House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I can inform the House that the ballot for the election of Deputy Speakers is currently taking place in Committee Room 8. The ballot will close at 1.30 pm. I hope to be able to announce the results of the election later today.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
First, may I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) to the House, and say what an absolute privilege it is to have been appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care? We have our work cut out for us, with not only the worst economic inheritance since 1945, for which the Conservatives should show more humility, but the worst crisis in the history of our national health service, which we see reflected particularly in NHS dentistry. Some 13 million people in England have unmet need for NHS dentistry, or 28% of the country, and it is disgraceful that rotting teeth are the most common reason for children aged between five and nine being admitted to hospital. During the general election campaign, I pledged to meet the British Dental Association immediately to start conversations on contract reform, and I did exactly that. I look forward to working with dentists and others from across the sector to reform the dental contract and rebuild NHS dentistry.
Alice Macdonald
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. Norfolk is a dental desert and my constituents are suffering. As well as reforming the contract, we need to train more dentists. In the east of England we do not have a dental school, but the University of East Anglia has put forward proposals for one. Will he meet me, other hon. Members from Norfolk and representatives from the University of East Anglia to discuss this important proposal?
Wes Streeting
It is appalling that Norfolk and Waveney are so poorly served in terms of dentistry. There are only 36 dentists per 100,000 people, compared with the national average of 53, so when my hon. Friend says that her community is a dental desert, Members should know that it is the Sahara of dental deserts. We will work with partners to ensure that patients across the country can access a dentist when they need one. I am aware, not least thanks to her advocacy and the advocacy of other Labour MPs across Norfolk, of the University of East Anglia’s proposal, and I would be delighted to meet her and my colleagues.
Lewis Atkinson
My constituents in Sunderland Central tell me that NHS dentistry is broken. It is not just that they cannot access routine care, but that if they are struck with, for example, excruciating toothache, they cannot access urgent appointments either. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend what steps he is taking, alongside the welcome reform of the dental contract, to ensure that urgent dental services are available locally in places such as Sunderland.
Wes Streeting
I welcome my hon. Friend; he certainly has big shoes to fill in Sunderland Central and is a worthy successor to his predecessor. He is absolutely right that alongside contract reform we need urgent action. That is why we committed to providing 700,000 additional urgent appointments and recruiting dentists to where they are most needed, and I am delighted to report that dentists stand ready to assist. We are working with the BDA urgently to get those appointments up and running as soon as possible, and we will keep the House informed on progress as we do.
Jon Pearce
High Peak is also a dental desert. We spoke to one practice that said it got as many calls for registrations as it did for appointments. Often those calls are deeply distressing, with elderly people unable to eat because they need their dentures sorted. What first steps is the Secretary of State able to take to cure 14 years of Conservative failure in NHS dentistry?
Wes Streeting
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House. He is absolutely right to point out that these challenges have been 14 years in the making, and it will take time to fix the damage that the Conservatives have done to our national health service. We will start with 700,000 urgent appointments, as we promised, and we will continue with contract reform, which is essential. I reassure him that as we do, we will have the needs of all communities in our country at heart, especially rural communities such as his that have particular challenges. I look forward to involving him and keeping him up to date on progress as we make it.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The NHS dental recovery plan was launched earlier this year, and the Secretary of State has on his desk news about the impact that it is having. Could he share with the House how much the plan has increased appointments in the Worcestershire and Herefordshire integrated care board area?
Wes Streeting
The Conservative party lauded that plan during the general election, when I think the public delivered their verdict on the progress that it had made. NHS dentistry is non-existent in huge parts of the country. We will stick with some aspects of the previous Government’s dental recovery plan because they are the right solutions, but there are gimmicks that we will not proceed with. We will come forward with a serious plan to reform the dental contract, which the Conservatives committed to in 2010 but failed to do in every single year of their 14 years.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I have a constituent who has been trying to get a dentist appointment for a year. They have painful abscesses, cannot sleep and cannot eat using the right side of their mouth. We need to get on with this. I note that a review of the NHS has been launched, but the British Dental Association is concerned that that review will delay the changes to NHS dentistry that are so desperately needed. Will the Secretary of State give us a timeline for when we will see change?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question and congratulate her on her re-election to the House. She is right to point to the detrimental impact that the Conservatives’ failure is having on people’s lives. In fact, in 1948, when the national health service was founded, Nye Bevan received a letter from a woman who had worked her entire life in the Lancashire cotton mills about how the dentistry she was given by the national health service had given her dignity and the freedom to associate in any company. What a tragedy that 76 years later, the Conservative party has squandered and destroyed that legacy to the point where people are suffering not just pain and agony, but the indignity of being unable to find a job and unable to socialise in polite company because they are ashamed of the state of their rotting teeth.
