extra spice and blaming the destitute for

“crime, drug taking, and squalor”.

So, how disappointing to read this morning’s reports of a continued push for more criminalisation to replace the Vagrancy Act 1824, which your Lordships voted to repeal so resoundingly and which must go in substance, not just form, before its fast-approaching 200-year anniversary.

Just as the Lord Chancellor’s oath, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, is to respect the rule of law, defend judicial independence and provide adequate court resources, perhaps Home Secretaries could learn from the doctors and swear to “First do no harm”.

17:21

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that during this debate, and indeed all the days of debate that we face on the King’s Speech, we will not hear too much of what we are endlessly told about new legislation and new measures: “This is the biggest and most important new measure in a generation”. We simply have not got enough generations to fulfil that pledge. It is bunkum and I think the Amalgamated Association of Speechwriters and Special Advisers should just cut that out of the lingo that they put in front of innocent Ministers.

The second point I will make is the perfectly obvious one that laws do not necessarily change everything and that when there are new laws, they are not necessarily effective. In some cases, new laws are not going to be effective at all. I take as my best—or worst—example the fact that we have a vanishingly small Jewish population in this country. We have 270,000 Jews in England and Wales out of 58.6 million. Their number is vanishingly small, they are easily identified and they are having a horrible time in what should be a liberal and tolerant country. They are concentrated in a small number of easily targeted urban areas. If there was any other racial group—and they are a racial group—of such a vanishing size, there would be national uproar: in particular, thought leaders from the progressive part of the world would be right there, arguing their case. Where are they? At the moment, the sound of silence is deafening, which I find very hard to take.

What is the use of all that expensive Holocaust education in GCSEs and the rest of it? It is money not well spent, I think. What good, in the end, will expensive new Holocaust museums do, wherever they are put, to right the wrongs that the Jewish community in this country face? I am told that poor whites are often to blame for this. I actually sometimes think that posh whites are, too: dinner-party casual anti-Semitism, the tap on the nose over the second or third course. None of this is going to be stopped by any law; it is going to be stopped by a national will that we no longer wish to have this sort of casual anti-Semitism in our country. We need a new body, or bodies, which I cannot invent, whose job it is to concentrate on re-education and deep education on this point—there are people who should be thinking about this—to remove the stain on the nation and make our vanishingly tiny Jewish minority feel safer, more secure, more welcome and much less inclined to up sticks and leave a country where they are very badly needed.

Lastly, I will look at where laws are not needed because we have lots of laws on the statute book which are not used or should be used more effectively, such as on rough sleepers. I pass rough sleepers all the time around Victoria station and on Victoria Street. Remarkably, we also now see small but increasing numbers of women rough sleepers and clearly battered women on the streets around here. It is on our very doorstep, but we have no effective co-ordination to deal with it—except that, even more shockingly, there is no rough sleeping around the Palace of Westminster or Buckingham Palace. The police, the city council and others dealing with this somehow manage to stop it in these sensitive areas, but a couple of hundred yards down the road it is simply ignored.

I only wish we had someone like Andy Street, magically transferred from the West Midlands to Westminster, because he would be co-ordinating and trying to deal with all this stuff now. Instead, Westminster City Council seems to ignore the subject, and the police are engaged with it around here and Buckingham Palace but not elsewhere. We certainly do not have a mayor of the city of London who seems capable of doing anything to deal with rough sleeping on the streets—he is too busy grandstanding and giving his views on international affairs and not getting down to this issue. We do not need any new laws to deal with it. It is a matter of willpower and organisation, exactly as the Dangerous Dogs Act, which we have forgotten about since 1991, will do so much now that it has been brought back in to deal with attacks on people. That Act was forgotten but it has been there for a generation.

17:27

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I too will miss Lord Judge keenly. He was so wise and encouraging, and such fun. I wish we had longer, because I would like to pursue the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, about casual racism, but I will not at this moment.

We have become accustomed, particularly in home affairs, to legislation being used to send messages. It does not always mean that something will be done, although inflammatory messages do something in themselves —they inflame. I hope—not in vain, I hope—that in this Session we will see the Government focus on walking in the shoes of those whom their legislation and messages affect.

I want to mention something that is unlikely to get any other mention today. There is a growing rhetoric about the need for the police to focus on “fighting crime”. I am not suggesting that it is not important to prevent and reduce crime. Of course it is. However, whether it is appropriate to do so by creating new offences or for the Government to tell the courts precisely what penalties to impose is another matter. The rhetoric sometimes includes the suggestion that, for the police to be effective and productive, some issues should be removed from the policing agenda or at any rate downgraded.

I must declare an interest. I am on an advisory board for the charity Missing People. We are worried that it would be all too easy for a policing response to someone going missing to slip down the agenda. There seem to be rumours to that effect. When someone goes missing, a lot of people—particularly that person’s family —are affected, so this is relevant to the topical issue of trust in the police, as well as important in itself.

The police are the only agency that has particular powers, resources and skills to find missing people and help them to safety. More than a thousand people died while missing in 2021-22; deaths have increased by 40% in the past five years. Missing reports are often related to crime, either as a cause or because the person is victimised while away. This is very stark in the case of children: so many are victims of sexual and criminal exploitation. For adults, missing can be an indicator of exploitation, trafficking, modern slavery, or a warning sign of escalating domestic abuse. I do not suggest that responsibility lies with the police alone, but the police are in a very particular position. All public services face huge pressures, but we must not introduce policies which allow vulnerable people to fall through the gaps by reducing the policing response, or that design people out of support. Success in this area may not grab the headlines, but that does not reduce its significance. I thought the Minister would be asked dozens of questions today. I am not sure that he has been yet, but mine is to ask for an assurance that he has heard this point.

As with so many situations, it is essential to address the underlying causes of criminality, which goes as well for something which is not criminal such as homelessness. This is something that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I chair, is currently looking at in respect of community sentences—the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Blunkett, have trailed this. It is welcome that this has risen up the Government’s agenda, and I hope we can encourage better use of community orders. In “better”, I include tailoring the order to the individual offender whose real need is mental health, or substance abuse treatment, or education, and supporting them to the point where a chaotic life can be sorted out. This requires treatment to be available, and probation officers in sufficient numbers and with sufficient experience. This should be the lens, not just a way to reduce the prison population.

The committee recently met Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner for London. She said:

“There is a misconception that all victims want really long sentences for their offenders and that is all they are calling for. Actually, many just want the offenders to stop, and to be reassured that no one else will be harmed by that individual”.


Vera Baird, who was the national Victims’ Commissioner, talked about how victims, who are also often witnesses, are treated as almost incidental:

“The existence of the adversarial system … means that the focus is on the defendant”.


She went on to say that victims need to be told

“that they are a valuable citizen and that the nation cares about them”.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, is speaking today, with her role as interim or new Victims’ Commissioner—I do not know how to describe her position because I certainly do not want to call her a retread. She will speak for many of us when she reminds the House, as I am sure she often will over the next few months, that the Victims and Prisoners Bill must not let prison policy eclipse the interests of victims. No doubt the Bill will be a principal focus for the House in the legislative programme.

17:33

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to send my condolences to Igor Judge’s family. We were undergraduates together at Cambridge 60 years ago, and I shall of course be writing.

This has been a wide-ranging debate with some quite remarkable contributions from all sides. For my part, I intend to confine my remarks to a single topic: sadly, it is one that this House is rather reluctant to address, namely the sheer scale of current net migration and its very serious implications for the future of our country. The present Government have deliberately permitted immigration to increase despite all their promises to the contrary. They meanwhile seek to divert public discussion to cross-channel asylum seekers, a problem which they know also infuriates the public.

But the fact is that legal immigration is about eight or 10 times the scale of illegal immigration and now carries many serious risks for the future tranquillity of our society. All population growth now arises from immigration, which since 1995 has accounted for nearly two-thirds of additional households. Indeed, last year’s unprecedented net inflow of just over 600,000 has resulted in huge pressure on housing and many other fields. The consequences continue to fall particularly on the younger generation, yet the connection with immigration is practically never mentioned.

Looking ahead, if we assume that births continue at the rather low present rate, and even if overall net migration is reduced to, say, 450,000 a year—very high by historical standards—the population of the UK would increase in the next 25 years or so by about 11 million, to 78 million. On reasonable expectations, that would be the equivalent of building nearly 10 cities the size of our second largest city, Birmingham. That is absolutely massive in all respects: housing, roads, transport, the whole lot. Indeed, if this rate of immigration is allowed to continue, 50 years from now the white British could well become a minority in their own country. Indeed, unless migration, the chief determinant, falls considerably, something of this kind will be inevitable. In younger generations, that new situation would arrive sooner, and white British children would become a minority in UK state schools in 20 years or so.

As Prime Minister, David Cameron saw some of the dangers ahead. In 2010, he said:

“We cannot continue to permit vast numbers of people to come to the UK and tell them that they do not need to integrate … and maintain certain values and ideas that are at odds with British values”.


He was exactly right. Only last month, the commissioner for countering extremism said the following:

“Allowing people to maintain parallel lives in our communities, without being part of our communities, has produced and will continue to produce … people committed to … undermining our values. The hatred that we have witnessed in recent days … is not only a cause for alarm among the Jewish community. It must be a wake-up call for … all decent people”.


Surely the first step must be to reduce substantially the scale of immigration to the UK. Nothing else will persuade the public that migration is being brought under control, that the very serious pressure on housing and on so many other areas will be reduced, and that they will not find themselves living in an unfamiliar country.

17:38

[The Earl of Arran (Con)]

First, I apologise to the House for not being able to be here at the end of today’s proceedings.

It is now nearly 20 years since your Lordships convened a Select Committee, of which I was a privileged member, on draft legislation on assisted dying. Three Bills have been debated at Second Reading during that time, two of which passed but were unable to progress in Committee. It is obvious that there cannot be progress on this subject unless and until the Government are willing to make time available for this legislation. A Private Member’s Bill is not up to the job alone.

The Sexual Offences Act, introduced into your Lordships’ House by my late father, would not have passed into law without the tacit support of the Government of the day, and nor would the Abortion Act. Neither of these great Acts is perfect, but nor is humanity itself. Society of that time wanted them to happen, and eventually the Government pushed them through on to the statute book.

Last week, the House of Keys in the Isle of Man voted, by 17 votes to seven, to grant a Second Reading to Dr Alex Allinson’s Assisted Dying Bill. As one would expect, there were many who voted for the legislation who insisted that their support was conditional on the Bill getting its safeguards right. That is of course the right approach, and there will undoubtedly be a long and fruitful discussion as to how the law should operate and how to ensure it can be done as safely as possible. The opportunity properly to scrutinise legislation and ensure it works for the British public has been denied to us in this House due to lack of time. Surely that cannot be right.

It is not just those in the Isle of Man who see progress where we do not. The Scottish Parliament is drafting legislation, which will be subject to much scrutiny there. The Government of Jersey are consulting widely and thoroughly on the issue but have confirmed that they will bring forward proposals for legislation next year. Beyond our borders, the Irish Parliament and the French Government are also exploring how to legislate on assisted dying, and we will see progress in both places early next year. It is, therefore, profoundly disappointing that the processes of this House have not allowed for such a debate to continue here.

With over 80% of the public wanting a change in the law, I ask your Lordships: whither good sense, whither justice, whither democracy, whither kindness and compassion? We need to break this deadlock, for it is the strong wish of the British people.

17:41

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to contribute to this debate and to have heard so many excellent speeches, including the two excellent maiden speeches. It is a shame that it is tinged by sadness at the death of Lord Judge, but it has been an excellent debate so far.

I shall respond to only one previous speaker. I gently suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that, if there were 8,000 amendments, of which 2,400 came from the Government, it is stretching matters a little bit to complain that, on 125 of them, there were votes that the Government lost. I suggest to him that perhaps this House is doing what it should do at about the right intensity.

I entered your Lordships’ House eight years ago, and during that time I have seen no fewer than five Prime Ministers in office—although there have actually been six Administrations, because we had a caretaker one last year, with its own set of Secretaries of State and Ministers. It has been a turbulent period, with plenty of policy zig-zags, and this King’s Speech introduces another few. But this time, we are told, it is not by accident because it is deliberately setting off in a new policy direction for the Prime Minister.

I want to speak today on the devolution policy option. I start by pointing out that, in the eight years that I have been in this House, the department responsible for devolution in England has gone through three name changes, seven changes of Secretary of State and 12 different Housing Ministers. No other government policy area has had so many zig-zags. That is exemplified by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in the last Session, which was introduced in May 2022 and gained Royal Assent only in October 2023—17 months, four Administrations and three Prime Ministers later. During the passage of that Bill, local housing targets started off mandatory under one Prime Minister, were denounced by the second as Stalinist and are now said to be only advisory by the third. And still no one knows how the Government propose that levelling up and regeneration are to be measured, let alone how they are to be paid for.

Instead, we have another zig—or maybe another zag—with the gracious Speech talking of the Government’s priority being addressing inflation

“over demands for greater spending or borrowing”.

Your Lordships can take that as a pretty broad hint that any levelling-up funding announced is more likely to be taken—reshuffled—from existing budgets, rather than providing the extra billions needed to make a real impact.

We got a taste of that with the boastful announcement last month that, in compensation for the cancellation of the high-speed train link to the north-west, a brand-new tram link for Manchester Airport would be built. That tram link had already been built and had run successfully for years, but the Government had not noticed and simply reannounced it. Afterwards, by way of excuse, Ministers explained that the airport link had only been illustrative of the many benefits that would come from the cancellation of high-speed rail.

In so many ways, I fear that they were right: the airport tram link is indeed illustrative, but not in the way that Ministers intended. In particular, it is illustrative that the benefits announced or prefigured in the King’s Speech came in two different categories. On the one hand, there are the things that were going to happen anyway—or even, as in the case of the airport tram, things that have already happened; on the other hand, all the other items announced in the King’s Speech—or via the huge pile of press releases or in ministerial sound- bites—are not best described by the word “illustrative” so much as by the word “illusory”. There is neither the money nor the time for any of them to happen, even if—and it is a rather big “if”—there is a willingness in Downing Street to achieve them. Downing Street is not only the Prime Minister but the Chancellor. So what weight should we give to the commitment in the gracious Speech that the

“Government will deliver a long-term plan to regenerate towns and put local people in control of their future”?

I want to hear what the Minister, in replying to this debate, has to offer us on that.

With no money to spend and no time to spend it, what are we to expect from the Government instead? Will there be more legislation, such as a LUR Bill 2.0? Obviously not, as the Government do not have 17 months, which seems to be the standard time for that sort of Bill to take. Can the Minister tell us exactly what will come? Will it be money for devolution? No, the Chancellor will not give that. Will there be time for devolution? No, the calendar will not give that. Will he introduce a very small LUR-style Bill—a LUR Bill 1.1, not 2.0—as a token Bill to fit some headlines? Surely not, and I think it would reassure noble Lords to hear that he has no such plan—I do not think that we could take the excitement of a second Bill. That seems to leave only miracles and dreams on offer, which makes me wonder why on earth the Government thought that it was a good idea to put devolution on the Order Paper in the first place.

17:48

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome some of the measures in the King’s Speech relating to crime, particularly on RIPA and regulatory powers, and on the sentencing for serious offences. Although I stand by my position, which I stated the other day, that there is still space for having far fewer people in prison, I think we would all agree that, for serious offences, we need to take serious measures.

I will refer to two contemporary issues, which therefore may be a bit contentious. First, I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of a review of the law surrounding firearms officers. This brave and fearless few—who, on behalf of 66 million people, stand forward to take on people who are armed or otherwise so dangerous—deserve our support. They very rarely discharge their firearms, but, when they do, they are under inquiry for years—that cannot be right. It is right that they are held to account, but not for years. I hope that this review will have far more success that the review I instigated with the support of the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, which took two years to make absolutely no changes at all. I hope that this one will be bold and quick.

My second area of contemporary concern is around protest. We all know that there is a real challenge, for both politicians and the police, in deciding whether to ban a march—it is never easy and very rarely done. I was the commissioner when we did it twice, even though for 60 years it had never been done. It was to do with the EDL protesting outside mosques, and I remain convinced that it was the right thing for everybody involved.

However, these are difficult decisions trying to balance the right to protest against the problem of serious disorder. The discussions around this topic should take place privately, not publicly; otherwise, the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, around the judiciary might transfer itself to the operational independence of the police, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred earlier. I worry that the pressures being placed on the police at the moment do not always form wise judgments in the end. So it is important that these important discussions take place privately and observe the process, which is that the police call for politicians to make the decision, not that politicians call on the police to make the request, even though there is an element of both in the private discussions. It is vital that those conventions are respected.

My final comments are around hoping that in the King’s Speech there would be more strategic alignment in some of the proposals. It could have been about repeat victims, repeat offenders or repeat locations. It could have been a way to prioritise resourcing. It could have been about targeting prevention. I have talked here before about having statutory duties, in the way that fire does. Things are designed not to burn. Why do we not design cars not to be stolen? A good point was made about devices but, unfortunately, I doubt that that would be entirely successful, given the fact that these devices are available online from abroad; a large number of them already exist. So it is a good start, but it is vital to get the design of things and places right. It is one element of prevention, including drugs, alcohol, young people and education, to which we do not have a strategic approach.

Secondly, I welcome the Home Secretary’s requirement for the police to attend burglaries. My only concern is that it does not go far enough. It would not be a bad idea for them to attend all crimes, because I can guarantee that, if you do not go to a crime scene, you will not detect it. To all those who say that it is not possible, I say this: even in London, there are on average four crimes per hour per borough. There are not 10,000 crimes an hour. Shoplifting is just one symptom of a deeper malaise, I am afraid, because it also affects car crime. People are not getting attendances. People are not gathering evidence that is there; they are trying to make a decision over the phone about whether any evidence will be collected. In my view, that is not wise, so I do think it is possible for that convention to be extended rather than restricted.

Noble Lords may think that my next point is tactical, and some may regard it as novel and unfair. Is it not about time that cyclists became more accountable for their bad behaviour? I do not know whether it is an age thing, but I find it really annoying, when you are using a zebra crossing or a pedestrian crossing of any type, or there is a red light, and all the vehicles stop and you are trying to make your way through the traffic but cyclists just ignore the law and go through. Think about the number of times we must all have seen or experienced this threat and, sadly, sometimes an injury.

One thing that has sparked my interest in this is a barrister who contacted me. I had never met the guy before, but he was having real trouble with a police investigation. He had a spiral fracture of a leg as a result of being hit on a crossing, when there was a green light for him, by a cyclist. The trouble he had trying to get some investigation or outcome was pretty awful. That is a symptom of a deeper malaise. It is not easy to put a long registration plate on a cycle—we all get that—but there has to be a clever way of holding cyclists to account, through either insurance or other things. The time has come for this to be placed on the agenda, so that people take seriously the safety of other people, particularly pedestrians.

My final point is around technology. I would have liked to have heard a little more about strategic intervention around crime involving technology. The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, may talk later about facial recognition; there is a fair debate to be had about how far that should go. There are great opportunities there, including, for example, body-worn video having more facial recognition, which would make stops and searches far more accurate. If I know that somebody is on bail for carrying a knife, it will make that intervention far more accurate than me asking, “What’s your name? Where do you live?”, which indicates that I do not know who the hell they are and why I am stopping them.

Finally, I will mention something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, mentioned: tagging. To get it on an industrial scale would be good. The Government may not be aware that the product of that tagging goes to a commercial company and there is no live monitoring by the police. It takes an email 24 hours to get to the police indicating that somebody has breached a tag and was at the scene of a crime—not a very wise idea when it is capable of being far better than that.

Those are my points about the King’s Speech. As much as I think that there are some good points in it, it could have said more.

17:54

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am shocked and saddened by the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He was a lovely man. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Houchen, on their maiden speeches, which were impressive in different ways. They will soon be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, whom we will, I am sure, be equally impressed by. If noble Lords will forgive the informality: “Good luck, Shaun”.

I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police Service. My role in the police is to be an independent adviser, but I do not intend to stop sharing my experience of policing with this House, nor waste the weeks—perhaps months—that I have spent in this House debating police-related legislation.

A Liberal Democrat Peer whom I respect and admire told me not to comment on the situation in the Middle East unless I had been there and experienced both sides. I have not been. All I will say is that it is a truly dreadful situation with many innocent victims and no easy or universally acceptable solution. Jewish friends around the House have been incredibly supportive of me personally this year; I offer them my support on a personal level at this distressing time.

Against this backdrop, the police have been accused time after time both of undermining freedom of speech and assembly and of not enforcing the law against demonstrators. I was one of a small cadre of advanced-trained senior officers in public order policing. In my experience, when compared with a peaceful protest, the police need about five times as many officers to enforce conditions on protesters who do not want to follow them and 10 times as many officers to enforce a ban on a procession that participants are determined to engage in. The police operate in the real, unpredictable world.