The hon. Member is absolutely right: Lord Darzi is conducting a review on the state of the NHS, and it will report in September. That is not preventing us from making progress, talking to the BDA and working within the Department and across the sector to get those 700,000 appointments up and running as a matter of urgency. I look forward to reporting the progress to her and other right hon. and hon. Members.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a particular shortage of NHS dentists in coastal and rural communities such as mine on the Isle of Wight. Will he therefore commit to the previous Government’s plan for 240 golden hellos for newly qualified dentists by the end of the year to address that issue?
Wes Streeting
I welcome the hon. Member to the House—it is a rare thing to welcome new Conservative Members, and he is welcome. He is absolutely right to touch on the workforce issues in NHS dentistry, and to say that we need to incentivise dentists, on two fronts: we need them to commit to and do more work in the NHS—we are looking at a range of things in that regard—and we need to ensure that we get more dentists to the areas in which they are most needed. We will certainly support incentives to that effect.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Member and his new team to their places in the Department. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), prioritised access to care, including NHS dentistry, when she was Secretary of State. The dental recovery plan that she launched announced new dental vans to provide access to care to our most rural communities and coastal communities in England. We had agreed with NHS England that the first vans would be on the road by this autumn, and I know that that timescale was welcomed by colleagues across the House. Will he confirm that dental vans will be on the road by this autumn?
Wes Streeting
I could not have picked a better example of the previous Government’s desperately low ceiling of ambition than the fact that, after 14 years, they laud their triumph of dental vans roaming the country in the absence of actual dentists and dental surgeries. What an absolute disgrace. I accept that the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was just the last in a very long list of Health and Social Care Secretaries who had the chance to fix the problems. It was not all on her, and it is important that I say that—not least because of the Conservative leadership election that will be taking place soon.
I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), on his appointment, but he sat behind Secretaries of State as their Parliamentary Private Secretary year after year, week after week, looking at the utterly abysmal failure of their record. When it comes to criticising this Government on the actions that we will take, the Conservatives do not have a leg to stand on.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and welcome him to his place. Thanks to what the Conservative party has done to NHS dentistry over the past 14 years, a staggering 13 million people are unable to see a dentist. I know that the hon. Gentleman represents the constituency that has the lowest number of dentists per head in the entire country. Our rescue plan will provide 700,000 more urgent dental appointments and recruit dentists to areas that need them. We will rebuild the service for the longer term by reforming the dental contract.
Steff Aquarone
As the Minister has alluded to, we in North Norfolk have suffered in particular from unallocated units of dental treatment being moved to other parts of the country. The integrated care board has been told that it will have to return this year’s unused money to the Treasury. Will the Minister commit to protecting unallocated dental funds in my constituency?
Stephen Kinnock
As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary stated, on the Monday after the general election, he met the British Dental Association to look at a range of issues around the long-term NHS contract. That is an ongoing dialogue—it includes units of dental activity, of course—and we need to ensure that we have the negotiations rapidly. We will work at pace to address some of those long-term issues, but let us not forget that the Conservative party allowed the NHS contract to atrophy and took NHS dentistry to the brink of collapse in our country.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and his fantastic team on taking their new place on the Government Front Bench. I also thank my right hon. Friend for his advocacy in the last Parliament for people across my constituency who lack dental access.
What assurances can the Minister provide that the important issues of infrastructure and housing will be linked together? As we look to build those much-needed 1.5 million homes across the country, it is vital to make sure that we do not have more dental deserts and that we have the infrastructure we need. How will he work in a cross-departmental way to ensure we achieve that?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and warmly welcome her to her place and congratulate her on her election. The key aspects of our dental rescue plan include 700,000 more appointments through extra funding that we will generate by cracking down on tax dodgers and closing other loopholes. We will incentivise new graduate dentists to come to areas that are underserved to ensure that we plug the gaps—there will be golden hellos to make that happen. We are also working hard on things like supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds, because prevention is always better than cure.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his re-election. He will know that capital allocations are a matter for the integrated care boards. We are committed to introducing neighbourhood care centres to bring together vital care services, and I look forward to working with him on Labour’s mission to improve the front door to the local NHS.