We should not forget the lessons of the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil at Clapham Common, where front-line police officers were placed in an invidious position when senior police officers decided to enforce a ban on the protest during Covid lockdown. What the police cannot do, and will not do, is make judgments based on the merits of the cause of the demonstrators, as many Government Ministers have rushed to do. What the police will focus on is the preservation of the peace.

In 1981, in his report on the Brixton disorders, Lord Scarman explicitly prioritised peacekeeping over law enforcement. Arresting offenders in the middle of a mass demonstration can create disorder: documenting, identifying and subsequently arresting those involved is often the best solution, albeit that the police appear not to be taking action at the time. There will always be political activists and hostile foreign actors who seek to exploit peaceful protests to create unrest, using those who wish peacefully to express their genuinely held concerns as cover for their criminal activities. That is where the police and the intelligence services work together to try to identify, isolate and take action —sometimes pre-emptively—to prevent breakaway groups causing violence and disruption.

The circumstances in which the police can ask the Home Secretary to ban a march are set down in law and are extremely limited. It is only if the imposition of conditions on a procession is unlikely to prevent serious public disorder that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis can make an application to the Secretary of State, under Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986, to ban all public processions or classes of public procession in a particular area for a limited time. That is a very high bar and a draconian imposition. If the Government believe that the bar is set too high before a ban can come into effect, it is for them to ask this House and the other place to lower it through legislation; it is not for politicians to criticise the police for failing to ask for a ban in circumstances in which the law does not allow it.

There is a worrying trend currently where polarising issues are being exploited not just by fringe elements but by politicians holding senior positions in government, leaving the police to deal with the fallout. Where in the gracious Speech are the measures or the rhetoric designed to reduce the political temperature and to promote peaceful co-existence here in the United Kingdom? All of us have a responsibility to ensure that we do not further inflame already difficult situations, no matter what our personal political ambitions may be.

Having said that, I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments this afternoon, following a meeting with Sir Mark Rowley, that freedom is the right to peacefully protest.

18:00

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to address this House for the first time. I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their warm welcome in my first few days here. I also thank the staff teams, particularly the ever-helpful Anna Stockwell and, of course, the doorkeepers, with their supernatural ability to discern when I am lost.

I stand among your Lordships today as the grandson of immigrants, the sole surviving son of my single-parent mother. We lost my brother to the scourge that is alcoholism. The journey that led me from the small bedroom that I shared with my brother in my granddad’s house to this auspicious House has been long and sometimes arduous. It was a journey made possible only by the unwavering support of my mum, Carmen Rose, and the continued support of my wife, beloved Elinor. Of course, there is the challenge of my extended family and my community, who have always pushed me to do better.

This journey has been marked by many a trial—finding out that I am dyslexic and having to start my education all over again felt like a backward step. I was homeless and sofa-surfing for many years, eventually being rescued by my Aunty Norma. I had long periods of being unemployed. I could not find a job. Being unemployed is terrifying, but it teaches you a lot about self-determination and resilience.

It has not all been struggle. In my 30-plus years of youth and community work, I have had the privilege of chairing the Pepper Pot Day Centre and being a co-founder of the MyGeneration youth project. I have been able to live, work and serve in some of the most diverse communities, in London and across the world. That has been a great pleasure. Being part of the cadet movement has been a big part of my life, which culminated in me being made an honorary colonel for the Royal Fusiliers, an honour that I will always cherish. One of the most pivotal moments was finding my Christian faith, at St. Mary’s Bryanston Square. I am so thankful to my church community then and now.

Life for me has been a journey of tough lessons, varied experiences and good people, which has left an indelible mark on my convictions and beliefs. When I look back over my life, I see that it could have followed a very different path had it not been for some of the people that I had met in my formative years—Colonel Connolly from the ACF, my gymnastics coaches, Lisa and Maria, and of course, my youth mentor, Baron Hulme. Those people inspired me to make the right decisions, the right choices, to avoid the ever- present spectre of crime which consumed many of my contemporaries.

Crime is a destructive force. It tears apart communities. It stifles social progress. In areas riddled with crime, the uptake of educational opportunities diminishes, job prospects disappear and social cohesion weakens. It becomes an immense challenge to focus on your studies when there is the ever-present danger of being murdered. The allure of crime is often far easier than the hard pursuit of GCSEs and A-levels. Measures coming up in the business of the Government to tackle knife crime are welcome, but it must be remembered that addressing crime is an issue for a wider section of society and not just the law, the judiciary and the police. Over 30 years of youth work and toiling in many different communities, I have learned this: the antidotes to crime are inspiration and opportunity, family and security, rights and responsibilities. Aspiration comes from teaching young people their responsibilities as well as their rights. We often speak to our young people about their rights. How much do we speak to them about their responsibilities? It is important to say to young people, “The world does not owe you a living, but we do owe you a chance”. From education and training to home ownership, we must demonstrate to young people that we have a future for them that is within their grasp.

That brings me to family. Family is the much-underrated solution to a myriad of our social problems. We must empower communities to nurture and support their own children. We must not treat deprived communities as if they have no agency of their own. Developing that agency is where sustainable crime reduction, social mobility and social progress come from. It is not only about parachuting professionals in to manage struggling families.

The work of this House has never been more important, more crucial. As public discourse becomes more and more divisive, we must not lose the ability to parlay with people of different beliefs. We must not lose the ability to have nuanced debate. As the Bible states in the book of Matthew:

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand”.


The attitude to counter this is encapsulated in a Jamaican greeting—brace yourself if you are taking notes. That greeting is “Wah gwaan”. For those who are not steeped in Jamaican patois, the best translation that I can offer is “What is going on?” In this context, it means, “We must have ears to hear people who have different beliefs to us”. We must not always seek to convert people to our own beliefs and sell them the latest social trend.

If we are to help this country to prosper, which I believe all here want, we must do this. I stand before you now with a fervent commitment to social mobility, to the betterment of our nation, and I implore us all to do our part to fulfil that responsibility and uphold the strength of our beloved country. Our young people need us. The future of this nation needs us. We must stand together and demonstrate to young people the value and the history of this country. Let us remember that our young people are assaulted every day by images telling them that Britain is a horrible place. I am here to play my part in letting them know that this is the best place, this is God’s place, this is the country that will help them to prosper, and this is the country that will help the world to answer some of its own problems. We need to be the leaders in that conversation.

18:08

[Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and my noble friend Lord Houchen on their excellent maiden speeches, and my old and noble friend Lord Bailey, who I am delighted to see joining us on these Benches. We got to know each other through our politics, carried out largely in west London. I first saw him on “Newsnight” on television one evening and was immediately struck by his impressive performance. He talked about his interest in family and community and how that had affected his political beliefs. We then found ourselves politically following each other around London. In the 2010 election, he fought in Hammersmith and I fought in Ealing Central and Acton—both of us, obviously, for the Conservative Party. Like me— I had also once been on the London Assembly—he went on to serve on the London Assembly with distinction and later stood as our Conservative mayoral candidate. I very much enjoyed listening to his maiden speech today. It absolutely sums up this man’s great beliefs. It is why I am so proud to know him. I look forward to hearing many more such speeches in this place.

I will focus on some of the very important crime and justice measures being considered by the Government, some of which were mentioned in the gracious Speech. These can make a really positive difference to the delivery of justice in this country. I firmly believe that society as a whole is damaged by every crime. Clearly, the immediate victims of crime have our deepest sympathy, as do their families and local communities. But beyond that, crime wounds us all and there is a need to heal that wound by making sure we all feel that justice is being done.

In particular, we have learned of an important new proposal to give judges the power to order a serious offender to attend court to hear their sentence. Refusal to appear for sentencing could incur a penalty of further time in prison. It will be made clear that, in appropriate circumstances, some force could be used by prison and court staff to bring them to the courtroom. It is absolutely right that not only the grieving family and friends but the wider community can witness the sentence being imposed and the appropriate punishment applied. The convicted offenders may also have to listen not only to the sentence but to the impact statement from the victims of their crime, laying out the awful effects of what they did. To see them face up to what they did can help the healing process to start for us all.

However, I have just one question that my noble friend the Minister may be able to help me with: has there been discussion about the viability of this proposal with the judiciary, and court and prison staff? Can it be made to work even if some prisoners seriously try to resist being brought back to court? Do the victims of the crime want them back in court or could the offenders’ behaviour prove even more upsetting? This would have to be taken into account, although I believe the public will be disappointed if this is not enforced where appropriate.

Two other proposals under consideration also have my support. Those convicted of the most serious murder charges will face a whole life sentence behind bars and convicted rapists will also serve their entire sentence in prison, except under special circumstances.

I also welcome consideration of prison sentences for repeat offences, such as shoplifting, burglary, theft and common assault. There is a growing concern about the breakdown of law and order in our communities; we heard some of that from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe. Shoplifting is becoming rife in shops and supermarkets. Again, new proposals are reassuring that such crimes will no longer be viewed as almost worth ignoring. They will certainly require more attention to be given to them by local police forces, and local communities will welcome this.

Finally, I am very supportive of more consideration of community sentencing for offenders involved in minor crime. As we have heard, it has been found that prison sentences of less than 12 months often lead to higher reoffending rates than longer terms. So a focus on intense community work, strictly controlled and monitored by GPS tags, with dedicated support by local community services, can give these offenders real chances to make amends and stay out of prison.

Of course, I recognise that some of the proposals I have mentioned may well lead to a bigger prison population. The Government are already seeking extra prison space in other countries, providing it meets our standards, because we need more. They are also investing in a huge prison expansion programme here for the future. It is also just possible that some of the proposals I have been discussing to toughen up the penalties for crime in this country could help to reduce our prison population in the longer term.

18:13

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my sadness at the passing of Lord Judge, whose fierce intellectual clarity and moral integrity I so greatly admired. I also congratulate the three maiden speakers and draw attention to my interests, as set out in the register, especially those relating to private security.

The Covid inquiry continues to reveal the machismo, in-fighting and incompetence of recent Governments. Only this morning, the inquiry heard the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, describe the Government in 2020 as feral, “brutal and useless”. This is even stronger language than I would use. I assume that is why the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers repeatedly speak in headlines to try to gain the approval of the popular press, when they are delivering little on the ground.

As a consequence, prisons are full to bursting. Prisoners have to be released early or transferred to serve their sentences in the community. The services that these offenders so desperately need—drug and alcohol facilities, and mental health facilities—are in short supply and are hugely oversubscribed. What is there in the King’s Speech to help these prisoners?

Criminal cases are piling up: more than 75,000 cases are awaiting trial, which is an all-time record. There are nearly 2,500 rape cases awaiting trial, and the average waiting time is three and a half years. Can you imagine the stress that causes? The justice system is disintegrating before our eyes and the measures outlined in the King’s Speech will not rescue it.

For me, the most worrying aspect of the profound disconnect between central government and what is being delivered on the ground relates to public security and protection, on which I will focus. There is a measure that should be in the King’s Speech but, worryingly, is not there.

For years, I have been pointing out that there are now more than twice as many private security officers patrolling our streets, shopping centres and buildings as there are police officers. That means that, in a crisis or terrorist attack, the first line of defence will be a lone security officer. Given the current tensions on our streets and the persistent warnings of terrorist activity, from Iran and other nations as well as young would-be terrorists in their bedrooms, it is imperative that these security officers are effectively trained and deployed. If we are lucky, they will be. They will work for a known security company, update their training, be at least on minimum wage and be effectively deployed. But, if we are unlucky, those security officers will work for an obscure company no one has ever heard of, which put in the lowest tender to get the work. They might be a subcontractor. The officer may have little or no training and could be paid well below minimum wage—perhaps cash in hand. They will be bored, disaffected and not effectively deployed at all.

The young people visiting the Manchester Arena in 2017 were unlucky. No security officer or CCTV operator noticed the suicide bomber when he was pacing up and down, or saw him place his bomb. Since that time, a major inquiry has investigated what went wrong and what lessons need to be learned. After exhaustive evidence sessions, the judge, Sir John Saunders, issued a number of recommendations. Two of the main ones were that, as well as individual security officers being licensed, so should CCTV in-house operatives and security companies. The security industry generally welcomed and supported those recommendations. Even the Home Office, in 2017, seemed to support the licensing of companies. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that

“keeping people safe is my most important responsibility”,

but, to their shame, the Government have not yet responded to Sir John’s two recommendations.

This summer, at the final session of the Manchester inquiry, Sir John asked the Home Office representative point-blank why regulation of private security companies and in-house CCTV operators had not yet been implemented. The answer was that the regulatory burden was too great and the Government are instead focusing on implementing Martyn’s law to protect premises against terrorism. A draft Bill was introduced earlier this year to be scrutinised by the Commons Home Affairs Committee, which looked at it and dismissed it as not fit for purpose. In other words, the Government are once again speaking in headlines but failing to deliver measures on the ground that would actually make a difference.

I ask the Minister: does an alleged regulatory burden really outweigh public safety? A serious Government would have announced in this King’s Speech a Bill to implement Sir John Saunders’ recommendations as a matter of urgency. But this is not a serious Government. They license pedicabs but will do little to protect those attending concerts or other major events in the next few months. Therefore, far from enhancing our security, this Government seem intent on undermining it. That is why so many people have lost confidence in them—not just on these Benches but, I have to say, on others as well.

18:20

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. I congratulate our three maiden speakers today, and I look forward to hearing from them in the future. I also echo the tributes to Lord Judge; he will be sorely missed. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

A journalist noted yesterday that this was the longest monarch’s speech since 2005, but the lightest in content for possibly even longer. It feels partly like a refresher on things in the 2019 manifesto that have not been achieved, and partly an inkling, perhaps, of what will be in the Conservative Party manifesto at the next election.

I will briefly comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It is dangerous, almost a false equivalence, to look at pure statistics. We all know the adage about lies, damned lies and statistics. Our Cross-Benchers and Bishops add real value to our House, but, when we push them to vote later on in a Bill, they absolutely say to us, “No, it is getting too political, and we will stand back”. Very occasionally, they might vote at an early stage of ping-pong, but no further. That is because they, unlike many of us, understand that their role is not political. But they, like every Member of this House, recognise that our role is to scrutinise legislation, regardless of which party is in government, and to help improve it. I, for one, welcome their tabling and voting on amendments, whether they vote with my side or not.

The rail reform Bill says that it will “improve focus on customers through specific accessibility and freight duties”. This would not be the first time that people with disabilities have been lumped in with the baggage, but I am concerned that it is an afterthought in this Bill, not least because the 700,000 people who responded to the consultation on ticket closures have finally been listened to by government. I look forward to seeing the detail of the Bill. I hope we are not going back to the luggage vans.

There are a couple of missed opportunities that we need to comment on. It is a shame that the conversion practices Bill has not appeared. That was in the Conservative manifesto and is really important: conversion therapy is a form of torture with no place in our society. All the debates on television over the last few days assume that it is a complex issue. It is not, and that is why I hope it will appear in the future.

The other real shame is the mental health Bill. It is long overdue, because it was due to outlaw powers to detain those with autism and learning disabilities in secure units. The parliamentary Joint Committee report gave it cross-party support. This was a key manifesto pledge, and I do not understand why it has not happened. There is a further knock-on to the subjects we are discussing today. The pressure on mental health of having people locked up for 20 years for no reason at all means that valuable resources are diverted, which may be one of the reasons why we have some other pressures in our system.

Others have commented there has not been a royal commission on criminal justice. I regret that too, but I will spend the last couple of minutes talking briefly about the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, back in her place as the Victims’ Commissioner; I know that I will enjoy working with her again. She understands better than most people what it is to be a victim. The problem with the victims Bill, as my noble friend Lord Marks pointed out, is that we still do not have a statutory duty for the agencies that work with victims to provide those services. It is really important that this Bill is strengthened. It is vital that it is more than just what was in the original Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which has completely failed to deliver for victims.

I will also briefly mention stalking. I was stalked for two and a half years by my Conservative political opponent, who was given a 12-month suspended prison sentence. That was one of the reasons why, when I came into your Lordships’ House, one of my first achievements as a member of the all-party group on stalking was stalking law reform. Non-domestic violence stalking is a scourge and every time I talk about it in your Lordships’ House, a Member comes and tells me about their own experience. I do not understand why it has not been included.

We will have other suggestions to strengthen the victims Bill, but there is one other missed opportunity in Part 2. It is notable that, despite the Government proposing an independent adviser for victims of major incidents and disasters, the victims themselves will not be covered by the code because a criminal act has to have caused such an incident. I am afraid that there are major incidents such as floods and other disasters in which people are killed as a result, and they are still victims and still need that support, so I will be pushing to make sure that they and others are recognised. Indeed, there are problems with the family courts as well.

I do not want to end without thanking the Government for at least bringing the Bill forward. But as I said at the outset, it would be really good for this House to give them some advice on improving it.

18:26

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, it is quite impossible to speak, particularly in relation to criminal justice, without saying what an immense loss we have all suffered by the death of Lord Judge. His contribution to the criminal justice system throughout his whole working life was immeasurable. He was my immediate predecessor. I am sure we will learn over the coming days, as we discuss this Bill, how deep that loss will be.

I will say something about money in a minute, but I must also say a word about my immediate successor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the others who made their maiden speeches. He was absolutely right to speak so eloquently about the immeasurable contribution that justice makes to our society and how we must keep it at the centre of it. He will bring immense experience, knowledge and wisdom to this House and, particularly with the death of Lord Judge, that experience will be invaluable.

I will not speak at length about devolution—in this part of the debate, there are too many things I am interested in—but I will say two things. First, I very much hope that what the Government set about doing over the last few months on what I would call devolution to the nations, which is quite different from devolution in England, will continue. There was much better progress, with much less to have to fight about—but fight about it I will if they go back to their old ways.

Secondly, I had the privilege of looking at how the justice system works in Wales, which was the first time it had been properly looked at since the reign of Edward I. I hope the Government will look at the chapter in our report, published in 2019, on criminal justice, because it brought home the central point I wish to speak about. But first, I must say how fortunate we are in our new Lord Chancellor—he has new ideas—and how fortunate he is in being helped by technology. But, in this last period of this Parliament, we must look very closely at what the Government propose, because if it is wrong, the next Government, whoever they are, will pay a heavy price. If the reforms do not work, they will make the position worse.

My experience over the last 20 years of dealing with sentencing, putting people into prison and giving them community sentences is that at the root cause of all the issues is the absolute essential of getting the money right. It is very difficult to try to work out where the money is coming from. I assume, from what one can discern, that there will be no reduction in the overall prison population—why otherwise would we send people overseas—so I need not take time on that. However, I want to take a moment on the fact that not sending people to prison for periods of under 12 months is not a cheap option; it is very expensive, for three particular reasons.

First, you need experienced probation officers. We need more of them. Secondly—and I have had this said to me so many times and spoken to so many Ministers about this that I have lost count—you will lose public confidence in community sentencing unless you are seen to make it tough and work. Too many people laugh at the back of a court and think they have got away with it when they get a community sentence; no one looks on them as punishment. We have to change that and it is not cheap to do so. Thirdly, we have to work out what to do if people do not comply with the orders. This was a big problem in 2005-06 and there must be a plan to deal with it.

The reason this is so important, and why it will make the position worse if it does not succeed, is that if you put people on to a community sentence or give them suspended sentences and they do not work then you have to punish them for what they did originally and for the new crime that they may have committed. I hope that, in our last Session of this Parliament, we will ask the Government where the money is coming from. Where are the figures? Will this work?

Over the last couple of days, I was interested to look at some costings in three statutory instruments that are currently before Parliament. One is an admirable measure to reduce the fees paid by people. That will cost the Ministry of Justice £18 million. There are changes to the way in which aggravating factors are taken into account. Although that will not take long-term effect until 2040, it will lead to £1.2 million to £2.4 million in court costs. Then there is the well-merited increase in fees for Section 28 hearings—another £1.2 million. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will write and set out what the overall impact will be and how it will be paid for, because if we do not do it properly the next Government, whoever they are, will have a terrible problem on their hands.

18:32

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft, and as an independent director of LINK and of Brown & Brown (Europe) Ltd.

What an interesting debate this has been. It is a privilege to follow the brilliant speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. He is right to remind us that this whole debate has been overshadowed by the loss of someone who was such a good friend to me, particularly when I was made an honorary bencher. He took me to one side and gave me such valuable advice. My goodness, how we are going to miss him. But we have had three outstanding maiden speeches.

This may not be the last King’s Speech of this Parliament but I expect it probably will be. Today’s topics seem certain to predominate in the headlines, and in campaigning, between now and the next general election. I broadly welcome the measures proposed, while noting that the devil is so often in the detail. Many of the proposals are yet to be fleshed out fully.

For instance, in the light of the pre-legislative process, the system for smaller, “standard-tier” premises under the new protect duty will now be subject to a further consultation. That seems eminently sensible, but a decision will ultimately have to be taken about what constitutes truly proportionate regulation for smaller, less formal events, often organised by individuals or non-incorporated associations. I also hope that smaller theatres and music venues will be able to make their voices heard. Having endured and narrowly survived the pandemic, they deserve to be strongly supported now, not hit with excessive and punitive financial burdens.

As a lifelong Liverpool Football Club supporter who will never forget the tragedy of Hillsborough, I strongly welcome the proposed new independent public advocate. If Martyn’s law is designed to help prevent major incidents, this body will be potentially transformative in helping traumatised people to rebuild their lives and move on whenever a major incident does, regrettably, occur. I hope all of this will ultimately receive support right across this House.

Sadly, the decline of our town centres has become an all too familiar and recurrent theme in our political discourse in recent years. The loss of economic and social vigour in our towns is not only regrettable in itself but both a cause and a consequence of various forms of anti-social behaviour, including aggressive, organised begging. I am pleased to see this particular problem being addressed, along with the scourge of so-called pedicabs, which increasingly blight this great city.

In his introduction to the Government’s briefing on the King’s Speech, the Prime Minister refers to the long-term plan for towns. If its logic is followed through, that plan should prove to be an important and sustained measure of devolution. I hope it will bear serious fruit. As the Prime Minister has so rightly said, although the state can provide the necessary foundations for an urban renaissance, ultimately we must all work at this together, including across party boundaries.

Another major factor in the decline of town centres has been the widespread closure of bank branches. I know from my own experience just how formidable the challenges are to restore personal banking services for those who prefer them, or depend on them where the traditional retail banks have deserted the field. I hope everyone in this Chamber will actively support and encourage Cash Access UK and the Post Office as they seek to reverse the loss of facilities.

When the Prime Minister took up the reins last year, in the wake of a period of alarming political and economic instability, he undertook to bring to government integrity, professionalism and accountability. I strongly believe he has delivered on his promise. I warmly welcome that achievement, as I applaud the contents of this legislative programme. I shall continue to support this Government as they endeavour to build a stronger, safer country and a more stable world.

18:38

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. In April 2020, we were promised a royal commission on the criminal justice system. We all now know that this has been kicked into the long grass. Instead, we have a piecemeal approach to legislation in this field.

I draw the House’s attention once again to this country’s overuse of imprisonment. The prison population in England and Wales currently stands at nearly 86,000. It is currently projected to increase to over 98,000 in 2026—three years from now. We already use prisons more than other countries in western Europe. We have 132 people in prison for every 100,000 people in our general population, compared with 100 in France and 70 in Germany, our two most comparable and closest European neighbours. It is astonishing that we regard it as necessary to imprison nearly twice as many people as Germany. The British people are not twice as criminal as the German people, yet our sentencing is twice as punitive.

Of the 41,000 people who were sent to prison in the 12 months to June 2021, 40% were sentenced to serve terms of six months or less. Again and again we have heard that these are far too short for any serious rehabilitative work to take place, yet they can result in offenders losing jobs and accommodation, which increases rather than reduces the likelihood of reoffending.

Community sentences, which have a significantly lower reoffending rate, have more than halved in the last decade. Sentences have become significantly longer. The average prison sentence for an indictable offence is now 55 months—nearly two years longer than in 2008, when it was around 32 months. The average minimum term imposed on offenders receiving life sentences for murder rose from 13 years in 2003 to the present rate of 20 years in prison.

Numerous research studies have shown that offenders from minority-ethnic groups are disproportionately likely to receive custodial sentences. Estimates published by the Ministry of Justice in 2017 indicated that black people were over 50% more likely to be sent to prison for an indictable offence at the Crown Court, even when higher “not guilty” plea rates were factored into this formula. A Ministry of Justice publication estimated that if the prison population reflected the ethnic composition of the general population, we would have 9,000 fewer people in prison—the equivalent of 12 average- sized prisons. Look at the savings we would achieve by simply taking a proper decision in sentencing of black people. One recent survey found that only 7% of people thought that imprisoning more people would be effective in cutting crime.

Assaults, deaths and self-harm in prison are at historically high levels. Last Session’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act is likely to worsen things, as it contains a range of measures designed to increase the proportion of sentences which some offenders serve in prison.

Following the recent root and branch review of the parole system, the Government have come up with the astonishing proposal that the Secretary of State should be empowered in certain cases to overrule release decisions by the Parole Board. Parole has been one of the most successful initiatives in our prison system. The Parole Board is a judicial body which makes judicial decisions. This proposal would line us up with dictatorships around the world in which politicians interfere with judicial decisions. The proportion of prisoners released on parole who commit a further serious offence is less than 0.5%. No system based on human judgment could produce a significantly better result, and there is certainly no reason to believe that the Secretary of State’s judgment would be more accurate than the accumulated experience and expertise of the Parole Board.

In any event, ploughing more resources into expanding the prison system to hold an ever-increasing number of prisoners is far from the most sensible way to tackle crime. The Government should take steps to increase the use of community sentences, which research has shown have significantly lower reoffending rates than short periods in custody. Instead of devoting resources to expanding the prison system, they should plough them into the prevention of crime, support for victims and the rehabilitation of offenders.

In the same way, the Home Secretary’s proposals for new laws to fine organisations for giving tents to homeless people and reintroduce elements of the old Vagrancy Act are deeply disturbing. When announcing these proposals, the Home Secretary astonishingly referred to people

“living on the streets as a lifestyle choice”.

Agencies working with homeless people are clear that there is a severe lack of fit-for-purpose accommodation accessible to homeless people in our towns and cities. People sleeping in tents are not making a lifestyle choice. They are there because they have no other options left. These measures will punish people simply for being homeless and will cause more deaths on the streets. Somebody should speak to the Home Secretary; it is about time that she seals her lips to avoid such harmful judgment.

18:44

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to say, as so many from the Cross Benches have said, how much we grieve the loss of a very distinguished convenor. It has overshadowed somewhat the debate for many of us, particularly on these Benches.

I will address the topic of devolution, particularly the crisis of devolution in Northern Ireland, and the fact that at this point we are not sure that it will return. I am particularly keen to deal with an idea that I picked up in the streets of Belfast—that it is desirable to wait for a Labour Government, and at that point possibly, if there are any movements on devolution, act. I draw attention to Tony Blair’s speech, which set the framework for devolution throughout the United Kingdom, in Balmoral in Belfast in the autumn of 1997. There, he declared firmly that he was not neutral on the union, as in effect Keir Starmer has done in some recent pronouncements. But this is not a blank cheque. What Mr Blair said there is that his support for the union was based on power-sharing devolution plus an Irish dimension. That is how he talked about the new devolution in Scotland and Wales; that is how Northern Ireland would fit into the United Kingdom.

That is the classic Labour position. There is no more unionist position within the Labour Party. There are many less unionist positions in the Labour Party—many who insist that the Good Friday agreement means that a parity of esteem means that this talk of Blair saying that, in this context, he supported the union is not right. But that is the classic position and almost certainly the Starmer position. It does not seem to me therefore that this is a case for waiting for a Labour Government. The time to act on devolution and getting institutions up and running again is now.

This is the first King’s Speech since my friend David Trimble’s death. David deeply believed in the Act of Union. Every time he sat in this Chamber, Lord Trimble would look down at the Throne and see the crown, and would see the symbol of Ireland, the harp. He strongly believed that it was there because of the Act of Union and that the Act of Union was terrifically important. The thing he admired about the Act of Union was the obvious attempt to enhance the growing commercial success of Belfast’s exporting classes in 1800. The protection of the export potential of those classes is a subject we will probably have to return to before this matter is sorted out.

He was also strongly aware of the strategic significance of Ireland, which is very important if one is talking about the Act of Union. At this point, the strategic significance, often forgotten in this country, is alive again. The war in Ukraine is actually not particularly divisive. Northern Ireland, because it is part of NATO, has played a greater role in some of its industries in supplying Ukraine, but it has to be said that the Republic of Ireland has done a marvellous job in receiving Ukrainian refugees. But the war now in the Middle East is terribly divisive—indisputably so. There is a division between the two countries on that, and it is making it harder between the two communities on that point to see the return of devolution. The unionist community broadly supports the position of the main parties in this House, in the British Government and the American Government. The nationalist community does not. There is a campaign against Hillary Clinton as chancellor of Queen’s because she is seen to be a supporter of Israel. The Irish Government in China just yesterday issued a joint statement with the Chinese calling for a ceasefire, and so on. There is a major difference there. Again, we are going to have to talk about this before we get devolution sorted. It is very unfortunate; it was not as if we needed any other sources of difference.

I would like to make one final point about my friend the late Lord Trimble, who quite rightly won a Nobel Prize for trying to follow the path Tony Blair set out. The last thing he published before he died—we do not know what he would have thought of the Windsor Framework as he did not live to see it—was an introduction to a paper by Dr Graham Gudgin that was an attack on the idea that the protocol itself was determining that Northern Ireland was going to be observed at an economic level in the Irish Republic. Dr Gudgin says that no, Northern Ireland is so heavily tied into the United Kingdom that that is simply not happening. That was the last thing David Trimble published before he died. His name is now used all the time in the struggle against returning to devolution. It would amaze him. He saw the great achievement of his life as the Good Friday agreement and the structures that flow through it.

I want to conclude by talking just a little bit about how we need to look at things in the round. This is not the first time that Northern Ireland has felt, with good reason, that it was not treated equally in an international treaty with a foreign power. In 1938, exactly the same thing happened when the Anglo-Irish trade deal was struck. Northern Ireland had suffered most in the previous trade war and got the least out of that deal. In the other place in 1938, its MPs all declared, “We’ve been treated with a lack of equality” and that other British suppliers et cetera had been given more in the deal. They were right to say so. By the way, because they assumed the Government of Ireland Act was the key legislation, they did not say “Because of the Act of union we have a case”, they just said, “We have a case” when they debated this in the House.

The matter was resolved essentially by the UK Government striking a deal with the Stormont Government that basically paid Northern Ireland’s dole bill in 1938 when so many people were unemployed because of the collapse of the shipyards and heavy shipbuilding. Essentially, it was resolved by saying that in future Northern Ireland would not have to pay for itself, as statute—the Union with Ireland Act and the Government of Ireland Act 1920—required, but that in future the UK would lift the burden and deliver equality of social services. I simply say that that suggests that we should look at these questions of equality or inequality in trade agreements in the round. A wider picture should also be taken into account in the current debate in Belfast.

18:52

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

As noble Lords may be aware, last month I had the honour of being reappointed as Victims’ Commissioner for the coming year. I thank all noble Lords around the House for their warm words. I have to say I am delighted to be back where I can truly make a difference for victims. My post comes at a momentous time, considering the announcement of the sentencing Bill and the criminal justice Bill and, of course, the long-awaited Victims and Prisoners Bill, which I will focus on today.

It is 16 years since the girls and I lost Garry. Hand on heart, I genuinely understand how lonely many of the victims I meet truly feel as they wade through our criminal justice system. I so relate to those feelings as, over these years, I have had time and time again application after application where I have had to find the strength and determination to see every one of them through. In fact, only yesterday such determination was needed, as yet again I knew another application was being heard in another place and yet again I await the court’s decision.

As the great man Nelson Mandela said:

“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear”—


hence why I am so passionate and delighted to be able to ensure that all victims must be treated with dignity and respect.

I say to the Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, who opened this debate, that I am delighted to hear of the Government’s commitment to continue the passage of the long-awaited Victims and Prisoners Bill. I and many others have been calling for a victims’ law for some 10 years now; yet, infuriatingly, during that time there have been so many false starts, so dare I say for the first time that I feel it may now become a reality?

However, let me be clear from the start that I do not want legislation just for the sake of it. Legislation needs to transform the experience of people whose lives have been damaged and devastated by crime and who seek justice. Only this morning I published the findings of a victims’ survey conducted by my office. Some 500 victims responded to the survey and I am grateful to every one of them for sharing their lived experience. If any noble Lords are in doubt about whether victims legislation is needed, I urge every one of them to read this report.

Victims showed huge dissatisfaction with the police. More than one-third said that they would not report a crime to the police again, only 61% said they would attend court again and just 8% felt they could receive justice by reporting a crime. So it will come as no surprise to everyone in this Chamber when again I say it is another wake-up call to all those involved in the justice system. Let us be real. Have not noble Lords from all sides of this House said time and time again that when victims lose trust, they are less likely to report a crime, leading to fewer victims coming forward and fewer victims backing prosecutions, which in turn trickles down into our communities feeling fearful for their safety?

I have over the years often been told that all victims want from the criminal justice system is retribution. This is simply not the case: what victims want is justice. For more than half of those who were surveyed, how the justice system treats them matters more to them than securing a conviction. They want the crime they are reporting investigated and want to be kept informed of the process of their case, meaning information being shared in a timely way when they meet the CPS barrister before the trial or when reading their victim’s personal statement in court. Victims are quite simply asking for fairness, a level playing field, where their needs are considered alongside those of the defendant. We know that there is no guarantee for any victim that a trial will result in a guilty verdict—I know that only too well—and nor should there be, but we can and we must deliver procedural justice.

The victims’ code sets out victims’ entitlements at every stage of the criminal justice system, yet they are simply not being delivered by the criminal justice agencies—and we should bear in mind that there is no mechanism to hold those agencies to account. Often there is inadequate data even to monitor compliance. Invariably, victims are not made aware of the code. They have no clue what it is or what they are entitled to. Once again, this was highlighted in the survey, as only 29% of respondents were aware of its existence, which means that agencies are rarely held to account when they fail to deliver.

Change is needed, and the Victims and Prisoners Bill must be the catalyst. There needs to be an end to the culture where victims’ entitlements are regarded as optional extras or “nice to haves”, instead of being a core part of delivering justice. There needs to be a justice system that is in the interests of victims, delivers procedural justice and gives victims a meaningful voice, so when the Victims and Prisoners Bill finally arrives in your Lordships’ House, I know it will be given the utmost robust scrutiny to lay the correct foundations to give victims that level playing field.

18:58

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on her reappointment as Victims’ Commissioner. I am sure there will be enormous support for that reappointment and we wish her well in a very challenging post.

In looking at the gracious Speech and having listened to it, I noticed a reference to strengthening the social fabric of the UK, a reference to keeping communities safe from crime and anti-social behaviour and several references to migration—or “illegal migration”, as the Government seek to call it. I shall say a little bit about the Illegal Migration Act, a bit about the social fabric of the UK, including the threats of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, a bit about the use of language and a bit about the European Convention on Human Rights.

I regard the Illegal Migration Act as unfinished business and I think the Government do as well. The Government are, after all, consulting local authorities on the Act and promised to look at the possibility of safe and legal routes after the Act became law. The Government are faced with the difficulty that it appears that the cost of the “Bibby Stockholm”—the barge to house asylum seekers—will be 10% higher than hotel rooms. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that. I would also like to know what the Government will do in light of the court decision on Rwanda. If the Government lose that case, will they continue with some sort of policy of outsourcing to different countries? What will they do?

The Government claim that the number of boats coming across the channel—a reprehensible activity; people traffickers are awful—is down. However, my understanding is that there was pretty bad weather this year in July and August, which may have contributed to the number reducing. I do not think that we should sit back and say that the problem is solved. There is also the high cost of family reunion, which is a necessary part of our policy.

I will say a word about the right to work. In some countries—I was talking to a lawyer from Australia the other day—an asylum seeker has the right to work fairly soon after they arrive. The Government’s argument will be that, if we gave asylum seekers the right to work, it would encourage more to cross by boat. Frankly, I do not think that is right. What it would do is give people a certain amount of self-respect. It would enable them to pay their way with rent, accommodation and food. It would be the right change to make.

The biggest encouragement to asylum seekers is the enormous backlog of asylum claims—I believe there are about 170,000. I know the Government are trying to get the numbers down. It is scandalous that we have so many people hanging about, but not having a future. No wonder people say that the whole system has broken down. Some lone children have had to wait five years or more for a decision. That is not the right way forward. We should give people the right to work fairly soon after they have got here—not immediately, but fairly soon.

One of the Government’s aims is to

“strengthen the social fabric of the United Kingdom”.

Clearly, we must tackle anti-Semitism and we must do more to tackle Islamophobia—both have loomed large in recent weeks since the tragic events in the Middle East. I would like to see more initiatives to tackle Islamophobia. It is a disgrace that children are frightened to go to school and that there are fears in our local communities about what is happening. We must also ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten, so I welcome the Government’s continuing support for the Holocaust Educational Trust.

We have heard some extraordinary statements by the Home Secretary recently. I shall itemise them. My blunt question is: will the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary does not speak for the Government? She does not speak for the Government when she condemns the planned marches or demo this weekend as “hate marches”. She does not speak for the Government when she says that rough sleeping is a “lifestyle choice”. She does not speak for the Government when she talks about a “hurricane” or an “invasion” of migrants. She does not speak for the Government when she said that multiculturalism is a “misguided dogma” leading to “parallel lives”. Will the Minister confirm that these are aberrations on the part of the Home Secretary and do not reflect the policy of the Government?

I mention, finally, the references by the Home Secretary and other Ministers to the European Convention on Human Rights. When I served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I went with it twice to Strasbourg. In Strasbourg, they think that we were founding members of the European Convention on Human Rights. They say that our courts have a better relationship with the Strasbourg court than probably any other country that adheres to the convention. They think it would be so damaging, not only to this country, but to the cause of human rights, if we were to leave the European convention or somehow distance ourselves from it. In Strasbourg they said to me that, if Britain does not adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights, the notorious abusers of human rights all over the world will say “If the Brits don’t do it, why should we?”.

19:04

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate all noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today. I also take this opportunity to congratulate His Majesty, not only on making his first Speech, but on his Coronation earlier this year. I was proud to be part of His Majesty’s diverse and all-inclusive Coronation, carrying the sceptre with dove, which I saw as a glimpse into the future, inspiring all children to live in hope. This is why I want to shine a light on the important work being done by those at Barnardo’s, who I see as guardian angels looking after the well-being of the nation’s children. I declare an interest as vice-president of the charity.

I want to shine a light on Barnardo’s work to tackle discrimination in the care system and criminal justice system, highlighted in its report Double Discrimination. Black care-experienced children and young adults are having to navigate the criminal justice system on a daily basis. The discrimination against them because of their background and the colour of their skin is evident. We must acknowledge that black children are more likely to be in care and more likely to be in custody compared with those from other backgrounds. Shockingly, one in 10 black children in care receive a custodial sentence by the time they turn 18. They are disproportionately overrepresented both in the care and criminal justice systems. That cannot be right.

Barnardo’s conducted 22 one-to-one interviews with young black adults aged 18 to 25 currently in prison for its report Double Discrimination and heard harrowing accounts of the outright discrimination, marginalisation and adultification they faced from a very early age. The evidence from Barnardo’s shows that black children are not treated as children. Often, their being care experienced was lost in the shadows of racism. The research also showed that support from professionals in the health, education, care and criminal justice systems was inconsistent, which led to black children feeling isolated, marginalised and vulnerable.

I recently visited Brixton Prison and met young black men who had never received an unconditional hug in their life. They wept when I spoke to them as they told me that no one had ever said to them “I love you”. Children and young people need unconditional love, stability and consistent care. The report shows that black children in care are often not having this experience. Many are having to face traumatic adversity, falling into the arms of criminal gangs and entering the world of drugs and knife crime. They cannot escape the avoidable cycle of black care-experienced children entering the criminal justice system.

Discrimination and disadvantage are not inevitable. Together with Barnardo’s, I am calling on the Government to consider and act on five recommendations: first, improve the experiences of black children in foster care, with emphasis on how this can be delivered in a way that takes their specific needs into account; secondly, develop and fund, through the Department for Education, a black foster care network to help grow the number of foster carers who understand black children’s needs; thirdly, take action to stop criminalising children in care unnecessarily and improve access to mental health support; fourthly, deliver training to agencies such as the police, courts and prisons to address discrimination and stereotyping; and, finally, ensure a renewed emphasis on tackling racial bias within the criminal justice system.

This report from Barnardo’s highlights in no uncertain terms that we need to do more to help our black children and young people in care. Without intervention, we will continue to have an endless conveyor belt of victims, on which black children who are taken into care become susceptible to exploitation and criminal activity and then enter the criminal justice system. It is simply not acceptable that, as a society, we continue to write off a whole group of children just because of their background, the colour of their skin and their circumstances. All children, including black children in care, deserve the chance to overcome the challenges they face and work towards a brighter future full of hope. We desperately need a Cabinet-level Minister to oversee this.