Bill Esterson
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their appointments. The predecessors of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary—there have been quite a few over the past few years—all agreed with me that a health centre in Maghull in my constituency was a priority for the health service, but as my hon. Friend has just said, the allocation of capital by integrated care boards has meant that the priority has been acute hospitals, sometimes at the expense of community facilities. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the importance of investment in health centres such as the one in Maghull, which make such a difference to reducing waiting times in the NHS and improving patient outcomes?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is first out of the blocks on this issue, and has shown his commitment to improving primary care for his constituents. I am sure the local ICB has listened very carefully to his question, because we know that the existing primary care estate is under a great deal of pressure. That is why building a neighbourhood health service remains at the forefront of our mission to rebuild the NHS, and I would be pleased to meet him to discuss that topic.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend, the new Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and thank him for raising this important issue. The UK Health Security Agency works with the regulator, the Environment Agency, to advise on health risks from landfill sites. In relation to the site in his constituency, the UKHSA undertakes monthly risk assessments using air quality data. A multi-agency group, including Government agencies and local authorities, meets regularly to review the situation and any interventions needed. I will, of course, raise his concerns with my counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Adam Jogee
I thank the Minister for his answer, and welcome him to his place. Walleys Quarry landfill in Newcastle-under-Lyme is an environmental crisis and a health one too, and my constituents Sheelagh Casey-Hulme, Jan Middleton, Lee Walford and many others are rightly scared and angry about the impact of toxic levels of hydrogen sulphide on the health and wellbeing of local people. Will the Minister come to Newcastle-under-Lyme to listen, to learn and to smell, and to help us finally stop the stink?
Andrew Gwynne
Public health and prevention are priorities for me and this Labour Government. Obviously, the Environment Agency takes the lead in this specific instance, but I am more than happy to jump off the train at Stoke—if my hon. Friend will pick me up—and visit his constituents to listen to their concerns, and to ensure that the public health considerations are amplified to Environment Agency colleagues.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I thank the learned and gallant hon. Member for his question. More than 500,000 fragility fractures occur every year, and up to 40% of fracture patients will suffer another fracture. I praise the campaigns by the Sunday Express, The Mail on Sunday and the Royal Osteoporosis Society for their campaigns on this. I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s commitment to expanding access to fracture liaison services. The Department is working closely with NHS England to develop plans to ensure better quality and access to these important preventive services.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
First, I congratulate the Minister and the rest of the Front-Bench team on their appointments. As a former orthopaedic surgeon, I am mindful of the impact of osteoporosis on many of our constituents, including my own in Solihull West and Shirley. In England, more than 67,000 people suffer a fracture every year, and a disproportionate number of those are women. What we do know, however, is that fracture liaison services, where they are delivered well, can prevent many of those fractures. Currently, half of the country has access to such services. The last Conservative Government made a commitment to roll them out to the whole country by 2030. Will the Minister honour that commitment?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that these services across England are better than those we have inherited. Of course, I completely agree with him about the need to improve these services in specific parts of the country, which is something we will be looking at in detail. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the one thing those of us on this side of the House will not be doing is what he has written about in “ConservativeHome”, which is health rationing and cutting back on treatment.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election, and I also pass on my best wishes to her and her husband, who I know recently suffered a stroke. We hope he makes a speedy recovery. We recognise the great work of NHS staff for them, and indeed for all our constituents every day, but we do know that the NHS is broken. The latest data confirms the terrible state in which the Conservatives left urgent and emergency care services, with one in four patients waiting longer than four hours in A&E. That is why Professor Lord Darzi will lead an investigation into NHS performance, and the findings will inform our 10-year reform of the NHS.
Uma Kumaran
I thank the Minister for her kind words today, and I also thank my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for his wishes on the day. Mr Speaker, may I also take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for the care and kindness you showed me?
Residents in my constituency of Stratford and Bow are served by Barts health NHS trust, which includes Newham University, Royal London and Whipps Cross hospitals. In May, their A&E departments had the second highest volume of any trust in England and the highest in London. Overcrowding and capacity constraints mean that the staff at those hospitals are having to treat some patients in corridors rather than on wards. This is the broken NHS that we have inherited from the Conservatives. Will the Minister ask her Department to look at capacity issues at those hospitals and at how community pharmacy prescribing services may be used to alleviate some of the pressures?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point highlighting the challenges particularly around hospital capacity, something well-known on the Front Bench with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary representing a nearby area. This type of patient experience is unacceptable, but it sadly became normal under the last Government of 14 years. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about pharmacies: they will have a central role in our future system, and I would of course be happy to undertake a visit with her.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I welcome the new Front-Bench Members to their new portfolios and responsibilities. Essex has actually seen some improvements in emergency care services over the past 14 years, particularly in our ambulance trust, and that should be commended. One way in which pressure on emergency services can be reduced is by having community facilities in our towns and across our districts. Will the Minister commit to meeting me and working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on looking at ways in which we can safeguard community services at St Peter’s hospital in Maldon, which our communities absolutely need?
Karin Smyth
I thank the right hon. Lady because she again makes for us the excellent point about what has happened in the last 14 years under her Government: these situations have been allowed to get so much worse both in Essex and across the country. She should also welcome our mission to rebuild the broken front door to the NHS and have more neighbourhood services based in communities, bringing those services together where patients are; that is absolutely what we all want and I am very happy to discuss this with her.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
For 14 years the community in Telford and I have worked hard to safeguard our A&E, but the last Conservative Government made Telford the largest town without a fully functioning A&E. Will the Health team meet me and other Shropshire MPs to discuss this discredited and disgraceful decision?
Karin Smyth
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He knows what we all know, and what we know the entire country knows because we spent the past six weeks campaigning: it is the same story across the country. That is why we are committed to restoring standards and why we will fix this broken NHS, and of course I am happy to meet with him.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
A decision by the Conservatives two years ago means that the urgent treatment centre at the West Cornwall hospital in Penzance is now closed at night, and that has put pressure on the only emergency department in Cornwall—a long peninsula—at Treliske, where routinely 20 ambulances are parked outside creating a new metallic ward at the front of the hospital. That situation has had a detrimental impact, of course including avoidable deaths. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues and the local NHS to discuss this issue, to see how we can restore our emergency services?
Karin Smyth
Again, across the country we see the damage done over the last 14 years, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that the situation in one part of the system knocks on to other parts. That is why we want a 10-year plan to look at this, an immediate look with Lord Darzi, and, critically, to understand which community and primary care services can be supported to support the rest of the system. I am very happy to meet with colleagues across Cornwall, where we now have many Labour MPs.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his survival instincts in getting re-elected to this place.
NHS dentistry needs urgent action thanks to 14 years of chaos, failure and neglect. Our rescue plan will get NHS dentistry back on its feet, followed by contract reform to make NHS dentistry more attractive. A consultation for a tie-in to NHS dentistry for graduate dentists closed on 18 July and we are now considering the responses. The Government position on this proposal will be set out in due course and I will keep the House updated on this matter.
George Freeman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer and congratulate him and his colleague the Secretary of State on their appointments. All of us who are serious about the health service and the need for reform, about which the Secretary of State has spoken, have their back in pushing for reform. The hon. Gentleman has his moment of triumph, but may I gently encourage him to reach out and build a cross-party coalition of support for serious reform? The NHS is broken not by Tory cuts but by years—[Interruption.] For years we have been pouring money in; it needs to modernise for the 21st-century.
In the spirit of which, on dentistry, may I encourage the Front-Bench team to reach out and have a meeting—a rainbow coalition meeting including the new hon. Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone)—of all MPs in Norfolk, which has suffered more than most counties? We desperately need that University of East Anglia dental school.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman was doing so well at the start, and then he kind of blew it a bit towards the end. It is absolutely right that we put country before party, and we will work with whoever has the best interests of rebuilding our public services at heart. The issue that he raises specifically sounds interesting. What I would say is that unless we get the bigger picture sorted, and unless we make NHS work pay for dentists, we will not be able to rebuild the NHS dentistry system that we should be cherishing and seeking to reform. I am of course always open to conversations with him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Just 39.2% of my constituents were able to access an NHS dentist over the past two years. That is an absolute disgrace, but the Health and Social Care Committee put together a report into NHS dentistry, setting out a blueprint for how to resolve the challenges, including access, looking at tie-ins and ensuring that we get more dentists registered. Will the Minister look at that report and follow its recommendations?
Stephen Kinnock
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her re-election; it is wonderful to see her back in her place. She is absolutely right that the tie-in consultation deadline was 18 July. We are considering those responses with an open mind. On the broader issues that she mentions, our rescue plan is 700,000 more appointments, incentives for new graduates to go to under-served areas, reform of the dental contract and making work pay for dentists. That plan is at the heart of the reforms that she mentioned and that is what we will be doing.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on his re-election and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on his election. More than a million people with mental health issues are not getting the support they need. This Government will fix our broken NHS. That will include recruiting 8,500 mental health workers, including specialist mental health professionals in every school and rolling out young futures hubs in every community. As announced in the Gracious Speech, we are bringing forward legislation to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983, which is a hugely significant step that has been warmly welcomed by service users, campaigners and, indeed, the former Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May.
Mohammad Yasin
I welcome the Minister to his place. Funding to bring desperately needed in-patient mental health services back to Bedford has been sitting in the accounts of our local mental health trust for years, but it cannot be used because of the previous Government’s capital expenditure limits. Will the Minister therefore meet me to discuss a way forward to get this urgently needed mental health facility back in Bedford, so that my constituents do not have to travel miles to access this vital service?