Will the Minister agree to meet me and Barnardo’s to discuss the Double Discrimination report and consider having a cross-government approach from the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Ministry of Justice to fulfil the five recommendations set out in this important report? Would he agree that race should not be left off the agenda in any future departmental strategy, so that black children everywhere have better outcomes and life opportunities? I do not want to see this report sit on a shelf gathering dust. Like Barnardo’s, I want to see real change and real action so that all children have the opportunity to reach their full potential, because, as I keep saying, childhood lasts a lifetime. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

19:11

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the first of three issues I will raise briefly is the importance of sentencers addressing the underlying causes of crime, especially when sentencing offenders with addictions. I am a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is in her place, but my remarks are purely personal and may not reflect the views of other members of the committee.

Typically, addicted repeat offenders of acquisitive crimes have been given short prison sentences. These sentences have no impact on the reoffending of this cohort of offenders. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment, on page 63 of the document accompanying the King’s Speech, to legislate for the presumption that sentences of less than 12 months in prison should be served in the community, with requirements imposed by the court. However, if this policy is to succeed in reducing reoffending, and thus reducing crime, it is crucial that these sentences address the underlying causes of an offender’s crime, as I have said. Sentences served in the community by addicted offenders must include an intensive addiction treatment requirement, with strong incentives for the offender to complete the treatment.

My second concern, supported today by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, as it happens, is the absence of any indication in the King’s Speech that parliamentary time should be allowed for the passing of an assisted dying legalisation law. I declare my interest as honorary president of Dignity in Dying. That organisation has abundant evidence of the significant harm to dying people and their families—of course, we are all going to die, so this will affect us directly—caused by the lack of a right for terminally ill people who are suffering unbearably to have assistance to achieve a dignified death. Every year, about 650 dying people take their own lives, generally alone and often violently. Their families suffer trauma for years afterwards. A further 10,000 terminally ill people who are suffering unbearably attempt to take their lives but fail, and the consequences are generally shocking. In addition to these tragedies, too many of us will suffer unbearably as we die, even with the best palliative care that our world-beating hospices can provide. More and more countries are legalising assisted dying, as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, mentioned. I hope that our Government will provide parliamentary time within the busy schedule laid out in the King’s Speech to enable the passing of a law legalising assisted dying.

My third point concerns medical cannabis. This morning, I met two mothers of boys with intractable and very severe epilepsy. They have parallel stories, so I will mention only one. This mother has a boy of nine, who is currently receiving medical cannabis; he has no seizures, and is going to school and doing just fine. This mother was not aware of medical cannabis until relatively recently. Previously, she had tried six recommended treatments for her severely epileptic son. None of them worked, and her son had seizures every day, was not at school and could barely function. The other mother had a similar experience. I appeal to Ministers to accept that making medical cannabis available on the NHS is urgent, not only for these families —my goodness, it is urgent for them—but for us, the taxpayers, because, in the long run, we will pay billions for these children as they grow up and grow old. They will have completely damaged brains and will need social and health care indefinitely. The Home Office has an important role to play in freeing up this current impasse. The King’s Speech includes nothing to address this issue, but I appeal to the Government to put this right.

19:15

[Viscount Bridgeman (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on a subject that has received some attention in your Lordships’ House: the problems facing Muslim women when involved in a divorce. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has done a lot of work on this, and I have assisted her in a small way.

I will briefly summarise. The issue is that, in the breakdown of a marriage originally effected under sharia law in England and Wales—known as “nikah”—there are stark differences between the treatment of husbands and of wives. Take the husband first: in marriages conducted under sharia law, a husband can use the talaq procedure, which is not court-based and does not require an additional ceremony. Provided the husband says “I divorce you” three times, for him the marriage has ended. By contrast, divorced women are faced with a different and more complicated and intrusive procedure, involving a further application to a sharia court—it could be the one in which she was married—that is totally dominated by males. These sharia courts are part of the Muslim structure of religious authority and can enable nikah courts to be set up with little formality. The rights of women in divorces where the original marriage was sharia only are not recognised by civil courts in England and Wales.

The women I am talking about here frequently come from poor backgrounds, have limited education and, in many cases, have only a rudimentary command of English. They can expect to be ostracised by their families or communities, who regard the break-up of any marriage as a slur on their standing. These women, probably deeply anxious already, discover—for the first time, in many cases—that they do not have the full protection of the courts, particularly where property is involved.

My noble friend Lady Newlove started the day well by getting my printer to work, but her account of victims was truly inspiring. Of course, that is what I am talking about as well. I suggest that there is a simple solution to this problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has introduced a two-clause Private Member’s Bill that would introduce an amendment to the Marriage Act 1949 and would seek to create an offence of purporting to solemnize a marriage that has not been, and will not be, legally registered. This would cover all marriages in England and Wales, but, significantly, it would require the parties in a sharia-only wedding to register the proposed marriage with the appropriate authority, giving the women the security that in many cases they presently lack. This Bill was introduced in July 2017 and has had no fewer than 10 introductions in your Lordships’ House. Of these, only one has made it to a First Reading in another place. It was prevented from advancing further only by a busy parliamentary schedule.

The Law Commission in July 2022 published a report called Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law, which included a recommendation very similar to the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. This is an anomaly that really does need to be put right. The Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, by a very simple procedure, would have that effect. It is in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills in the coming Session, which will be conducted tomorrow. If it is successful, fine—but, if it is not, I remind your Lordships that this issue will not go away.

19:20

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I must express my sorrow at the loss of Igor Judge. We became friends 50 years ago, when I was trespassing from the Welsh circuit on to the Midlands circuit, in Shrewsbury and Birmingham. We had many a tussle at that time—and I hope to be able to say more about how I feel about Igor.

In his Statement to the House of Commons on 27 October, the Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, made some important concessions to common sense on the issue of short sentences. He said that prisons should not ruin the redeemable. A short stint in prison causes offenders to lose their homes, break contact with key support workers and, crucially, meet others inside prison who steer them in the wrong direction. This leads to more than 50% reoffending. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, has confirmed these sentiments, and I wholeheartedly support their call for a presumption against short sentences.

However, Mr Chalk has had to balance this sensible reform by throwing red meat to the right wing of his party: he proposes mandatory life sentences for a wider spectrum of offences, removing the discretion of judges to do what they are paid to do—administer justice in a wide variety of circumstances. Further, he intends to abolish sentence remission in serious cases: no automatic reduction of sentence as a reward for good behaviour. I await the reaction of prison governors and the Prisoner Officers’ Association to the removal of the most powerful tool they have for maintaining safety and stability in our overcrowded prisons.

Mr Chalk is keen to build 20,000 new places in modern prisons. The current overcrowding of prisons is due, he says, to an increase in the remand population, amounting to 15,000 unconvicted prisoners locked up awaiting trial. I would welcome new prisons if the policy were joined to a commitment to pull down the 18th-century decaying and filthy jails we still employ. But the Lord Chancellor will burnish his reputation if he tackles the backlog with energy and commitment. Numbers of remand prisoners built up steadily following the austerity cuts of 2012 and reached a peak in mid-2022 of 89,000 cases awaiting trial, with 4,000 of these waiting for more than two years. The Government’s aim is to reduce the backlog from that peak to 53,000 cases by March 2025. That is a snail-like pace, and the reason for it is largely the lack of judges to preside and of barristers both to prosecute and defend. The pace has slowed. A freedom of information request in August 2022 indicated that, on average, fewer than 300 trials were completed per week between April and July 2022, compared with more than 350 per week in the previous year. Getting rid of the backlog is slowing down.

There is a dearth of Crown Court judges. In the last round of appointments, only two-thirds of the vacancies were filled, and as they are appointed, the pool of senior barristers diminishes. Mr Max Hill KC, the recently retired Director of Public Prosecutions, said that 500 trials in the current year could not go ahead on the scheduled date because no prosecuting barristers were available. He said that the CPS sometimes resorts to

“literally ringing round sets of barristers’ chambers, trying to place the brief”,

adding:

“These are difficult times. We do have an overloaded system, it’s not easy”.


The income of the criminal Bar diminished by some 40% in real terms after 2000, driving potential recruits away. My grandson at Cardiff University tells me that the majority of his fellow law students all want to be human rights lawyers. Well, you can starve doing that too. There is nothing more stimulating or exciting than the drama of a criminal trial, where the task on your shoulders is to persuade 12 persons of unknown backgrounds and experience to agree one way or the other to a verdict that will permanently affect the life of the individual and his family. That is a serious task, to be performed within a framework and discipline of strict principles of integrity and fairness, with the advocate’s duty to the court and to the law to the foremost. It calls for a multiplicity of talents.

The Lord Chancellor knows this from his own considerable experience. I urge him to do everything he can to refresh the profession and to recruit students of talent to the criminal Bar. He should encourage them, offer prizes for excellence and speak to them. That is better that than building prisons for people to rot in.

19:26

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the gracious Speech. I congratulate my noble friends Lord Houchen of High Leven and Lord Bailey of Paddington on their excellent and entertaining maiden speeches, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon.

Today I want to focus specifically on the criminal justice Bill. I strongly agree with much of it, but it is a missed opportunity because it omits reform of one integral part of the criminal justice system: the Crown Prosecution Service, which is palpably failing the British people. I urge your Lordships to read the recent Policy Exchange report, The ‘Wicked and the Redeemable’: A Long-Term Plan to Fix a Criminal Justice System in Crisis, authored by the former Met Police Detective Chief Inspector David Spencer.

The CPS is taking far longer to charge suspects than ever before, an average of 44 days, compared to 14 days seven years ago. The number of cases that have been outstanding for more than six months has quadrupled to 30,384 in the past four years. Despite having already more than 45 previous convictions, hyper-prolific offenders are sent to prison on less than half of all occasions—47.3% on conviction for indictable and either-way offences.

I want to talk about another Policy Exchange report that was published last week by the law lecturer, Maureen O’Hara, entitled The Crown Prosecution Service’s approach to transgenderism. This goes to the heart of the debate about fairness, credibility and impartiality. The CPS, an institution that should be completely impartial, is under the influence of a gender identity ideology. In the introduction to the report, the former Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Patrick Elias, says:

“This paper raises very serious concerns about the impartiality and independence of the Crown Prosecution Service when dealing with the highly sensitive issue of the treatment of transgender persons. It appears to have adopted uncritically the controversial views of Stonewall”.


In the foreword, Charles Wilde says:

“It is hard to overstate the importance of the Crown Prosecution Service doing its job properly. Its decisions change the lives of members of the public caught up in the criminal law … and have real impact on society more generally. If the CPS’s view of the law is mistaken or confused, or if its judgement of the public interest is inappropriately influenced by contentious political or cultural issues, the harm goes wider than that to the participants in a particular case … The CPS issues a Code for Crown Prosecutors, supplemented by ‘legal guidance’ – the latter extends beyond strictly legal issues into strategies of investigation and prosecution and includes societal, cultural, and psychological commentary. Particular care needs to be taken in drafting such documents”.


What we have seen across many areas is well-funded lobby groups, funded sometimes by our own Government, that have embedded their views of what they would like the law to be, rather than what it is. I make reference in particular to annexe D of the CPS’s legal guidance on domestic abuse, where the language used is that of gender identity theory. That is a highly contested theory, yet it is here in the supposedly impartial guidance—terms such as “cisgender”, “assigned sex”, et cetera. There is no scientific proof of such a thing as “gender identity”. Sex is observed and recorded, before or at birth, it is not “assigned”. There is no place for this language in CPS guidance and it should be rejected by Ministers.

One of the consequences of this is that the CPS records suspects and convicted offenders, for instance, on the basis of their self-declared “gender identity”, and is therefore recording male sex offenders as female. This applies even to the most serious offences, such as rape, which is covered by Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, even though it is currently impossible for anyone other than a biological male to commit that offence. This is leading to inaccurate data being recorded. Also, the use of preferred pronouns in court is giving great distress and offence to complainants. The adoption of unevidenced theory by the CPS would appear to be a clear example of policy capture, which the OECD has defined as

“the process of consistently or repeatedly directing public policy decisions away from the public interest towards the interest of a specific interest group or person”.

And this has all happened after 13 years of a Conservative Government.

Given that the CPS has refused or rebutted many reasonable requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and that I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, the sun needs to shine brightly on all aspects of this ideology. The CPS needs to explain itself to the public, the vast majority of whom know that sex is binary and immutable, that sex matters in many circumstances and that there must be accountability and transparency about those who influence the work of our institutions—and that includes the Crown Prosecution Service.

19:32

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, we now know from the gracious Speech that the election is coming because, whenever an election comes, the ruling political party seeks to beat up on criminals and to make crime the centrepiece of its strategy. It feeds into prejudices, so the great weight of the gracious Speech was all about ensuring that the public can feel better and safer. But if it were the case that longer sentences made for less crime, the United States would be a role model for effective community safety, and its poor gun laws, let alone its fraught communities, would prove the point that longer sentences—permanent lock-ups—dealt with the problem. They do not.

The Minister spoke about all the Bills, and there are lots of them. We know the Government are tinkering around, coming up with little hacks here and there, to find a way to make it all look good, but there is one thing they have failed to do consistently since 2019. In their manifesto, they promised a royal commission on the review of the criminal justice system. That is a broken promise: no royal commission. The King yesterday should have referred to his mother’s famous Speech after the election of 2019, with its commitment to a royal commission. No royal commission: promise broken. You cannot keep tinkering with the system, hoping that little hacks here and there will make it better. But it makes the news—hence the attempts by the Government to look better simply by making it nastier.

If only we really had proper, intelligent approaches to crime prevention. I can speak on this subject, having been the founder and chairman of Crime Concern since 1988, the founder and vice-president of Catch22, where I remain vice-president, and, for the last 10 years, the co-founder of My Brother’s Keeper, working in six prisons across the UK on a monthly basis. I see it, I hear it, I experience it and I know it. Because of what I have seen and heard, I can list a few things, other than just tougher sentences, that the Government, if they had a positive, intelligent approach to the issues, could have committed to do.

We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about 15,000 people on remand, 770 of whom have been on remand for more than two years. I met one man recently who did two years and two months inside on falsified charges: no compensation, the ruin of his employment and his working life, two and a half years waiting to be set free, finally released with no compensation and no apology. Deal with remand. We have to believe, fundamentally, that people are innocent until proven guilty; therefore, locking up endless people in prison blocks up spaces.

There are 2,998 men on IPP lock-ups, when we know that IPP is no longer a legal sentence. It was abandoned by the Conservative Government under David Cameron. It was put in by our dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, way back, but has now been abandoned. But the lock-up of the 2,998 people who remain in prison means that they are taking up spaces, at £50,000 a year. Why do they remain unsorted? There is an opportunity, if the Minister would care to answer, of an amendment put forward by Sir Bob Neill in another place to the victims Bill. That could begin to deal with the issue of IPP cases, but will the Government actually back it and set these people free from what is effectively an unacceptable life sentence?

There are 2,000 women in prison who do not need to be there, on minor sentences that do not require incarceration. They should be set free. There are endless recalls. I encountered one man recently in a category C prison who had been free for 15 years and made the mistake of not informing his probation officer that he was taking a one-week holiday: he just forgot. He was recalled to prison, at £50,000 a year, for two years. This is madness, absolute madness. If we are really going to deal with the prison population issue, let us apply some intelligence and common sense to the whole issue.

Not only that, but it is important to note, as has already been said, that there are roughly 6 million crimes recorded every year and the police are able to deal with and catch about 6% of those responsible. That means that effectively more than 90% of people who have committed a recorded crime are out there with all of us, but we spend so much energy despising those who are paying the price of their crimes. We should be putting the energy into supporting people who are in the criminal justice system to come out as free men and women.

The need for a different approach is embedded in a chaotic system, and the only way it is going to be turned upside down is by a comprehensive royal commission review that looks at all the areas that we have simply skipped over; not by changing legislation every year but by looking hard at how to improve outcomes. The Children’s Commissioner released an information piece today pointing out that 80% of young people who go on to commit crimes have been involved in permanent truancy. That comes down to a key issue we can actually get to grips with and solve by making educational opportunities much more vivid and not having pupil referral units. If the Government want an intelligent approach to this, please look at practical solutions and do not introduce further laws to make it tougher and more difficult. Those make great headlines, but they do not actually solve the problems.

I finish with one final point. While I have been here in the Chamber, I had a phone call from someone who is inside a prison—I did not take it. He was ringing me to tell me some good news. I know this only because he rang somebody else and they sent me a message. That person is serving a life sentence for a very serious crime, but when you meet him, you realise that he is a human being with an open heart. I urge Ministers and those in No. 10 to stop saying nastiness about those who have committed unacceptable crimes. Treat them as humans, love them and support them to freedom, because, after all, they deserve to be citizens.

19:39

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I feel very shocked and sad about the death of the noble and learned Lord Judge. He was a kind, lovely man and I will miss him very much. We have had some excellent speeches today, including the three maiden speeches. I fear I will bring the tone down a little, because I am very angry—as usual—at what this Government have put into the Speech. It is a massive failure.

Our liberal parliamentary democracy is in danger. The right to protest has never been more restricted, while the power of state surveillance has never been more widespread. Protests can be declared illegal at the whim of police officers who believe they might cause more than minor disruption. A woman in a bright floral dress can be handcuffed at Ascot for possessing nail glue in her make-up bag and tourists or passers-by can be stopped and searched if a protest occurs near them. You can also be arrested for reminding juries of their right to act on their conscience—a right outlined on a plaque inside the Old Bailey. By contrast, undercover police and informers can be given legal immunity by their bosses for breaking criminal laws.

Our police are also replicating the widespread adoption of facial recognition by authorities in Russia and China without any democratic safeguards on this public identity parade. They are seeking further powers to break the everyday privacy measures that tech companies have introduced to safeguard our conversations and financial transactions. Look at the government plans to spy on the bank accounts of those receiving benefits, whether they are the working poor, disabled or doing their best as a carer. It is a new low in this Government’s constant vile behaviour. Never in our history have a Government intruded on the privacy of anyone’s bank account without very good reason. Now we are treating all people on benefits as potential criminals. If MPs think this is a good idea, let us ask them to go first. With all the cases of corruption, second jobs and undeclared incomes, would MPs be okay if the banks had the ability to raise red flags on their accounts? That seems to make sense—to test the system before we use it on other people.

After 13 years of Tory Britain, you can spend three years in prison for erecting a climate crisis banner above a bridge while violent men and sexual predators are quietly fast-tracked for release to help with prison overcrowding. However, we all know who is not facing jail time: the water company CEOs who fleeced customers for billions of pounds, filled our rivers with sewage and are now asking for our bills to go up so they can take even more of our money; Conservative Party members who benefited from the billions handed out via the PPE fast-track scheme and numerous other scams; and the Tory donors from the oil and gas industry who have had their payback through tax breaks, new licences and delays in the net-zero policy. Those are climate criminals who are costing us a fortune now and costing future taxpayers billions to clean up the mess and mitigate the damage caused by flooding, wildfires, food shortages and other climate catastrophes.

We need to repeal all the laws that this Government have enacted to restrict protest, strikes and voting. The minimum service levels that they are imposing on rail workers this Christmas are a form of slave labour, as people lose their right to strike. The Green Party would give people a positive right to protest, with legal backing to ensure the distinction between non-violent and violent protest. There is a strong tradition in this country of non-violent direct action, from people opposing the felling of trees in Sheffield to the rural campaigners who stopped fracking wells. That tradition is a democratic safety valve against corruption and state bureaucracy. Ending the corrupt system of contracts and privatised services will take more than a change of government—it needs a democratic revival.

Civil liberties are not a side issue in bigger policy debates; they can shape them. If you want to insulate homes in Britain and give consumers cheaper bills, do not clog up the prisons with people who campaign to insulate Britain. If you want to stop the climate’s lurch towards a planet-wide extinction event, then just stop oil and do not lock up the people who will be seen as heroes in 10 years’ time. Non-violent direct action is a democratic tradition that does not rely on big funders and corporate backers, which is why it resonates with ordinary people. That is also why juries often fail to convict when they hear what motivates these protests and, predictably, it is why the police are now arresting a lot of people for simply reminding juries of their right to convict according to their own conscience.

Finally, I will talk about the Government’s scapegoating of refugees. If the Met Police are looking for hate speech this weekend, they need look no further than the Home Secretary, as she is deliberately trying to divide people when we desperately need a Government who bring communities together. Not content with a broken country where everything has stopped working properly, we have a Home Secretary aiming to break the bonds of shared humanity between people. This Government’s secret contract to hire an expensive prison hulk to detain refugees is a disgrace. So is the Rwanda contract. However, both of these are a precursor to renting prison space in foreign jails for British nationals. Successive Conservative Governments since 2010 have increased jail time by 57%. It is a policy based on deterrence and they are now proposing to do the same with longer sentences, but it has done nothing to bring down crime.

This Government have lost touch with the real priorities of ordinary people. The sooner we can have a general election, the sooner we can get on with the job of fixing broken Britain and solving the climate emergency.

19:46

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the three Peers who gave excellent maiden speeches.