Stephen Kinnock
I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning with great passion and conviction on this issue for some time, and I am in no doubt that his integrated care board will have listened carefully to every word that he has said today. I would be pleased to meet him so that we can discuss this matter in greater detail.
Tim Roca
The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government will make, unlike their predecessor, evidence-based policy. While the NHS has made some high-level progress, the figures for those waiting for mental health elective care remains unacceptably high, but the data is incomplete. Does the Minister agree that comprehensive data is crucial if we are to serve the patients we care about?
Stephen Kinnock
I welcome my hon. Friend warmly to his place. I hope he will not mind if I use this analogy, which is that you cannot make a prescription unless you have the diagnosis, and you cannot make policy on the hoof. We cannot have the chaos, neglect and failure that we have seen from the Conservatives for the past 14 years because they have not made policy based on evidence and data. I am absolutely on board with what my hon. Friend says, and I would be more than happy to discuss it with him further at his convenience.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I welcome those on the Opposition Front Bench to their roles and those on the Government Front Bench to their new roles. One of the things that we did very well over the past few years on a cross-party basis was tackling the disparity between mental and physical health. Since 2018, £4.7 billion extra has gone into NHS mental health services. Will the Government commit to that going forward and ensure that the proportion of funding towards mental health services will increase in the coming years?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he appears to be living in a parallel universe. We are in the midst of a mental health crisis as a result of 14 years of Tory chaos, neglect and failure. We have a plan, with 8,500 more mental health workers, young futures walk-in hubs, specialist mental health support for young people and mental health specialists dealing with talking therapies. Of course, we will also introduce legislation following the Gracious Speech to deal with helping people who have more severe conditions. That is a plan of action with which I hope we can once again make our country proud of how we deal with this extremely serious issue.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Mental health pressures in the farming community are rising, with the Farm Safety Foundation survey finding that 95% of farmers under 40 agree that poor mental health is the biggest hidden problem facing the industry. Will the Minister work with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to improve access to NHS mental health services in rural areas and support the continued roll-out of rural health hubs?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that extremely important question. We are indeed looking at that issue through our 10-year plan for the future vision of our health service. Issues around isolation and the huge pressure on what are often family businesses are creating tremendous strains for that community. We take that seriously and will of course work with our colleagues in DEFRA to address it.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
May I congratulate those on the Government Front Bench on their appointments? I should declare that I am a former NHS consultant psychiatrist, my wife is an NHS doctor and I participated in the Wessely Mental Health Act review. While I no longer have a licence to practise, I may gently correct the Minister in that it is possible to provide a prescription without a diagnosis. [Laughter.]
The Opposition are pleased that the Government intend to build on the work of Conservative Governments, kick-started by the former Member for Maidenhead, to reform the Mental Health Act 1983. We will work constructively with them to make such legislation as effective, fair and compassionate as possible. With that in mind, does the Minister intend to make changes to the code of practice to the Mental Health Act now so that non-statutory changes and protections can be enacted while the Bill works its way through Parliament?
Stephen Kinnock
I welcome the shadow Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. It is a little bit rich to receive a question like that, given that the Conservatives had 14 years to address the issue; I have been in this position for 16 days. If he looks at the plan that we are bringing forward, he will see that we have more ambition and more boldness in our plans than what we have seen in the last 14 years. We will introduce legislation that will address those extremely important issues for people who have some of the more severe conditions.
To the shadow Minister’s specific point on a code of practice, the first step will be to see the legislative process moving forward. But, of course, we remain open to looking at any solution or reform that will help to address this extremely important issue.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
It is painfully clear that the previous Government’s new hospital programme—they said that they would deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030—is not deliverable in that timeframe. I want to see the new hospital programme completed, but I am not prepared to offer people false hope about how soon they will benefit from the facilities they deserve. That is why I have asked officials as a matter of urgency to report to me on the degree to which the programme is funded along with a realistic timetable for delivery. We will not play fast and loose with the public finances, nor will we play fast and loose with people’s trust as the previous Government did.
Cat Smith
Lancaster’s royal infirmary is at capacity. It is a Victorian hospital, and I am sure it was cutting-edge back then, but it is now not fit for purpose. Yesterday, the joint investment strategic committee expressed its support for the new build scheme in Lancaster, so it will soon be on the Secretary of State’s desk. Will my right hon. Friend commit to meeting me and other interested local MPs in north Lancashire to ensure that, after 14 years of chaos under the Conservatives, the Labour Government will deliver a new hospital for Lancaster?