Every year for the last 30 years, I have had the privilege of spending some time in San Francisco with friends. It seems to me that San Francisco, a wonderful hilly city of which it has been said “If you’re tired of walking round it, you can always lean against it”, is slowly dying. This has happened before, starting in 1906 with the famous earthquake and fire, but so far it has always recovered. What worries me is that I see certain similarities with what is happening in London.

A few years ago, San Francisco’s mayor, Mrs London Breed, effectively decriminalised shoplifting for thefts under $950, making it a misdemeanour rather than a crime. This change has been blamed for the decision by Nordstrom and subsequently Westfield to close their shopping centres on Market Street, previously one of San Francisco’s main shopping streets. For Westfield, one of the most admired property companies in the world, just to surrender its property to the lenders suggests that the problems are severe. This is explained by a comment, attributed to Nordstrom, that there were more people coming through its doors to shoplift than to purchase.

This matters over here because cities are inherently efficient. Economic progress has so often come from urbanisation, for example in China. Moving from a rural economy to an urban economy works for us humans. We gain more choices, more surprises and more serendipity. This may have been economically efficient, but there are groups wanting to reverse it. I do not argue that cities are the only place to live—there are many happy people living in the countryside—but those trying to make cities fail, whether intentionally or inadvertently, are normally called criminals. However, for criminals, shoplifting is normally considered a pretty low-level crime.

Shoplifters and violent demonstrators have in common a disregard for others and a determination to undertake their activities in cities. Demonstrations, to the extent that they are part of the right to protest, are protected, but it is part of the protesters’ aim to cause the most disruption and hence gain the most publicity. Incidentally, according to the Metropolitan Police, there were more than 4,000 big events that needed their presence last year, more than 10 a day. That suggests to me that it is time for a change of tactics by the demonstrators, who are in competition with each other for publicity. The biggest disincentive to both shoplifters and violent demonstrators is the fear of being caught. Like any child, it is not the potential long-term punishment but the fear of being caught that drives a decision not to do harm. This is why we must do as much as possible to enable the police to do their job.

The question of real-time face recognition software has been raised with me, and my immediate reaction was negative. Is it not part of the Big Brother state and a step, with artificial intelligence, towards a dictatorial state? But what is the difference, morally, between a policeman with good facial recognition skills watching a CCTV screen continuously and face recognition software doing it? If we have the number of CCTV cameras showing the public roads that we do, that was the point when a decision was made to intrude on the citizen’s privacy.

It is important that safety protection is built into the system, and I believe this now happens. There are four key aspects, in addition to certification of the system’s accuracy. The police do not keep your data; if there is no match, your data is immediately and automatically deleted. The police are not building one big watch-list; the watch-list is bespoke to the deployment, based on the intelligence case, and deleted afterwards. Facial recognition is not deployed on all CCTV cameras across the capital. The police will deploy only when there is an intelligence case to do so and a police response at the ready. It is not a computer making the decision to stop and engage with someone on the back of a potential match. There will always be a human in the loop to make that decision. I understand that this is the current state of the police system, and I think it is too restrictive on a good system. We must make the back streets and underpasses safe again, and live facial recognition is the best and cheapest way to achieve this.

Good facial recognition software, properly analysed to prevent inadvertent racial bias, can help identify ringleaders, which is important for dealing with crime prevention. If there are shoplifting kingpins, let us find and arrest them. I gather that there are now people who regularly shoplift from charity shops, a pretty despicable act. Equally mean are those who assault shop workers, a rising type of crime. We need to protect the innocent by making sure that the right people get arrested as soon as possible. Small shopkeepers are often closing, and shoplifting is an unnecessary cost that causes many to shut up shop.

I have one further thought on this subject: one of the many effects of Covid has been a pressure to de-urbanise the United Kingdom. Those working from home may as well have their home in the beautiful countryside, if commuting is a rare feature of their lives. This has the effect of emptying out the cities, which is not good for their efficiency. I am not sure that a civil servant working from home is nearly as efficient as one working in Whitehall, perhaps especially if his home is in South America. On 22 October, the Daily Mail reported a rapid rise in midweek dinner parties being held, which is much easier for a couple working from home in the countryside than for a couple commuting to the city, as in the past.

This emptying out of the city is revealed in empty office buildings and causes people in San Francisco to move out of California, perhaps to Texas, Florida or Arizona; for many, it is a permanent move. I am not sure what the comparable move from London might be, but I hope we do not find out.

19:53

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to address issues relating to devolution and to touch on the constitution. In my mind they belong in the same debate, and I am pleased to say that is how they have been dealt with today.

There are fundamental principles that are supposed to be present in parliamentary democracies: checks and balances on executive power, free and fair elections, adherence to the rule of law, protection of fundamental rights and maintaining integrity and standards. It would be fair to say that recent Governments have put a question mark against each of these principles. This House is supposed to act as one of the checks on excessive power, but its ability to perform this role is severely curtailed because it is not elected. This allows Government Ministers to lecture us about the primacy of the House of Commons and why even blatantly unworkable legislation must be approved here.

Despite some of our excellent committees riding shotgun to protect some of these important principles, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, described, legislation was passed that undermines free and fair elections, the rule of law and fundamental rights. Little has been achieved in upholding integrity and standards—you might even say they have gone backwards.

I argue that the legislation has also failed to protect the powers of the devolved Administrations; here are just two recent examples. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the Illegal Migration Act were both pushed through Parliament with unacceptable haste in response to wider events, and both were considered to be in conflict with the UK’s commitment to international conventions and treaties. The strikes Act will operate in Scotland and Wales even though most of the sectors it covers are devolved, meaning that the Westminster Secretary of State for Health or Education, whose remits run only in England, will decide what minimum levels of service must be provided in Scottish or Welsh hospitals or schools in the event of an industrial dispute. Yesterday we had the confirmation of the level of service that will be required on the railways under the minimum service level enforcement. This came only a matter of days after Avanti announced that it was unilaterally cutting its Saturday services on the west coast line, making a mockery of the whole concept of minimum service levels.

In the second example, the Illegal Migration Act infringes the devolved settlements for Scotland and Northern Ireland, undermining their existing legislation on modern-day slavery. The defence of these rushed pieces of legislation is that they were both passed in the elected Chamber. Ministers in this place have argued that we have to respect the will of the elected House. They are right, of course, but we have allowed a Government with little support from voters—polling at 24% at the moment, I believe—to rush through legislation that breaches international treaties and rides roughshod over the devolved settlements. I was pleased to hear the Minister say earlier that devolution has to be nurtured; nurturing something does not normally involve trampling all over it.

We will soon receive the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which will probably join the long list of Bills passed through the Westminster Parliament that curtail the rights of the devolved Administrations. The details of the Bill will be discussed in due course, but it denies the rights of other elected authorities in the UK to reflect the morality of those who elected them. I think we can agree that many, perhaps most, people have a different moral compass from that we are seeing in some members of the Cabinet. The answer is to have a more effective check on the unrestrained power of a Government, through a democratically accountable second chamber, one that reflects the nations and regions of the UK, defends the rights of devolved Administrations and safeguards human and constitutional rights.

I am pleased to see that the leader of the opposition, when standing for that post, made a pledge for:

“Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity … A federal system to devolve powers … Abolish the House of Lords—replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations”.


I look forward to hearing that as a commitment in a future King’s Speech.

19:59

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, we search in vain for any mention of immigration reform in His Majesty’s Speech, even though, earlier on, one of five primary priorities for the Government was stopping the small boats. Yet there is no mention. The Government seem content, somehow, with what they are doing at present. Even though thousands of Home Office immigration decisions are overturned on appeal, there is no promise of reform. Suella Braverman even told the Tory conference last year:

“I would love to have a picture on a page of the Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda. That’s my dream; it’s my obsession”.


The word was “obsession”. I question whether UK policies should be determined by a Minister’s obsessions and not by rational decision.

This is the same person who told us last week that homelessness was a chosen lifestyle, and that tents should be removed from the streets. Fellow human beings are treated as if they are an inferior brand of humanity. The proposal to use the Penally camp and Napier barracks as asylum accommodation goes in reverse of what reports said as far back as September 2020. They were not favourable. Preparing accommodation designed for other purposes to be used for asylum is very difficult at ordinary times, let alone during a pandemic, when the challenges are even greater. The barracks at both Napier and Penally had previously been used to house military personnel for short periods of one to two weeks, and required considerable renovation to make them suitable for relatively long-term asylum housing. It was therefore surprising that the Home Office gave them not the time required but only two weeks to make each site operational, with very little consultation. Similarly, the “Bibby Stockholm” barge, rented at £18 million a year to house 500 asylum seekers, has been empty for at least the last two months since legionnaires’ disease was discovered there.

Although Tories claim that curbing net inflow of migrants is a critical issue for voters and that immigration is something that they want to stop, new surveys prove that there is a much more positive response to immigration. People are far in advance of the Government. Refugees and asylum seekers are as much human beings as every one of us in this Chamber and they should be respected. Not one of us chooses our place of birth or the conditions in which we grow and the opportunities we enjoy or are denied. I am very proud of my Welsh background, but as one of the human family with many languages and cultures, I need to look at the world around. It might be to Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Gaza or even our fellow nations of the UK. They are our family: brothers, sisters, children. To act otherwise is to deny the law of creation and humanity. It is our opportunity to make the most of these relationships and to strengthen them. Unfortunately, in recent years for imagined electoral gain, words and actions have divided and separated. Let us put a halt to this and aim to heal and unite. Mae pob un yn yr un teulu—every one of us is a part of the same human family.

20:03

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, keeping the public safe is undoubtedly a worthy, desirable and even necessary aspiration for Government, and the PM’s briefing on the gracious Speech gives us some rather interesting figures in relation to the proposed legislation. It is very good to see that there has been an increase of 5.1% in police numbers in the past year, giving us 147,430 full-time equivalent police officers—some 3,700 more than we had in 2010. However, the population has increased over the same period by some 7 million, crime has become more complex, and serious organised crime has grown exponentially. In addition to that, across England and Wales there are about 5,000 officers on long-term absence, and a further 7,500 are on adjusted duties, meaning they are not available for front-line policing. We need to bear this in mind as we contemplate how we should reform the law.

Key figures also indicate a significant reduction in reported crime, but the Crime Survey for England and Wales estimates that only 40% of crime is reported to the police. Crime reporting and methodologies have obviously been the subject of a lot of discussion, and it is widely reported that either police will not respond or that people have no faith that there is any purpose in reporting. There have been reports that police will not investigate shoplifting under £200, that judges have been told to delay the sentencing of criminals because the prisons are too full, and that police generally will not respond to domestic burglaries and vehicle crime. The issuing of a crime number for such crimes does not address the task of preventing future crime by the perpetrators. Add to that the factors such as intimidation and fear of reprisals and it would perhaps be unwise to conclude that crime levels are in fact diminishing.

The proposals in the sentencing Bill to increase the duration of prison sentences which must be served in certain cases are perhaps attractive until one starts to think about the fact that our prisons are grossly overcrowded. I welcome the proposal for a presumption that a sentence for custodial terms of 12 months or fewer will be suspended. It will be interesting to see the evidence that extending the proportion of a prison sentence which must be served will have the effect of reducing crime. The purpose of prison would surely be much better served if the resources available were used to provide rehabilitative schemes, educational services and adequate mental health services within our prisons, rather than keeping prisoners in custody for longer and longer periods of time, in situations in which they are provided with consoles to play games to keep them occupied, rather than doing anything which is going to equip them to play a purposeful, contributing role on their release.

As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there are reasons why it is important to have flexibility in how long the most serious offenders must serve. If they have some hope, in the form of an understanding that they may be released early if they behave themselves and that they may be detained for longer if they do not, they may be influenced in how they behave, thus making the job of those prison officers who have to look after them easier, and indeed safer.

The proposals to ensure that criminals face the consequences of their actions by forcing them to appear in court may seem attractive. However, perhaps a note of caution is merited. Even the logistics of forcing someone to appear for sentencing may be very challenging for those required to bring the individual into court. If someone does not wish to go, undoubtedly prison officers and police officers are trained in how to make them go. However, the logistics are difficult. Manhandling people into court is possible, but anyone who has witnessed the process of moving somebody who does not wish to move will know that it will be difficult and may actually cause further distress to the victims of the crime for which the sentence is being proposed.

A letter yesterday from the Home Secretary indicated that the Home Office will introduce new legislation to give effect to the recommendation made by Bishop James Jones on the Hillsborough issue for a statutory duty of candour. It will not be enough to introduce a statutory duty of candour on individual officers, welcome though that may be. The Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which I had the privilege to chair, recommended the creation of a wider statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve, subject to protection of national security and relevant data protection law.

For there to be confidence in policing, there has to be confidence that organisational failings, particularly the failing to address criminality within the ranks of police forces, will be dealt with, and that institutional defensiveness and lack of transparency will not result in a failure to admit and address institutional failings. Concern about the lack of transparency linked to institutional defensiveness led to the establishment of a statutory duty of candour in the National Health Service. There have long been calls for a similar duty in relation to police. As a panel we recognised the complex challenges of guaranteeing public accountability of an organisation such as the police, not least because of the requirement to protect information in accordance with the law. However, those challenges should not prevent frank and prompt accounts to the public about mistakes and wrongdoing. Such a duty of candour would not in any way compromise the necessary protection of information in accordance with the law.

20:10

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in the debate on the humble Address in this His Majesty the King’s first Speech as our monarch. As a committed unionist, I am totally supportive of the union in all its aspects, and I trust that the packages and policies introduced by the Government will be applied fairly across the United Kingdom in order to support struggling families, particularly those in Northern Ireland.

It is a matter of regret that, at this time, we still have political uncertainty in Northern Ireland. We want devolution to succeed. We want to see decisions taken in Stormont, because decisions that impact the daily lives of people in Northern Ireland are best taken locally in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Government’s efforts to find a solution to the outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. Although there has undoubtedly been progress made, regrettably, it is clear that problems remain and, as my party leader recently said, as things stand there is some distance left to travel. It is essential that arrangements are put in place that have cross-community support; it is clear that the current arrangements fall short of this. My party will, however, continue to work with the Government to find solutions to these outstanding issues.

Governance in Northern Ireland must operate on the basis of consensus. There remains no consent within unionism for barriers being implemented between parts of the United Kingdom. There remains no consent for arrangements which will see further EU regulations implemented and which will cause Northern Ireland to diverge further from our closest friends and partners here in mainland Britain. Regrettably, it remains the case that the rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Act of Union have not been restored. In order to see devolved government up and running once more in Northern Ireland, it is vital that the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is restored.

If Northern Ireland citizens and businesses are to be treated as equal to our fellow Britons elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the integrity of the UK internal market must be restored. A customs border on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and remaining within the UK internal market was unnecessary in 2019, and it remains unnecessary in 2023. Transformative investment is required, and it should be saved for policing, schools, hospitals and roads in Northern Ireland, rather than facilitating an economic border between parts of this United Kingdom. For Northern Ireland to join England, Scotland and Wales in benefiting from being outside the EU, out of constitutional necessity we must find a solution to these issues. For those of us who value this great union of nations, safeguarding and protecting Northern Ireland’s long-term place inside the UK internal market and inside the union is the most important responsibility we have.

I want briefly to turn my attention to funding for the devolved nations. For a long time, it has been clear that a disparity exists in the current funding model. One of the major reasons for this glaring disparity is the simple fact that the formula used for the rest of the United Kingdom, a formula based on need, has not been applied in Northern Ireland. To continue to fund Northern Ireland using an outdated model is to continue a process whereby Northern Ireland is starting with less. Public services in Northern Ireland are being denied the money they require to operate effectively. Unless there is a serious review into how Northern Ireland is funded, the situation will only deteriorate. With or without a Northern Ireland Assembly, and with or without the Northern Ireland protocol, the reality of the Barnett formula and the current model will continue to lead to future budgetary uncertainties and continued pressures on public services. Devolved government will work only with a fair and stable funding formula in place.

I want to see Stormont back up and running. However, the institutions cannot work without the restoration of the delicate political balance negotiated over many years. My party is committed to continuing to work with the Minister’s party and with the Government to resolve the remaining issues, but at all times our work must be about delivering on the commitment given to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.

20:15

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I find the news of Lord Judge’s death most painful. I started my career as a barrister with Lord Judge—we were fellow pupil barristers in the same chambers—and I have known and admired him ever since.

On Thursday 14 October 1976, Lord Hailsham, the father of the current noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, gave the Richard Dimbleby memorial lecture entitled “Elective Dictatorship”. I thought then that Lord Hailsham was right, and I think now, 50 years on, he was more than right. As Lord Hailsham argued, the Executive, when they wish, just control the legislature and not, as it should be, the other way round. Importantly, Lord Hailsham identified the cause as the

“continuous enlargement in the scale and range of government”,

with the result that more and more of the Government’s party, particularly in the House of Commons, is being taken into government, thereby strengthening the Government’s powers over the legislature.

I can give a personal example. My grandfather, in the House of Commons in the 1920s and 1930s, was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office. At that time, the only other political appointment in the Home Office was the Home Secretary. Take the position now: there is the Home Secretary, three Ministers of State, three Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State and seven political appointments. The assumption is that this has happened in all the major departments of state, and the Government have continued, and are continuing, to extend their powers through the creation of one government agency after another.

In the current Parliament, there have been Bills, though not many, in which the Back-Benchers in both Houses of Parliament have been able to participate, to the benefit of the Bill, which is welcome—but not so with other Bills. Take, for example, the Illegal Migration Bill. This House worked very hard throughout the passage of the Bill, and when, on 12 July at well past midnight, this House was considering Commons amendments to it, we voted by significant majorities—by 60 votes or more in nine Divisions—for critical and important changes. What happened when the Bill got back to the House of Commons? My colleague in the Commons, Jess Phillips, wrote about it in the New Statesman on 21 July:

“Round and round and round we walked, voting on the House of Lords’ amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill. The first session took three and a half hours, the second two hours. It really is something to spend so much time losing votes … during these past few weeks of parliament, the farce has been real”.


I think all of us should find this very disturbing. It was further disturbing when we were compelled to pass this Bill, which most bizarrely contained provisions the Court of Appeal had declared to be unlawful. If the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeal, there will remain among our statutes an unlawful statute. Perhaps its true name is the “illegal Migration Bill”.

This was not the only Bill which, in the last Parliament, fell in the House of Commons to the dictate of the Government—I refer to the retained EU law Bill. It is true that we are not an elected Chamber, but we are the only Chamber in Parliament that can place some restraint on the Government. In neither of the two Bills I cited did the Government have any electoral or other mandate. In the King’s Speech, the Government state that they intend to

“deliver on the Illegal Migration Act”.

What does this mean? I can only urge the Government heretofore not to use dictatorial powers and urge this House to look after democracy when any Government, of any day and of whatever persuasion, is patently not doing so.

I end my words by addressing the two Ministers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Lord Privy Seal, in his excellent speech yesterday, spoke about the friendliness of this House. I have now been rather unfriendly towards the Government of which the two Ministers are members. I hope that they will accept that I was not seeking to be unfriendly to them—they are good and respected Ministers. Their problem is that they are having to answer for the extremists in their party in the other place. We should give our commiserations to both of them.

20:21

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday, following the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Newby, the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord True, accused the Liberal Democrats of a lack of optimism. The noble Lord is observant; that lack of optimism pervades the whole country. If the King’s Speech is the Government’s response to that lack of optimism, it has certainly done nothing to raise spirits. Never in the whole time that I have been in your Lordships’ House have I heard a government programme so lacklustre, so failing in vision and so meaningless in improving the lives of the people of this country.

People rightly feel pessimistic, and the Government have made that infinitely worse by undermining faith in democracy. People have seen the lying day after day, as the Covid inquiry is now uncovering. People have seen a system brought in by the Conservative Government to fast-track cronies’ access to massive lucrative contracts. I believe that the National Crime Agency is still vigorously pursuing the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, and her husband.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke earlier about the fact that we should tighten up a lot of the House’s rules and clean up our act; I thoroughly agreed with that part of his speech. The House needs to review, for example, whether taking leave of absence in circumstances such as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, is an abuse of leave meant to cover illness, caring or serious work elsewhere. The House of Lords is a serious legislative Chamber and to have Members use and abuse their position here to line their own pockets is an utter disgrace.

The eroding of democracy also happens when the Government ignore Parliament. As other noble Lords have mentioned, Parliament voted to stop criminalising the homeless by getting rid of the Vagrancy Act, but the Government never actioned that. The Lords tried to get rid of it again in the levelling-up Act, but the Government used their majority in the Commons to make sure that that did not happen. Perhaps we have a hint as to why: the Home Secretary thinks homelessness is a “lifestyle choice”. Apparently, as other noble Lords have also mentioned, she is said to be considering penalising charities that are helping the homeless by providing shelter in the form of tents—which is about as low as it gets.