Wes Streeting
I was about to say, Mr Speaker, that the good people of Lancaster and Wyre will be delighted to have sent my hon. Friend to Parliament, because she is second only to you in collaring me about a local hospital project—you are the holder of that record. There is a serious point: thanks to her determined efforts to collar me around the parliamentary estate, I know the particular urgency around land. A scheme will be put to me shortly, which I will consider carefully, and I will look at the programme in the round and ensure that I am able to come back to this House and to the country with promises that we can keep and that the country can afford.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
During the general election campaign, Labour said it was
“committed to delivering the new hospitals programme, including modernising the QEH at Kings Lynn to address its potentially dangerous RAAC”.
Will the Secretary of State honour that pledge, which was made to my constituents and to the staff at QEH, and approve the business case submitted by the trust for the new multi-storey car park, which is a key enabling project for the new hospital that we need by 2030?
Wes Streeting
Hospitals with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete are at the top of my list of priorities. I am extremely concerned about the dire state of the NHS estate. Once again, I think that is a bit rich from Opposition Members, whose party was in government only weeks ago. They had a Prime Minister local to that hospital, and they did not do anything when they had the chance, but they should not worry—we will clean up their mess.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his position. I should declare that I have been working in the NHS for 23 years, currently as an NHS consultant paediatrician. I look forward to using that experience in my new role as shadow Minister of State to scrutinise the Government constructively.
Under the new hospital programme, the previous Government had already opened six hospitals to patients, with two more due to open this financial year and 18 under construction. The Government are now putting that at risk by launching a review of that work, delaying those projects, which are vital to patients across the country. Could the right hon. Member please confirm when the review will be completed?
Wes Streeting
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her new post. I must say I preferred her much more as a Back-Bench rebel than a Front-Bench spokesperson, but I have enormous respect for her years of contribution to the NHS and the experience that she brings to this House. I always take her seriously.
However, on this one, once again I say to the Opposition that they handed over an entirely fictional timetable and an unfunded programme. The hon. Lady might not know because she was not there immediately prior to the election, but the shadow Secretary of State, who is sitting right next to her, knows exactly where the bodies are buried in the Department, where the unexploded bombs are, and exactly the degree to which this timetable and the funding were not as set out by the previous Government.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers to their roles, but let me gently warn him that if he intends to run a contest on which Member can harangue him the most on crumbling hospitals, our 72 Liberal Democrat MPs say, “Challenge accepted.”
Under the Conservatives, the new hospital programme ground to a halt. We know the terrible stories of nurses running bucket rotas and all the rest. We have the worst of all worlds at the moment: trusts such as mine in west Hertfordshire are champing at the bit to get going but cannot, and are being held back. Other trusts have capital funds that they want to spend but are not allowed to because of outdated rules, and there are industry concerns that the one, top-down, centralised approach of the Conservatives could decimate competition in that industry, when we need a thriving industry to rebuild our hospitals and primary care. What is the Secretary of State’s response to that approach?
Wes Streeting
I welcome the hon. Lady back to her place. We worked constructively on the Opposition Benches together and, regardless of the size of the Government’s majority, we intend to work constructively with her on this side of the election, too. By extension, I congratulate her colleagues on their election. I have discovered that I have 72 new pen pals, all sitting there on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and they have been writing to me about a whole manner of projects. My colleagues and I will get back to them.
The hon. Lady is right that this is not just about the new hospitals programme, important though that is; the condition of the whole NHS estate is poor. In fact, backlog maintenance, the direct cost of bringing the estate into compliance with mandatory fire safety requirements and statutory safety legislation, currently stands at £11.6 billion. That is the legacy of the last Conservative Government.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her re-election and thank her for raising this important issue. It is not right that three out of four parents are not able to stay with their critically ill baby overnight at such an important point in that new relationship. NHS England recently concluded a review of neonatal estates. It is in the early stages of analysing the findings, which will be used to inform the next steps. We are all determined to support parents to be involved in every aspect of their baby’s care.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their re-elections and on taking their places. Recent research from the charity Bliss showed that when a baby receives neonatal care, their parents are routinely expected to leave them in hospital overnight for weeks or even months at a time. Its research found that for every 10 babies who need to stay overnight in neonatal care, there is only one room available for a parent to stay with them. How will the Minister ensure that the existing guidance about facilities for families is followed, and how will she ensure that trusts can access the resources they need to stop the separation of babies and their parents?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the separation of babies and their parents at that time is not acceptable, and about the shocking state of the estate, as we have just heard. We will look at the findings of the NHS review very quickly, and I will be happy to get back to her on those specific points.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answer. This issue is clearly not just about accommodation; it is also about providing physical and emotional help for mothers who have been through traumatic circumstances, emotionally and physically. What will be done along those lines to ensure that mothers and babies have all the help they need?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about mental health support in that critical period. We will absolutely make sure that is looked at.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury—words I did not think I would ever say—and welcome him to his place. The answer to his question is yes. We do not just want to discuss with patients and staff; we want them to help shape the 10-year plan for the next decade of reform, which will take our NHS from the worst crisis in its history and make it fit for the future. Social care also needs to change. We will work with care workers and care users to build consensus for and shape a new national care service.