The Government also ignored Parliament’s vote to provide a buffer zone around abortion clinics so that women seeking help are not subjected to aggressive anti-abortion action and abuse—another very humane and important measure that Parliament really wanted but the Government have just not actioned.

A cynical government ploy is to get favourable headlines by promising a Bill and then dropping it. For example, measures to address dog theft more seriously and the import of puppy-farmed dogs were in the Speech for the last Session of Parliament, but the Government just dropped them—and they are not in the new animal welfare Bill. I expect that several more Bills in yesterday’s gracious Speech are for the same cynical purpose.

Right now, many noble Lords will share my view that it is hard to think of legislation and detail in the face of the situation in Gaza. At a time of immense tension, the Government’s role should be to encourage tolerance. People need to express their views and feelings, providing that they are not inciting hatred. The Home Secretary described the forthcoming march on Saturday as a “hate march”; that is truly dangerous, provocative and disgraceful language. Most people who want to march are marching for a humanitarian settlement and for peace; they are not marching out of hate. I commend the Metropolitan Police for its measured stance on this, and I hope that it continues to hold its nerve in the face of government pressure. Some people have said that Armistice Day is not a suitable day for a march. I disagree; I think that the point of remembering war, besides remembering those who died, is to become even stronger advocates for peace.

20:25

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, like several other noble Lords, I shall focus on devolution; I will make a specific point and then a more general one. The King’s Speech commits the Government to

“promote the integrity of the Union”.

That is very welcome, as far as it goes. The problem is that that is as far as it goes. The Speech is silent as to what the Government will do to uphold the union.

Successive Governments have adopted a reactive position, responding to demands made by devolved Administrations, especially in Scotland. There has been a tendency not to engage with the devolved bodies, but rather to treat them on a grace and favour basis and keep them at arm’s length. The line has tended to be one of grudging concessions, rather than being on the front foot—that is, adopting a proactive stance in making the case for the union. The need to make that case has been advanced and reiterated by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, not least, powerfully and eloquently, in its 2016 report, as well as that of last year. The latter report says:

“The Union should continue to adapt, but with a renewed focus on strengthening effective relations among its constituent parts. We believe that the flexibility of our uncodified constitution is well-suited to achieving this”.


When I chaired the Constitution Committee, it produced a report in 2002 making the case for keeping the means of resolving conflict in good working order. Had our recommendations been acted on, we would likely be in a much stronger position than we are. There is a need for swift action to ensure that, this time, the recommendations of the committee are acted on. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Sharpe can give the House an update on what progress has been made.

The more general point I will make flows from that. The Dunlop review recommended that a senior Cabinet Minister should have a duty to uphold the integrity of the constitution, including the operation of inter- governmental relations and the devolution arrangements more generally. The Prime Minister has taken the title of Minister for the Union. The problem with this is twofold. First, the Prime Minister has a range of responsibilities; he is not able to prioritise the defence of the union. I appreciate that there is now a Cabinet committee on the union, which is a welcome step, but it is not one that deals with my second point, which is that the Prime Minister’s focus, like that of the committee, is the union, not the integrity of the constitution.

It is the case that the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for the constitution. This point was made several times in the Government’s response earlier this year to the Constitution Committee’s report on the role of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers. Yet later, when I put down a Question asking who in government was responsible for the constitution, I was told that it was the Deputy Prime Minister. When I tabled a further Question asking why this was not listed in his ministerial responsibilities on the government website, I was told that the Deputy Prime Minister

“has oversight of all Cabinet Office policy and continues to maintain responsibility for constitutional policy, with support … from a wider ministerial team within the Cabinet Office and across Government”.

That is far too broad and ambiguous.

As far as the Government are concerned, the constitution falls under the heading of

“Oversight of all Cabinet Office policy”,


which is one of the 11 responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is no better than when the Prime Minister had primary responsibility.

The health of the constitution is crucial to the well- being of the British polity. The fundamentals of our uncodified constitution have served the nation well, but the working of the constitution rests on the broad acceptance by both those in authority and citizens generally that it is legitimate and serves the nation well.

Our constitution, unlike some codified constitutions, is underpinned by a culture of constitutionalism. This embodies an understanding and embrace of constitutional principles. It is reflected in the requirement of the Constitutional Reform Act for the Lord Chancellor to swear to respect the rule of law. The Act does not define what the term means; the Lord Chancellor is deemed to know. However, the constitution has come under challenge in recent years, in part because of ignorance on the part of Ministers—on occasion, a wilful ignorance bordering on contempt—and is now in danger of being undermined by neglect. That needs to be countered by those at the heart of government having a clear understanding of our constitutional arrangements—not just process but the principles underlying it—and being vigilant in protecting those principles. For that purpose, there needs to be a senior Minister with a clear, defined responsibility for constitutional issues and the clout to ensure that the principles are upheld.

It would be helpful to have an acknowledgement that the Government recognise their core responsibilities for upholding and proactively promoting the core values of the constitution. The opportunity afforded by debating the King’s Speech is ideal for this purpose.

20:32

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, it feels strange to stand and speak here for the first time after 24 years. In 1999, when many of us left—not expecting to return—what was to follow was then being described as the transitional House. Having come back, I have to observe that it seems that the transition has been only gradual and may well have some way to go. Meanwhile, it is good to see again some friendly and familiar faces, so remarkably preserved by the rejuvenating qualities of this place.

In the intervening period, I have worked as a full-time judge, latterly exclusively in the family courts. I was fortunate to work for some time on the Western Circuit when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, was the popular and highly respected presiding judge. He was seen as a mainstay of judicial independence, the importance of which was conveyed so well by his maiden speech.

Today’s sad news leads me to add that, long before that, like so many of my generation, I was trained as an assistant recorder by Mr Justice Judge, as he then was. He ran training courses with firmness, good sense and good humour. Like many, I am for ever grateful for the confidence that he instilled in me at the start of my judicial career. Later, in this House, he showed care for the quality and viability of legislation, as do all judges and former judges who are the direct consumers of legislation produced by Parliament. As so many have already said, Lord Judge will be greatly missed.

I turn to the gracious Speech. Experience in the family courts leads me to welcome and support the proposed introduction of what has been called Jade’s law, which is expected to provide for the automatic suspension of the parental responsibility of a parent who is convicted of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of their child’s other parent. I pay tribute to those who have pressed for the implementation of this measure.

There are few more difficult cases for a family court to deal with than having to decide the best arrangements for a child or children when one parent has killed the other. In reality, the child concerned will have lost both parents. The child will be traumatised, confused and in need of immediate expert support. Sadly, there can sometimes be competing claims to care for the bereaved child from within the wider family; sometimes there is also a necessity to consider placement away from the surviving family.

Both short-term and long-term arrangements for the child or children are always required. These certainly should not be impeded by the unreasonable or inappropriate exercise of parental responsibility by the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator of the killing. However, it should also be recognised that the need for the family court to make swift and informed decisions in the interests of the child can still be hampered by the slower pace of the criminal proceedings, particularly if they are prolonged by applications to appeal or, as I have experienced, applications to the overstretched Criminal Cases Review Commission.

This is not the time to anticipate detailed consideration of how the new provisions will be aligned with established best practice in the family courts. It simply needs to be understood that Jade’s law will not resolve all difficulties or complexities, but it should help to provide some finality and certainty for the children and surviving family members.

Wishing to be brief, I will not take up much time on the more vexed question of dealing with defendants who will not come into court for sentencing. That is behaviour which plainly dismays the victims and their families. Having myself been sworn at over the years by a number of defendants, usually when leaving the dock just after sentence, I simply suggest that whether or not and how to react to the behaviour of a defiant or recalcitrant defendant who will not get into the dock in the first place should still, so far as possible, be left to the discretion of the responsible judge. I am not alone in being concerned about imposing a duty on custody staff to manipulate and manhandle defendants into court. However, I accept that there may well be a case for an additional penalty to mark disapproval of deliberate and unjustified refusal to go into court, even if, in reality, that has little or no meaning for defendants already due to receive very long sentences.

I hope that these problems will receive further thought and debate when the Bill comes here.

20:37

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I add my voice to those who mourn the passing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He was a great defender of the devolved Parliaments. I will miss his wisdom and clarity of thought, and his gentle and sometimes wicked sense of humour.

Yesterday’s King’s Speech was a speech of fine words with no real solutions to the problems facing hard-working people in our country. There was nothing to give encouragement to those I talk to who believe that our country is broken. There was nothing really about our NHS and nothing to give hope to our NHS staff, who struggle daily to provide us with the best service that they can. There was nothing to bring comfort to those who are concerned about the sewage scandal blighting our rivers, and absolutely nothing to help home owners facing the nightmare of seeing their mortgages skyrocketing. I hope that these issues will be addressed in the Autumn Statement.

As your Lordships can imagine, the prospect of speaking on the devolution aspect of today’s debate was something that I was looking forward to—although, given their past record, I was at a loss to imagine what the Government would be proposing to include in the gracious Speech under the category of devolution to the devolved nations. All was revealed in those few words:

“My Government will promote the integrity of the Union”.


Those words had the opposite effect on me to that which they had on the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Surely my heart was not the only one to sink with the realisation that we in Wales would be facing the continuation of present policies towards the devolved nations, eating into their devolved powers and ignoring the Sewel convention, all in the name of binding the union together.

The fear is that making any more inroads into the powers of our devolved Parliaments is a completely counterproductive strategy. Far from binding us together, the constant undermining of our devolved Parliament in Wales continues to be a recruiting sergeant for Yes Cymru, the pro-Welsh independence movement. According to the latest survey in September this year by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, 38% of people want Wales to become an independent nation. This poll also showed that 41% of those aged 18 to 24 and 51% of those aged 25 to 34 would vote for independence. As our demographics change in the years ahead, it is likely that calls for independence will become stronger, so perhaps it is now time for a change in strategy.

A visit to the Senedd in Cardiff would immediately show the contrast between our devolved Parliament and this UK Parliament. When the Welsh Assembly was first being set up, the commission deliberately set out to design the Chamber in a semi-circular layout, rejecting the adversarial, “two swords’ lengths apart” layout of the Commons. Co-operative working and partnership have therefore become key descriptors of the modus operandi of the Senedd. The Welsh Finance Minister has called for a change in the relationship between the two Governments to one based on partnership rather than competition—a good starting point for a change in strategy, perhaps.

The Speech was unambitious for the devolved nations. Sadly, the belief that devolution is a journey, not a destination, has become moribund. I turn briefly to some of the issues that we would wish to have seen addressed in the King’s Speech. Proposals or opportunities to highlight the need for the Welsh Government to have greater fiscal powers, including greater flexibility to borrow and treatment of capital, would have been most welcome. On the issue of energy, we were looking for opportunities to call for a green homes Bill to tackle fuel poverty, raise the energy performance of current homes and ensure that all new homes are smart homes, reducing energy demand.

My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has spoken for many years about the devolution of justice to Wales. I continue to endorse his position on this. I welcome the work that the Welsh Government is leading on youth justice and probation. This work is to understand how the devolution of these areas to the Senedd could happen in practice and how the positive impact of devolving these services to Wales could be maximised.

In March, the Senedd voted in favour of the devolution of policing, which showed its commitment to the future devolution of these powers. Would the Minister care to comment on the possible devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Senedd in the future? Such powers would align well with the ambition to further develop renewable energy and offshore wind. It is sad that the Senedd has to spend an inordinate amount of time, energy and money on defending and protecting its powers when, with a change of focus, this Parliament could initiate a more ambitious, dynamic programme of devolution to benefit the people of Wales.

20:44

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, it came as a great shock to hear of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He was a friend and a great parliamentarian. We shared a love of Leicester City Football Club and often spoke about it at length. I pass my condolences to his family and friends.

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. We were founder Members of the Welsh Assembly and I recall many debates with her there on some of the areas that she covered. We have also been treated to three maiden speeches of great quality and depth today.

Before I say something on what the gracious Speech set out, I touch on one area on which it did not set out anything substantive: positive action on rough sleeping—the Minister will recall me raising this previously. He knows that, during the pandemic, rough sleeping was eliminated. This is to the credit of the Government; it was admittedly in special circumstances, but I wonder why we are not able to do that now. We should be giving attention to this, rather than stigmatising the victims of rough sleeping, who do not deserve it.

I turn to law and order, which is one of the significant elements of the gracious Speech. I agree with the sentiment that serious crimes deserve serious sentences. We all do: that is clearly right and I have no difficulty with it. To be fair, the gracious Speech sets out the importance of community service for less serious crimes to ensure that perpetrators do not become enlisted in a sort of a university of crime; that the costs are not added to, because it is expensive to keep people in prison; and that there is not a breakdown of family life. We need to focus on what we are doing to ensure that there are resources for the Probation Service to ensure that that happens.

In the same area, I note what has been said about prison building. I know that we have a programme for that, which is necessary and right, but what has still not been set out—I pressed the Minister on this previously, when we had a Statement—is the timescale for this, which has slipped. I would like to hear more about when these extra places will be available and the substitution of places, because the estate is old and needs replacing.

We are also promised a criminal justice Bill, and many of the facets of that are to be welcomed. Reporting the concerns of those working with children of suspected child sexual abuse seems extremely sensible, as are the provisions against violence against women and girls. As we have heard recently in relation to the Letby case, it is worth investigating how we deal with non-attendance for sentencing of perpetrators of crimes. Whether this is dealt with as forced attendance, which I accept is difficult, or in terms of sentencing, it deserves attention.

I also welcome the Bill on terrorism and the protection of premises, in the wake of the dreadful Manchester Arena disaster, which noble Lords will want to support. There are issues about its funding, and we also need to ensure a lighter touch for premises such as village halls, community halls and so on, which perhaps do not face the same threat. It is nevertheless something to be welcomed, and I would like to hear more about the resources that will be made available for it.

I note the Prime Minister’s commitment to raise illegal migration in every international arena that he can. He has shown a willingness to do that at the G7 and the Council of Europe, but will this also extend to the United Nations? That is where true international attention to this problem can be forthcoming. We need to recognise the truly international dimension to this, as the problem will get only more serious with climate change, food insecurity and the sorts of conflicts that we are seeing at the moment. An international approach is needed.

May I also mention the Windrush generation? This does not need fresh legislation, but the compensation and other commitments need a bit of heft. This is becoming urgent and time sensitive.

I turn to devolution and some of the matters raised. It is absolutely right that reform of the Barnett formula is needed, as was raised by the noble Lord in relation to Northern Ireland. Wales, too, suffers from under- funding, although I think Scotland suffers from over- funding. That needs to be addressed. The formula was first introduced many moons ago in the name of Lord Barnett. Also, as I have raised before, we need a body that encompasses all the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Parliament to ensure that we share best practice and that the rough edges are smoothed out. I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton on the need for implementation of the Dunlop review and somebody taking specific responsibility for the union in the Cabinet. I look forward to hearing who that will be.

Lastly, there is the nature of the Home Office, which has been raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who is not in his place at the moment. It is far too large, even now that prisons and probation have been taken out. It needs splitting up, so that we have a separate department of immigration. The Home Office deals with so many different issues at the moment, and it would be wise if we could do something on that front.

20:51

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)]

My Lords, I first got to know Lord Judge well when I was a pretty raw and inexperienced DPP and he became president of the Queen’s Bench Division and head of criminal justice in the Court of Appeal. He was kind, wise and, where necessary, sympathetically firm. These were wonderful qualities in a judge, a Lord Convenor and a friend. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, on his maiden speech. I am sure that his contributions to your Lordships’ House will be important and necessary in the years ahead.

From time to time, both major parties have played their part in an arms race in criminal sentencing. They sometimes seem to want to outbid each other in sentencing policy, no doubt in the belief that this is worth votes. They may, of course, be right about that, but it is surely the role of Governments and Oppositions to sometimes lead and not simply follow. This is particularly true on questions of public policy, where the public mood may not always coincide with what is best. This is an aspect of representative, rather than delegative, democracy.

Everyone involved in British penal policy knows that incarceration is horrendously expensive, that much of the prison estate is crumbling through lack of investment, that inspectors’ reports on prison conditions are frequently a national embarrassment, and, perhaps worst of all, that recidivism rates are appalling and not improving. The figures no doubt reflect, in part, the inadequate provision of rehabilitative schemes. The Government are prepared to grow the prison population by increasing sentences, reducing parole and restricting remission, but they are not prepared to pay for a sufficient increase in prison places to accommodate these policies, for the necessary improvements to the prison estate or for proper rehabilitation to minimise reoffending. In the end, all of this hurts the public.

Perhaps recognising this failure in joined-up policy-making, the Government’s 2021 spending review promised 20,000 new prison places. But by June of this year, only 5,200 of these places had materialised and, according to the Ministry of Justice, we will have just 8,200 by May 2025. The full 20,000 will not be on stream until 2030—if we are lucky. One project has apparently been delayed by the discovery of a badger sett.

In the face of this, our prison population reached over 86,000 in February this year, the highest in western Europe. It is projected to rise to over 94,000 by March 2025, and we are told that it could reach over 108,000 by 2027. As Sir Bob O’Neill, the respected Conservative chair of the Commons Justice Committee, has said, you cannot keep trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot.

The result of this dispiriting cycle of poor public policy is disgraceful prison conditions almost designed to perpetuate criminal behaviour, ad hoc early release schemes, frankly embarrassing threats to decant British prisoners to jails abroad, and, perhaps most undignified of all, judges having to delay sentencing hearings so that convicted people on bail will not have to be sent to over-capacity prisons just yet.

It should not be beyond the capacity of the British state to design a penal policy that tends towards rehabilitation, that does not rely on emergency release schemes, that does not force us to pay other countries to house our convicts, and that allows judges to get on with the business of dispensing timely justice.

I strongly welcome the brave and sensible approach the Secretary of State has taken to less serious offending and his proposal to reduce—I hope drastically—the number of people sent to prison on short sentences that allow no time for rehabilitation and for which rates of recidivism are so high. However, I am concerned about proposals to abolish remission altogether for certain categories of serious crime, for two reasons. First, remission works as an essential form of behaviour control, particularly in crowded, understaffed prisons. This policy will make the already difficult task of prison staff harder and more dangerous still. Secondly, there is no doubt that this dam, once breached, will breach again. I predict that, if the Government pursue this, the categories of offence with no or reduced remission will grow and the prison population will ramp up.

Finally, what is proposed on whole-life sentences is a very significant change that will greatly increase the number of prisoners serving whole-life terms in our prisons. Can the Minster tell us whether the Government have calculated by how many, or what the impact on prisoner management might be?

It is no insult to the victims of crime to acknowledge that there is a hierarchy of evil in criminal conduct and that whole life has always been reserved for the very worst crimes. The murderer of Zara Aleena, whose sentencing may have played some part in this proposal, committed a terrible crime, and her bereaved family have behaved with extraordinary dignity ever since. In the end, the Court of Appeal decided that the killer deserved a minimum sentence of 33 years but, as the Lady Chief Justice pointed out, that does not mean he was getting a sentence of 33 years. His sentence was life. It simply meant that he was being told that he must serve at least 33 years before he would even be considered for parole. Thirty-three years is a severe penalty, yet the reality is likely to be much harsher.

It is widely recognised by commentators of all political persuasions—indeed, it has become a commonplace observation—that some of these criminal justice proposals in the gracious Speech amount to an attempt by the Government to create political space between themselves and the Opposition in advance of next year’s general election. That is a depressing way for the Government to steward criminal justice.

20:57

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I too am saddened to hear of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I did not know him well but I heard his considered wisdom in many of our debates. Indeed, it enriched them. I was also privileged to hear the maiden speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Malden, and my noble friends Lord Houchen of High Leven and Lord Bailey of Paddington, all of which I thought excellent and very diverse. I am sure their presence will enrich our House.

Growth, security and taking long-term decisions to build a better future are the right priorities when inflation still stalks the land, wars are raging, and the cost of living is cutting deeply. However, the Government have also promised to strengthen the social fabric. Among the most important long-term decisions are those which help prevent families breaking down and strengthen them for the challenges ahead, and not just by increasing their reliance on the state through cash transfers.

In declaring my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of Family Hubs Network Ltd, I say that we need a forward plan for increasing the role of family hubs in local communities. They should become the delivery point for all family support services, including those which help parents and children to manage the conflict that often escalates around the point of separation and divorce.

The Government should do more to enable parents who want to look after their own children and are willing to take the massive salary hit to do so. Front-loading child benefit would recognise the considerable value that conscientious and hard-working at-home mothers and fathers add to society and the economy. Any concerns responsible professionals such as health visitors have about parents’ ability and capacity to do this most skilled and difficult of jobs, for which few of us, if any, get formal training, should be met by freely available support in local family hubs.

We must stop ignoring the widely divergent outcomes for many boys and young men, especially those from poor white communities, in our state schools and relative to their female counterparts. We need a long-term approach to address their disadvantages so that they fulfil their potential. This is no more than we want for girls and young women.