Sean Woodcock
Does the Minister agree that the voices of frontline staff, whether in hospitals such as the Horton general hospital in Banbury or carers like my mum, are still often ignored when it comes to whistleblowing? More worryingly, those voices are silenced by threats to report them to regulatory bodies. Does he agree that we need to level the field of accountability for managers who ignore whistleblowers, and that there should be a regulatory body with oversight of medical managers?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have previously said that bank managers are more regulated than NHS managers. This Labour Government will pursue an agenda of greater accountability, transparency and candour when it comes to those making managerial and executive decisions in our national health service.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
In integrating health and social care it is vital to take the staff component along with you. It is also vital to have sufficient funding. We integrated health and social care in Scotland in 2012 and it has been a difficult road, but health in Scotland is funded £323 per head more than it is in England. Will the Minister commit to put his hand in his pocket and make sure English people enjoy the same health funding as people in Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House, but I politely say to him that he needs to be a little bit patient. There will be some announcements in the near future on this Government’s plans for social care. He should rest assured that we on the Labour Benches understand the integration agenda. We understand the need to fix both the NHS and social care, and this Labour Government will do that.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues on their appointments. I welcome the suggestion that the Government are considering the possibility of a royal commission on social care and intend to address the issue on a cross-party basis, but that will take time. Can the Minister therefore confirm that, as was suggested during the election campaign, the Government will take forward the Dilnot reforms, and in particular that they will introduce a cap on social care costs, as was planned by the previous Government?
Andrew Gwynne
It was, of course, the right hon. Gentleman’s Government who kicked the can down the road on these issues. They allowed the system to spend the transformation money that had been provided precisely for the purpose of the Dilnot reforms on fixing their broken national health service. He should just be a little bit patient, as we will announce our proposals for social care shortly. He should rest assured that, as I have said to him before, this Labour Government are determined to fix both the broken NHS and the broken social care system that we inherited from 14 years of Tory failure.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats spoke about care a great deal during the general election campaign. At the heart of our plans was our pledge to introduce free personal care. Will Ministers please confirm whether they intend to open cross-party talks and, if so, whether free personal care will be on the table as one potential option?
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which the Liberal Democrats approached the issue of health and social care during the election campaign. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, we will work with all in the House who want to fix our broken health and social care system. Of course we will work collegiately across parties, and of course all issues relating to how we fix our broken social care system will be discussed during those cross-party deliberations.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Our NHS is broken. This Government have been honest about the problems we face because we are serious about fixing them, and we have not wasted a moment. We have appointed Lord Darzi to carry out an independent investigation of the state of our NHS, we are resetting the relationship with junior doctors with negotiations starting today, and we are laying the foundations for the delivery of 40,000 more appointments a week to cut waiting lists. The Gracious Speech kick-started a decade of national renewal, with modernisation of the Mental Health Act as well as the smoking reform, which will ensure that this generation of young people is the first smoke-free generation, and will be the first step towards ensuring that that generation is the healthiest in history.
Carolyn Harris
During their free NHS 40-plus health checks, women are assessed for conditions that may affect them as they grow older, but menopause is not included. To include it would be cost-neutral and would not only help millions of women to recognise the symptoms, but prevent needless GP appointments when those symptoms start to develop. Along with Menopause Mandate, I have been campaigning tirelessly on this issue. Will the Secretary of State please look into it as a matter of urgency?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend back in the House. She campaigns relentlessly on this vital issue, and it would be very risky for me to do anything other than agree to meet her, because I share her view that progress needs to be made on it.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to their places, and wish them well in their endeavours? With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I should also place on the record my thanks to my superb team of former Ministers, to those in the private office and to officials in the Department for their hard work and support, as well as thanking the doctors, nurses and social care and health professionals with whom I have had the pleasure of working.
Now, to business. In opposition, the Secretary of State described the 35% pay rise demand by the junior doctors committee as “reasonable’. What he did not tell the public was that this single trade union demand would cost an additional £3 billion, let alone the impact on other public sector workers. Will he ask the Chancellor to raise taxes, or will she ask him to cut patient services to pay for it?
Wes Streeting
May I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her new position? She has behaved in her typically graceful and decent way. I enjoyed working with her on that basis, and will continue to do so. Although, I must confess that when I heard about the “abominable” behaviour of the shadow Health Secretary, I thought, “What on earth have I done now?” Then I remembered that our roles have swapped, and that it was not me they were referring to.