Turning to what will be in the forthcoming legislative programme, when the carried-over Victims and Prisoners Bill resumes, I look forward to the Government’s amendments to address indeterminate IPPs—imprisonment for public protection—which the Lord Chancellor recently referred to as

“a stain on our justice system”. [Official Report, Commons, 16/10/23; col. 61.]

One long-standing prison governor told me that IPPs completely removed his officers’ ability to give any hope to a prisoner, something that is already in very short supply. Former Home Secretary Jack Straw said that the state removes the liberty of those convicted of crime as punishment, not for punishment. Plunging imprisoned people into hopelessness is disproportionately punitive in all circumstances. The Lord Chancellor has already signalled his intent to curtail the licence period following Parole Board decisions to release, but obviously this will affect only a subsection of those currently serving IPPs.

Incidentally, I have recently seen peer-to-peer support programmes which impart hope, even to those serving very long sentences, for those offering the support, not just for those receiving it. Well-trained lifers, one of whom was serving a minimum of 33 years, in HMP Dartmoor found a whole new sense of purpose during their sentences by mentoring other prisoners and helping them deal with anger issues, take responsibility for their sentences and handle family relationship problems. The result is a more settled regime, as men respond differently to the rigours of prison.

However long men serve—and it is mainly men who are affected by longer sentences—the vast majority are eventually still released. Rehabilitation cannot be an afterthought, even in this pre-election year, when the three decades-long arms race, which we heard mentioned today, between political parties around who can be the toughest on crime will likely intensify. Strenuously deploying effective ways of reducing reoffending is being tough on crime.

This requires addressing criminogenic needs: the characteristics or issues in someone’s life that directly relate to their likelihood of reoffending. Relationships are the most prevalent criminogenic need for women, and the level of lack is similarly high for men. Prisoners who receive family visits are 39% less likely to reoffend than those who do not, while education and employment decrease reoffending by only 9%. Even addressing addiction cuts the likelihood of reoffending only by 19%. Therefore, measures to improve relationships—whether between prisoners who have no family, between officers and prisoners, or with families on the outside who motivate them to go straight—are not soft on crime if their rehabilitative effect means less crime, fewer victims, more motivation to earn and pay taxes, and fewer children following their parents into prison. They are indispensable policy complements to the sentencing legislation proposed.

Finally, the arms race which penal populism generates in necessarily vote-hungry politicians is, like its historical nuclear equivalent, increasingly unaffordable, both in the squandering of human potential and the ballooning costs of criminal justice. With the greatest of respect for all those championing victims, increasing the confidence of victims may sound unarguable but it costs the taxpayer £47,000 per prisoner per year.

To sum up, longer-term decisions need to be focused on mending our badly frayed social fabric and cognisant of the vast costs of ever-longer incarceration. Politicians need to take the electorate with them on these difficult but profoundly necessary journeys.

21:05

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I first lay out my interests as set out in the register. I too want to pay tribute to Lord Judge—I got to know him very well in the past three years—and in particular the work that he started in thinking about how we deal with legislation in this House, particularly secondary legislation and statutory instruments. I think it would be wise for this House to think about how we continue that work in the future.

We heard three maiden speeches today, and I noticed that they were all very different indeed. I very particularly point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, that we will be needing his skills as some of this legislation that we are talking about today requires setting aside human rights legislation which we are currently party to. We will certainly need all the legal expertise we can get.

This has been a thoughtful and very broad-based debate. In order to sum it up, I invite noble Lords to think of it as an artist painting three pictures: in one, there are sticks being used to punish people; in the second, there are sticks or staffs being used to help people stand upright and move along; and in the third, the artist is describing the shortage of sticks altogether. Translated into this debate, the first picture is about the punitive measures contained within the six Home Office and Ministry of Justice Bills we are construing today, the second is about the supportive measures to assist in creating a better society for people to move on in their lives, and the third, naturally, is about the importance of the right resources to achieve the ambitions set out in the first two. From these Benches, there are some measures we support in the government programme, some that we clearly do not, some which may need changes, and, importantly, many which will work only with the correct resources—money, people and facilities —to make them work.

The third area of focus today is devolution. I do not know whether it was put in today’s agenda deliberately or whether a home had to be found for it somewhere. Anyway, I will say a few words about it later and draw some conclusions from what we have heard in this debate.

Many Members have talked about issues relating to sentencing. My noble friend Lord Beith pointed out that tougher sentences do not work, as we have seen sentence inflation ratcheted up across the whole sentencing spectrum. As my noble friend Lord Marks said right at the outset, locking up people without hope just stokes despair, and there is now a trend moving towards greater punishment.

We had a discussion about the role of the police. My noble friend Lady Hamwee warned us of down- grading the work on missing persons by piling on extra responsibilities for the police.

We looked at the state of our prisons. My noble friend Lord Dholakia pointed out how government actions have filled our prisons to bursting point, a point also emphasised by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.

On victims, my noble friend Lady Hamwee said that victims are to be valued; that we need them and must care for them. My noble friends Lady Brinton and Lord Marks said that the victims Bill is not tough enough and that there is a need for a statutory agency to uphold the services needed.

Finally, there was a singular speech at a very particular moment by my noble friend Lady Benjamin on a fair deal for children. She said passionately that the problem particularly facing black children in tackling discrimination and marginalisation in the criminal justice system and the care system must be addressed.

Many of the Bills and measures that we are presented with cover detention matters. There are plans for longer sentences for the most dangerous criminals, a presumption against prison sentences of 12 months or less and proposals to send prisoners to other countries for their detention. These plans are set against the backlog in our court system, which was very ably raised by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who explained in detail what that has meant. Huge delays in cases being heard are resulting in people on remand being mixed with those serving custodial sentences. Huge overcrowding on the prison estate and sentence inflation mean that people are serving longer in prison as sentence lengths grow. My question to the Minister is: how will any of the measures outlined in the gracious Speech make a dent in the unprecedented backlog of court cases that we have?

We on these Benches commend the presumption against short sentences, but the community sentences which will replace them are not a cheap offer. This was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Of course, he is absolutely right, because the resources are needed to make them run well. Of those serving sentences of 12 months or less, 55% go on to reoffend. That point was raised by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford—we are very blessed in this Chamber to have two Welsh Lord Thomas’s who can treat these matters in a uniform manner. This is the challenge the Government have to face up to. Again, what increased resources are the Government intending to put into effective community sentencing in order to realise the potential of dramatically reducing reoffending? For those transferred to serve a custodial sentence in another country—at great expense—how are rehabilitative measures to take place, with the intention of turning people’s lives around, when they are not in this country?

I now turn to the Illegal Migration Act measures referred to in the Government’s programme. It was mentioned by several noble Lords, particularly in the strong contribution from my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno, that we need to treat asylum seekers as people and friends. The central tenet of the Illegal Migration Act—detention and removal—has yet to be brought into force. I suspect that we all realise it is perhaps dependent on the court case. We still do not have the detail of how, where and at what cost people will be detained. There is the proposed reopening of Haslar IRC and Campsfield IRC, and additional capacity at Yarl’s Wood IRC, Manston and a new site in Bexhill, east Sussex, but has any work started on those places? Is anything ready for people to come in? I do not know.

The first question I would like the Government to answer on this is: where will they find the capacity to detain those in limbo who are left liable under the Illegal Migration Act? What plans are in place to create the detention spaces? When do they intend for those spaces to be available? What additional capacity is being given to legal aid providers to ensure that those in detention have access to legal advice? These are all questions for which we need answers, and we need answers now.

I turn very briefly to tents. I do not have to give the context, because so many Members of your Lordships’ House have used the word and talked about the actions of the Secretary of State. I want to know, before I ask my question of the Minister, whether this was a Secretary of State who had taken the “com” out of “compassion”. I looked at the definition. Compassion means “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others”. If you take the “com” out, you are left with “passion”, which is described as “strong and barely controllable emotion”. Will the Minister tell the House whether the proposal to ban charities distributing tents to the homeless will be in the crime and justice Bill? A simple yes or no answer will do.

I turn briefly to devolution. Concerns have been expressed, particularly by my noble friend Lord Stunell, about the unconnected zig-zag approach that we have seen—more zigs, or more zags—to dealing with the issues in England of how to make devolution work properly. But, yesterday, I listened to Questions to the Prif Weinidog—I like using that phase because, in Welsh, it means both First Minister and Prime Minister —in the Welsh Parliament yesterday. He was concerned that the word “Wales” appeared nowhere in the gracious Speech. While spend on rail links in the north of England was present, there was no mention of the electrification of the north Wales railway line. Is it still the Government’s intention to proceed with electrification, which would do so much to strengthen the economy of north Wales, improve the linkage with the rest of Great Britain and fulfil the requirement to support the union?

Secondly, the gracious Speech talked about the advanced British standard bringing together vocational and academic qualifications—that is a laudable ambition. However, powers over qualifications lie with the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments. Is the title “Advanced British Standard” in advance of itself? The Welsh baccalaureate has been in place for many years. Is it the Government’s intention to override the powers of the devolved Parliaments and impose a qualification on Wales and Scotland? If so, they had better take note of Michael Gove’s definition of undermining the institutions of Great Britain, because I think such an action would fall into that category.

Much of what the Government are offering is entitled “for the long term”—we can see it in the documentation. That makes me wonder whether the measures before us are simply sticking plasters over jobs that need to be done for the long term. Many noble Lords have talked about how our system is broken—it is, and it needs wholesale repair from one end to the other, looking at the needs that have been expressed by so many noble Lords and considering where the arrow is pointing between punishment and rehabilitation. I would like to move that arrow so that we can get more people back to having meaningful lives in this country.

21:17

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my condolences to the very moving tributes paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I had not been here long enough to know him well, but, from what I have heard today, I am sure that he would want us all to continue to strive for the justice and rule of law that he worked for throughout his life. I send my condolences to his wife and daughters.

I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Lords, Lord Houchen and Lord Bailey, on their excellent and thoughtful maiden speeches. It is a huge honour to be asked to respond for the Opposition to today’s King’s Speech debate on home affairs, crime, justice and devolution. Today’s debate has shown the great strength and diversity of expertise in your Lordships’ House.

It was so moving yesterday to hear His Majesty refer to

“the legacy of service and devotion”

left by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. His Majesty has continued in that honourable tradition of service to our country, as he took on the considerable weight of monarchy in the midst of his grief and sorrow at the loss of his beloved mother. It was a privilege to take part yesterday in the first King’s Speech for 70 years—it was my first King’s Speech since I entered your Lordships’ House—and to see at first hand the ceremony that we all value as part of our history and tradition.

On a personal note, Her late Majesty had a special role in the life of my home town of Stevenage, which was designated as Great Britain’s first new town on 11 November 1946—77 years ago on Saturday. Almost the entire life and development of our town took place under Her late Majesty’s reign. As an Elizabethan town, we were delighted to welcome her on a number of occasions, and we hope that King Charles will also want to visit. I cannot promise that he will be overwhelmed by our largely 1960s and 1970s architecture, beauty being very much in the eye of the beholder—I might love it, but we all have our own opinions—but I feel sure that he will be impressed by the outstanding community spirit, which is built on the foundations introduced by our early new town pioneers. This means that our motto,

“The heart of a town lies in its people”,


still holds good after seven decades.

But the people of our town, as with people across our country, are struggling, as mentioned by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. We have seen the combined impact of the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, a severe and worsening housing crisis, and public services brought to their knees by 13 wasted years, which have seen the economy, opportunity and aspiration steadily decline. We have seen a failure to plan for, or tackle, the key issues that could help drive Britain’s future—the green, digital and medical revolution. That leaves communities with the sense that they are invisible to political leaders—even more so among our younger citizens, so powerfully advocated for by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey.

Worse than that are the horrors unveiled by the Covid inquiry, which has revealed the chaos, lack of direction and lack of compassion at the heart of government—all mentioned by my noble friend Lady Henig. The noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, described at the inquiry today an atmosphere of a Government who were “brutal and useless”. People feel that government is ever further away from them, which was further characterised last week by a Home Secretary whose priority, rather than tackling the root causes of homelessness that devastate so many lives, was to remove the tents that provide a last lifeline for the most vulnerable who are on our streets. My noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Dubs, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia, Lord Roberts and Lord German, all mentioned that issue. In the Home Secretary’s view, homelessness is a “lifestyle choice”. No wonder there has been an outcry from so many respected organisations engaged in helping the homeless, from Shelter and Crisis to the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing. They speak with one voice; they told the Home Secretary in a powerful joint letter:

“Sleeping on the street is not a lifestyle choice. Laying blame with people forced to sleep rough will only push people further away from help into poverty, putting them at risk of exploitation. At the extreme end we will see an increase in deaths and fatalities which are totally preventable”.


In the course of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we tried very hard to get the Vagrancy Act repealed. During the debate on LURB I cited nine Acts that are directly in place to deal with anti-social behaviour and aggressive begging. Local councils recognise that this is an issue and many, such as my own, have introduced Housing First schemes that give people a roof over their head and support to tackle their complex needs—yet we are still waiting for the repeal of the Vagrancy Act.

We might have hoped that the King’s Speech yesterday would at least attempt to address the critical issues facing the people of our country and the impact on them of issues overseas. Instead, we saw a huge missed opportunity from a Government who have clearly given up on governing, and given up on delivering a serious plan for growth, economic renewal or the future of the country. Instead, we got a Prime Minister who spent last week, presumably having got through the paper sift for his next job, undertaking a preliminary interview with Elon Musk, then introducing a parliamentary programme that does little more than tinker at the edges—a programme so light that it is shadow-boxing with the issues of the day rather than proposing the heavyweight strategy we need to deal with the complex issues we face.

Of course, there are things we can support, such as ensuring that criminals face the courts for their sentencing. I pay tribute to the bereaved parents of Lucy Letby’s murders, and to Cheryl Korbel, whose daughter Olivia was murdered, for their campaigning on this. We support continuing to tackle smoking and banning unlicensed pedicabs in London—but what a shame that we do not have devolved government in this country, which would enable this without making it a national issue. We support the work on Martyn’s law and Jade’s law, but too much in the Speech had to be rowed back because the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his Back-Benchers—such as on the steps on leasehold—and too weak to stand up to his Home Secretary. So much of the promised legislation has been pushed on to the back burner. Then we saw a raft of rehashed announcements of things that we have heard about so many times before but that have not been delivered, such as those ably articulated by the noble Lord, Lord German.

The words in the King’s Speech:

“My Government will act to keep communities safe from crime, anti-social behaviour, terrorism and illegal migration”


must have a very hollow ring to our communities and the families that live in them. What they see is the visual evidence on their streets of drug crime growing by 19% a year. What they see is what the British Retail Consortium describes as an epidemic of shoplifting, costing £953 million a year. Just yesterday we heard from the RAC Foundation of a 77% increase in bilking, or stealing petrol from forecourts, with more than 39,000 incidents between July and September this year. Town centre crime has increased, yet there are 10,000 fewer police and PCSOs on our streets and in our town centres than there were in 2015, leaving shop staff feeling at risk and vulnerable. What they see is violence against women and girls reaching epidemic proportions, with more than 1.6 million women a year experiencing domestic abuse and more than 600,000 sexual assaults. What they see is their councils left powerless because of lack of funds to deal with epidemics of fly-tipping and graffiti.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, referred to the tragedy of knife crime that is happening to our young people. People need and deserve a police service in which they can feel confident and which will serve our communities. In spite of the day-to-day hard work of the vast majority of our police and police staff, who do an outstanding job, the lack of clarity from the Government, the drastic cuts that saw skill and experience drained away from our police service and the abject failure to deal with issues such as mental health continue to put unprecedented and intolerable pressure on our police services.

These issues were mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, whose telling figure of four crimes per hour per borough is a stark reminder that there is lots more to do here. Throw into that mix that we now have a Home Secretary who, far from taking her responsibility to enable cohesive and united communities seriously, is actively seeking to divide and disrupt them, and we have a perfect storm. If the public do not see a Government taking seriously what they see before their eyes, no wonder they feel ignored. That is why Labour has pledged to turn things around.

We will reverse the collapse in the proportion of crimes charged. We will rebuild public confidence in policing and the criminal justice system and restore the rule of law on Britain’s streets. At a time when half the public say they never see a bobby on the beat, we will restore neighbourhood policing. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby cited the figure of 13,000 more officers and PCSOs on our streets and introducing a new community policing guarantee to make our streets safe. We will reverse the decision to downgrade the response to shoplifting under £200, making it easier to take action against repeat offenders and ending the farce of offending impunity. We will create a new specific offence of assault against retail workers, because everyone has the right to feel safe at work.

On the criminal justice system, there are noble and learned Lords in this House who will know far better than I the impact of the biggest Crown Court backlog on record, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, with 64,709 cases outstanding in June this year. Listening to the speeches of noble and learned Lords has been one of the greatest highlights of my first year in your Lordships’ House. My own case of being violently harassed by an offender on my own doorstep, a terrifying experience, took 18 months and three visits to court to resolve—a harrowing and worrying experience for a victim. The failures in our system leave thousands of victims without legal advice and support. My daughter’s journey as a victim of domestic abuse and then stalking saw her given a date for her first court hearing on the date of her son’s first day at school. He was four years old. She told the court she would not be able to make it, and it said she would be in contempt of court if she did not turn up on that date. Victims are very lucky indeed to have the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, working on their behalf.

When we add to this situation the reports that our prison population has reached maximum capacity, at more than 88,000, leading to judges being ordered, or strongly encouraged, not to impose jail sentences, we have to wonder just how the Government intend to implement the Victims and Prisoners Bill. Sending prisoners abroad to serve their sentences is an overt admission of failure. The botched privatisation then renationalisation of the Probation Service has brought chaos and a loss of valuable experience at a time when this service is critical.

It is a fact that, under this Tory Government, eight out of 10 crimes are committed by someone who has at least one previous conviction. Labour will reverse the collapse in the proportion of crimes solved, fast-track the recruitment of detectives to plug the current shortage of 7,000, remove burdensome redaction rules to speed up charging decisions and save police time, and set up a new charging commission made up of former chief constables and prosecutors and chaired by the former Victims’ Commissioner, Vera Baird, to devise new plans to bring more criminals to justice. We will put rape and serial sexual offence units in every police force and have dedicated courts for rape trials.

I now turn to devolution. Having spent much of the last 10 years on English devolution and most of my first year in your Lordships’ House immersed in the depths of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, you would think I had had enough of that. Sadly, that Bill, like this King’s Speech, was a huge missed opportunity to create the kind of change that would drive Britain’s future. The noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stunell, both referred to this. It is astonishing that there was nothing in the King’s Speech to help grow our economy by devolving decision-making to the local areas that know best what will work, including, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York referred to, those that include rural areas and towns rather than cities. The gracious Speech was certainly devo-lite.

The UK is one of the most politically and economically centralised countries in Europe, which leaves us stuck in a cycle of worsening inequality. It is hard to see how the levelling-up Bill will change that, as much of it has the effect of centralising decision-making, not devolving it. The Government’s devolution programme over the past 13 years has been characterised by a lack of ambition, with the odd deal being struck but only when local areas agree to governance arrangements imposed on them by the centre, along with a wasteful Hunger Games-style funding model. This system results in areas being pitted against each other, without any overarching vision for the future of Britain.

We believe that devolution settlements and fair funding should be made available to all parts of the country and would introduce new legislation for that in our first King’s Speech. This would involve a significant expansion of economic devolution in England, with local leaders using a range of powers to drive growth and prosperity in communities across the country. New economic devolution will give English towns and cities the tools they need to develop credible, long-term growth plans, with bespoke packages of powers to support new internationally competitive economic clusters in high-value industries, creating high-skilled jobs in their areas.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to the excellent work on common frameworks undertaken under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Andrews. I worked with her on some of that and I agree with what he said. There was nothing in the Speech on the essential question of how the UK Government will develop devolution and the relationship between the home nations, or on how the Government will prioritise getting Stormont serving the people of Northern Ireland again. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, reminded me of the very powerful messages of hope that have come not from politicians but from the people of Northern Ireland to the people of the Middle East. As noble Lords have said, it is very important that the resources necessary to drive that forward are put in place.

In recent years, Ministers have consistently ignored and overridden the Sewel convention, including during the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. Through the commission on the UK’s future led by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Labour has proposed ways of modernising and updating our constitutional arrangements, improving the process of intergovernmental relations and putting more power into people’s hands.

In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. All that the people of our communities can see, after 13 years of Conservative government, is a party that has given up on governing—a legacy of broken politics and a failure to take back our streets from gangs, drug dealers and fly-tippers or to focus on delivering the prison places we need to keep our streets safe. The best they could come up with on that was letting criminals out early. There was nothing in the King’s Speech to put communities at the heart of policing and to make community policing something to be proud of again. They have not even kept their pledge to stop the boats: the asylum backlog has surged to 175,000, nearly 34,000 people have come in over 700 small boats and over £8 million a day is being spent on hotel places.

We will, as we always do in your Lordships’ House, do our very best to improve the legislation that comes before us, but where is the radical legislation that can bring back the optimism, confidence and vision for the country, which, to use the words of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, has been denuded of hope? Where are the big ideas for Britain’s future? We agree with the Prime Minister that it is time for a change, but he will persuade no one that he is the change they want to see when he has been at the heart of the failure so far. After the hollowing out and undermining of our criminal justice system for 13 years, people believe what they see on their streets, not vacuous promises supported by a minuscule tinkering at the edges. The change we need is a general election. The change we need is a Labour Government.

21:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by joining the House in saying how sorry I was to hear the news about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I always found him very patient with me, very erudite, very helpful and welcoming, and, most importantly, very witty; I will miss him. I compliment the maiden speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and my noble friends Lord Houchen of High Leven and Lord Bailey of Paddington. My noble friend Lord Houchen is a walking embodiment of devolution, and my noble friend Lord Bailey’s speech was inspirational and a reminder of the virtues of community. Many congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on his 50 years in Parliament. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his generous personal remarks about me and my Front-Bench colleague; and I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said.

It is a very great honour to represent the Government in closing this debate on His Majesty’s most gracious Speech. I will endeavour to respond to all the various contributions, while noting that it has, as ever, been a fulsome and insightful discussion spanning various policies, Bills and departments. First, I will make the general point that the legislative agenda we are debating is at its core about delivering a safe, strong and prosperous United Kingdom. This is not shadow boxing, as alleged by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Much has already been achieved, but we have to build on that and progress.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in his opening remarks, berated the Government for the things he claims we are not doing. I would argue that we are doing them all, and I will go into some detail on that. Obviously, the criminal justice Bill delivers on a number of measures, and it is perhaps worth starting with shoplifting, which came up several times. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Blunkett and Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lady Bray, and it is a very important subject that deserves a mention. I wonder if noble Lords perhaps missed that on 23 October, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the Retail Crime Action Plan. That sets out a much greater police focus on retail crime, which includes shoplifting and violence towards retail workers. The action plan makes a police commitment to prioritise attendance at the scene where violence has been used or an offender has been detained by store security, and where evidence needs to be secured promptly and can only be done by police personnel.

On the same day, we also launched Pegasus, a unique partnership between police and retailers to tackle serious organised retail crime. It has been set up by the Sussex police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne, with funding from 13 national retailers, National Business Crime Solution and the Home Office. The retailers will provide data, intelligence and evidence to Opal, the national police intelligence unit on organised and acquisitive crime. That is intended to develop a better strategic picture and help forces to crack down on serious offenders.

The Government are very clear that violent and abusive behaviour towards any worker, particularly those who provide a valuable service to the public, is never acceptable. We took a significant step by introducing a statutory aggravating factor for assault against those who are serving the public, via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, so at this point the Government do not intend to introduce further legislation such as the specific offence of assaulting a retail worker. We are clear that reducing violence and abuse cannot be achieved through legislation alone, so we intend to continue to work with members of the National Retail Crime Steering Group to reduce violence and abuse through our wider work.

Obviously, none of this works unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out, we also concentrate on reasonable lines of inquiry, which have been much in the news of late. The principle of pursuing all reasonable lines of inquiry is enshrined in the code of practice to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. In reality, it has not happened as much as it should. On crime and investigation, 42 of 43 forces received at least one area for improvement. On responding to the public, no force is rated “outstanding” and only 19% are assessed as “good”. The College of Policing has published new investigations guidelines and authorised professional practice to underpin a commitment to sorting this out. His Majesty’s Inspectorate will use its existing inspections framework to assess whether forces are following the college’s updated guidance. We should acknowledge that there are already forces that are making significant commitments and delivering improvements, for example in Greater Manchester. They have made significant changes to the service they provide to the public, including an impressive 44% year-on-year increase in the number of charges recorded by the force, from nearly 19,000 to nearly 27,000.

Another subject that aroused a great deal of commentary, including from the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Dubs and Lord Dholakia, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Miller and Lady Jones, my noble friends Lord Patten, Lord Hunt and Lord Bourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—I did listen carefully to the points that she was making—was to do with rough sleeping and begging. I will be clear: the Government want to ensure that vulnerable individuals on the street are directed to the appropriate support, while ensuring that police and local authorities can respond effectively to begging and rough sleeping and keeping communities safe. That is why we have introduced new tools to help direct individuals to engage with positive pathways, including accommodation, mental health support and substance misuse support, so that individuals who may have turned away help before can access the appropriate support they need.

That is backed by over £2 billion over three years, because the Government have also made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament, and to fully enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act. We have already embarked on a strategy to shift the focus to prevention and move vulnerable individuals into multiagency support. Any further details on future legislation will be set out in due course and, if a person is genuinely destitute and not causing any harm, we should be very clear: they will not be committing any offence.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the subject of fraud, and he was quite right to do so, but he neglected of course to mention that we published a fraud strategy earlier this year. There is considerable work going into the tackling of fraud, and it needs considerable work. The criminal justice Bill, for example, contains a ban on SIM farms, which, as noble Lords will be aware, are one of the facilitating factors in much of the fraud that is perpetrated in this country. The fraud strategy goes a long way and sets out an ambitious and radical plan for how government, law enforcement, regulators, industry and charities have to work together to tackle fraud. It just does not work unless it is a multiagency approach. I could go on, but we have talked about fraud a great deal from this Dispatch Box and I appreciate that time is limited, so I shall move on.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked me about a firearms review. It was a very good question, because it is vital that the public and officers have clarity and confidence in the investigatory systems in relation to police use of force, police driving and so on. That obviously includes the efficacy of investigations. That is why we announced the review, to which he referred, of the current framework and processes that are in place. The review, announced by the Home Secretary, will ensure that the legal and operational frameworks within which officers operate when using force and driving in the line of duty are robust and command the confidence of both officers and the public. That is due to report to Ministers by the end of this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lord Borwick both raised the subject of facial recognition. We believe that facial recognition technology is an increasingly important capability for law enforcement and it is already being used in a number of ways within UK policing and security settings to prevent and detect crime, enhance security, find wanted criminals, safeguard the vulnerable and protect people from harm. The use of facial recognition technologies is at varying stages across UK policing and it is a priority for the Home Office to ensure that technology is being used in an ethical and effective way. That is all I will say about that subject at the moment, but I have absolutely no doubt that is a subject to which we will return in very short order.

A number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Beith, mentioned small boat arrivals and the effectiveness of the Illegal Migration Act. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will appreciate that I cannot speculate on the ongoing court case, but I can note—which I think no one else noted—that there have been a number of newspaper stories recently about how many of our European friends and allies are looking at similar schemes. It will be interesting to see how they turn out.

What I can give are some interesting statistics. In terms of arrivals, there were just over 26,500 in 2023, up to 31 October; that compares to 45,755 in total in 2022. In terms of crossing attempts, 22,000 were prevented in 2023. In terms of the mix of the sorts of people who were attempting to make a crossing, I note that, interestingly enough, because of the returns agreement with Albania, the Albanians have dropped off the list entirely. In terms of our partnership with the French, the joint intel centre activity since July 2020 has dismantled 82 organised crime groups linked to small boats; in 2022 alone, they arrested approximately 400 people smugglers. So the fact is that there is a good deal going on, and it is proving effective, but, obviously, there is a lot still to resolve, particularly after the courts have given their decision. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that of course we need legal and controlled migration, but I remind noble Lords that these people have arrived illegally and, in doing so, are being facilitated in arriving here by serious and organised criminal gangs.

I would like to thank those people who want to come and contribute to our great country, but, obviously, only if they do so legally. This is a generous, open and welcoming country, and I can give the statistics on why I think that. Over the last year—the year ending June 2023—of the 538,887 visas granted for work, 69,421 were for skilled work and 121,290 were for health and care. In addition, there were 498,626 study visas. As of 24 October 2023, 243,700 Ukrainian visas had been granted. I am particularly delighted that 123,800 people have arrived in the UK since the Hong Kong BN(O) visa scheme route was initiated. If I may take a personal moment, I commend the Hong Kong Military Service Corps, whom we have talked about before, who were in the Gallery earlier watching some of this debate. As noble Lords will know, they will also be able to arrive.

However, we should also acknowledge, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that this is not simply a debate about numbers; there are a large number of other factors that go into migration, and it behoves us all to be extraordinarily careful about how we use language. My noble friend Lord Bourne made some very good points about the international dimension and the changing nature of the drivers of illegal immigration, and I am quite sure that he is right that it needs to be raised in multinational organisations.

On the asylum backlog, provisional data now shows that we have doubled the number of backlog decision-makers in post, so we are on track to clear the legacy asylum backlog by the end of this year. Of course, the history of this has been unfortunate, and it has perhaps not been done as quickly as we would all have liked, but the fact is that we are getting to grips with it and it will be dealt with very soon.

I turn now to the sentencing Bill, which seemed to attract a vast number of very differing opinions, including from the noble Lords, Lord Hastings, Lord Dholakia, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord German, Lord Beith, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, Lord German, Lord Blunkett and Lord Marks, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones—I am sorry if I have missed anybody. The Government are planning to make sure that the prison estate is used to lock up dangerous criminals for longer, without further criminalising redeemable offenders by trapping them in a merry-go-round of reoffending. The most dangerous prisoners are guaranteed to be behind bars for longer, but we need to go further to keep the public safe. For the worst murderers, the only proper penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of release by the Parole Board. We will ensure that, in these most serious cases, life will really mean life. Further, we will ensure that those who commit rape and other serious sexual offences will spend every day of their sentence behind bars and face the consequences of their actions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that it is the crimes that are nasty, not the sentences.

However, delivering public protection and cutting crime is not just about custody, as has been noted by most of the speakers. There is persuasive evidence that suspended and community sentences are, in certain circumstances, much more effective than short custodial sentences in reducing reoffending and aiding rehabilitation. In these cases, short prison sentences may even trap an offender in a revolving door of reoffending, cutting them off from work, housing and family and further criminalising them with each spell inside. So, the Government have decided to grasp the nettle and make a long-term decision that previous Governments have ducked by legislating for a presumption that sentences of less than 12 months in prison should be suspended. Home detention curfew enables eligible suitable offenders to be released early from prison on strict licence conditions, so that they can begin reintegrating into the community sooner. We will also therefore seek to extend eligibility to suitable risk-assessed offenders, so they can get a head start on reintegrating with the community and breaking free from the cycle of reoffending. I certainly hope that the House would back all those proposals.

A number of noble Lords have raised the subject of violence against women and girls, including the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I have talked from the Dispatch Box before about the drive to operate consistently across the nation. Operation Soteria, which I have also mentioned, has developed new nationally operating models for the investigation and prosecution of rape, which all forces in CPS areas in England and Wales are implementing to ensure that the investigations of rape are suspect-focused and considerate to the needs of victims. We know that women and girls are more likely to be victims of crimes that fall under the umbrella of VAWG. The most recent statistics show that 26.5% of women have been victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault since the age of 16, compared to 6.1% of men. Domestic abuse alone is high volume: it affects 2.4 million adults every year. It is high harm—one in five homicides is a domestic homicide, and we have referred to the sentencing measures we will be taking there—and very high cost. The social and economic cost of domestic abuse is estimated to be some £81 billion, at 2023-24 prices, over a three-year average period for abuse. We need to do more about prosecuting rape and to do more in this space; the numbers underline the importance of that. To try to make a political point that we have not been doing anything would be very wide of the mark.

I welcome the broad support for the victims Bill and thank noble Lords for it. In particular, I welcome back my noble friend Lady Newlove and thank her very much for her support. I hope my noble friend Lady Bray is right that this will help victims with closure. We believe that supporting victims by restoring trust, punishing offenders who commit very heinous crimes and ensuring that the public always have confidence in the criminal justice system are essential. The Victims and Prisoners Bill will improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system and restore confidence. As noble Lords are aware, there are a large number of items associated with this, the principle of course being that this is to support victims of crime to address the long-term challenge of victim confidence in the criminal justice system by transforming their experience from the moment a crime happens.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about stalking, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, made a similar point. It is important to mention that stalking is a criminal offence. The definition of a victim in the Victims and Prisoners Bill is

“a victim of criminal conduct”,

so victims of stalking are included in the definition. I appreciate that that is a bit convoluted, but it is taken care of to some extent.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked about the Bill placing a duty on both criminal justice bodies and the police and crime commissioners. They have to keep compliance with the code under review. At the local level, police and crime commissioners will be under a duty to review criminal justice bodies’ compliance with the code. At the national level, new oversight will bring together senior voices across the criminal justice system to consider how to drive improvement on the delivery of the code.

The subject of parole was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble friend Lord Bourne. Public confidence has fallen following a number of high-profile parole board decisions to release serious offenders, but the Bill will enshrine public protection as the only factor in release decisions and introduce greater ministerial scrutiny to the release of the most serious offenders. These reforms will help to restore public confidence in the system and ensure that dangerous offenders are not released on to our streets.

My noble friend Lady Bray and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked what discussions and engagement His Majesty’s Government have had with the judiciary on the measure to compel offenders to attend their sentence hearings. This was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Meston; I welcome his reappearance in the House. We engaged with the judiciary on the proposal to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearing ahead of the announcements in August, but obviously we will continue to engage with the judiciary where appropriate, including on the implementation of the measures. I appreciate the points that noble Lords have made about the potential difficulties of that in certain circumstances.

I turn to the subject of Martyn’s law, which was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Bourne. Martyn’s law seeks to enhance public safety by ensuring better preparedness for and protection from terrorist attacks. The Government carefully considered the scope of the requirements, including the impact on premises captured. It is reasonable that many locations should take appropriate, reasonably practicable measures to protect their staff from the horrific impacts of terrorism. Collaboration has been the cornerstone of the process. Pre-legislative scrutiny raised some important considerations regarding the standard tier requirements, which is why we will launch a consultation on the standard tier to ensure that the Bill’s measures strike the right balance between public protection and avoiding an undue burden on smaller premises; that consultation will be launched in due course. There is no intention to kick this into the long grass. We have heard from all of the various stakeholders in this. It is clearly a Bill that we need to see, but we have to do it in the right way. It is not negligence; it is about making sure that the law will work appropriately.

A variety of other matters were raised. I will start with the thorny subject of conversion therapy, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We are considering this issue carefully. I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Baroness; I think it is a very complex issue. We will set out further details on it in due course. The priority is to tackle this issue in ways that are effective and avoid unintended consequences, particularly those that might affect young or vulnerable people. It is about taking time to fully consider the consultation responses and how best to reflect parents’ roles and interests in the importance of legitimate clinical work.

Moving on to the criminal justice system, the Government will always make sure that the prison estate is used to lock up dangerous criminals, of course. More offenders are in custody now than ever before, as has been mentioned. However, delivering public protection and cutting crime are not just about custody; as I have said, there is persuasive evidence that suspended and community sentences are more effective in certain circumstances. We remain committed to reducing the case load and speeding up justice, including by extending the use of 24 Nightingale courts. We are also opening two permanent super-courtrooms in Manchester and Loughborough.

My noble friend Lord Bourne asked about the new additions to the prison estate. I can give him the number: 8,000 are due to be delivered by 2025. A number of prisons are opening over the next two or three years, and that will add up to that particular number. I will not go into the details of precisely where.

The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, asked about racism in the police and legal system. I thank her for raising these important issues. On the specific issue of racism in prisons, the Prisons Strategy White Paper sets out our vision for prisons of the future, which includes ambitious plans to make prisons safer for staff and prisoners. As regards a meeting, I cannot commit my noble friends to meeting the noble Baroness but I can pass on her request to the MoJ, DHSC and the Department for Education and encourage them to meet; I will happily do so.

A number of noble Lords raised the subject of devolution. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and my noble friends Lord Wharton and Lord Houchen gave good examples of the subject in action, if you will. It covers a number of different departments in Whitehall and various policy areas. I cannot possibly respond to all the specific questions that were asked but I will defer to the relevant colleagues in other government departments to respond in writing on unaddressed points.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Norton, the Prime Minister is, as he has noted, the Minister for the Union, and the Secretary of State for DLUHC is the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, leading the work with territorial offices and territorial office Secretaries of State, who represent the distinctive voices and interests of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland across Whitehall and in Cabinet, representing the Government in each of their nations and co-ordinating the Government’s work with the devolved Administrations to support all citizens of the UK. Specifically, in delivering our security, criminal justice and border responsibilities, the Home Office plays an important part in navigating a combination of reserved and devolved matters on a UK-wide footprint. That is why, on devolved matters such as policing in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is right and proper that the UK Government are an active influencer to ensure a coherent and UK-wide approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York both raised the subject of transport and HS2. I thank them for their comments but will pass those comments on to the Department for Transport, which will be speaking in this Chamber on that matter on Monday.

My noble friend Lord Caine supplied very detailed answers to the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Browne of Belmont, regarding the Northern Ireland devolution settlement. They are rather too long to go into at this precise moment, but I will ask him to commit this to paper and send it to the noble Lords. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, that we are confident that the Illegal Migration Act does not impact the devolution settlement and is consistent with our international legal obligations.

I will digress briefly into the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which was raised by the most reverend Primate and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I want to refer to one piece of data that was published by the Climate Change Committee. It shows that the UK will continue to rely on oil and gas to help meet its energy needs, even after the UK reaches net zero in 2050. This will include the use of gas for power generation with carbon usage and storage. I am not a net-zero or climate change sceptic; I would much prefer that we did not burn carbon. But I would also prefer that people did not suffer when it is cold. I would also prefer that we do not lose power or run out of power, and I would have hoped that both noble Lords would have reflected on their comments and also thought a little about our security when it comes to supply, and the sorts of people that we would be handing our money over to in order to keep our oil flowing.

Moving on to more topical matters such as the Israel and Hamas conflict, I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—whom I congratulate on his new role with the Metropolitan Police—for their acute perspective on the difficulties of policing marches of this type. I restate that the police in this country are operationally independent and obviously should remain so. However, a number of very unfortunate issues have arisen, in particular around anti-Semitism and, perhaps to a slightly lesser extent but no less importantly, Islamophobia. Anti-Semitism has absolutely no place in our society. That is why we are committed to tackling it in all its forms. The police should take the toughest possible action against any form of anti-Semitism. It is important that the police and the Jewish community continue to work together to ensure security and promote community cohesion. Saying that does not infringe their operational independence. They must also, as I have said, police Islamophobia as and where they find it.

I have said on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box that any arrests are very much an operational matter for the police. There have been about 30 arrests in London at protests related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, including racially aggravated public order offences. The Metropolitan Police Service has also made arrests not directly linked to protest activity and there have been arrests elsewhere in the country. It would be unwise to say too much more than that, but once again I thank both noble Lords with a policing background for their acute perspective on this.

While we respect the police’s operational independence, as a number of noble Lords pointed out we must also have trust and confidence in the police. The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Henig, made this point: the police have a lot of power. By the way, there are more of them; there are more police on our streets than ever before. The fact is that a number of changes have been made, and again we have discussed those from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. They include those around the police dismissals review, which I will not go into again, and those to do with vetting. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made some very good points about this, and I agree that the Government must be determined to resolve the situation around vetting or re-vetting procedures.

The duty of candour to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred has not been introduced, but the duty to co-operate already provides clarity on the responsibilities for individual officers. This was introduced in 2020, since the issue was highlighted in Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report into the experiences of the Hillsborough families. We are keen that this duty becomes rooted within the police workforce before considering any further changes to legislation, but an organisational duty of candour aimed at chief officers, requiring them to ensure an ethical culture in the forces they lead, will complement the existing requirements on individual officers.

I will just tie up a few loose ends, if I may. My noble friend Lord Farmer made some extraordinarily good points about the family. I will not respond to them now but will make sure that they are reflected on by the Government.

We have covered a large amount of ground and I have done my best to respond accordingly. I have no doubt that there will be further debates to come and I look forward to those discussions, but I finish by emphasising that the decent, hard-working and law-abiding majority are our chief concern. We have devised a legislative agenda which puts their interests first and will make our country safer and stronger. That is why we will be advancing our programme with confidence and energy in the weeks and months ahead.

Finally, I offer my thanks to all who have contributed to this debate. These are vital issues and the considerable expertise—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I fully understand that my noble friend was not able to answer the specific and niche issues I raised on the Crown Prosecution Service’s legal guidance, but will he endeavour to write to me to address them?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely will, and that goes for any other noble Lords whose points I have inadvertently missed; I apologise if I have.

These are important issues. The considerable expertise and insight on display in the House today will no doubt be of great benefit going forward.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.

House adjourned at 10.08 pm.