What I said was that the doctors were making a reasonable case that their pay had not kept in line with inflation, but we were clear before the election that 35% was not a figure we could afford. We are negotiating with junior doctors in good faith to agree on a settlement that we can deliver and that the country can afford.
Victoria Atkins
I am afraid I do not like it when Secretaries of State do not answer questions, and I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman gave another non-answer, as has been the case for those on the Government Front Bench. I have a question that I hope he will be able to answer. The final act of the Conservative Government was to protect children and young people by banning private clinics from selling puberty blockers to young people questioning their gender. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will resist the voices of opposition on the Benches behind him and implement in full all of Dr Cass’s recommendations, including exercising “extreme caution”, as she said, in the use of cross-sex hormones in young people? They and their parents deserve certainty from this Government.
Wes Streeting
Obviously, there is a judicial review of the former Secretary of State’s decision, which I am defending. The matter is sub judice, so I will steer clear of it.
To go back to first principles, we are wholeheartedly committed to the full implementation of the Cass review, which will deliver material improvements in the wellbeing, safety and dignity of trans people of all ages. I think that is important. I want to reassure LGBT+ communities across the country, particularly the trans community, that this Government seek a very different relationship with them. I look at the rising hate crime statistics and trans people’s struggles to access healthcare, and I look at their desire to live freely, equally and with dignity. That is what we will work with them to deliver.
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand that today is a new start with Question Time, but we have to be short and speedy. That is the whole idea of oral questions, because otherwise Members are not going to get in.
Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the stress that people face when waiting, and we have talked about the disaster of the past 14 years. People with potentially deteriorating conditions are waiting, and we absolutely need to address this issue as part of our work to reduce waiting lists.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Wes Streeting
I am proud that the Deputy Prime Minister will be delivering the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes. It is absolutely vital that the infrastructure needed is delivered alongside those new homes, and we and other colleagues across Government will be working very closely with the Deputy Prime Minister to make sure that the social infrastructure is also provided.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Karin Smyth
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House. He makes an incredibly important point about this very stressful time, particularly for women, in his area. We will listen to women and deliver evidence-based improvements to make maternity and neonatal services safer and more equitable for women and their babies, and we have committed to delivering the long-term workforce plan.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Wes Streeting
I warmly welcome the hon. Member to her place. She is absolutely right to raise the plight of unpaid family carers. They are part of the team, as far as this Government are concerned, so as we set out our 10-year plan for social care as part of our ambition to build the national care service, we will make sure that unpaid family carers are very much at the centre of our thinking, in no small part thanks to her representations.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
Of all the issues that keep me awake at night, maternity safety is top of the list. We have already heard about the staffing shortages and the actions we will take to address that, but I also want to reassure people that, as we build our 10-year plan for the NHS, patient voices, including those of recent and expectant mothers, will be part of that process.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
During the election campaign the Prime Minister came to Basingstoke on a visit and specifically promised to replace Basingstoke hospital by 2030. Can we rely on that promise?
Wes Streeting
I would not rely on anything the former Prime Minister said—[Interruption.] Oh, our Prime Minister? I thought the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the former Prime Minister. In that case, I can reassure him that we are absolutely committed to the new hospitals programme. On the budgets and the timescales, as I have said, we will come forward with an honest appraisal of what we have inherited from the last Government and what we will be able to deliver within reasonable timescales.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and welcome him to his place. This issue is personal for me, and I am sure it is for many others across this House. A number of potential new disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer’s are in the pipeline, including lecanemab and donanemab. We are committed to ensuring that clinically effective and cost-effective medicines reach patients in a timely and safe way. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is appraising lecanemab and donanemab to determine whether they will be made available in the NHS.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Nearly 10 children a month die from brain tumours, and I know that the public health Minister takes this issue seriously. He was familiar with the work of the Brain Tumour Charity’s HeadSmart campaign. Will he agree to meet me and my fierce campaigner constituent Sacha Langton-Gilks, who lost her son to a brain tumour, to discuss how NHS England could be persuaded to do more to inform and educate parents to identify the symptoms, so that collectively we can reduce the number of deaths?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He knows that I met his constituents when I was a shadow public health Minister, and I can confirm that I am more than happy to meet him and his constituents now that I have dropped the “shadow”.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend to his place. I am personally grateful to the Royal Free hospital for saving my life when I went through kidney cancer. NHS waiting lists stand at 7.6 million, which was still rising as this Government took office. Our 40,000 extra appointments, scans and procedures and our doubling of the number of diagnostic scanners will make a real difference to getting that backlog down to where it should be.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
During the general election campaign, the Health Secretary visited King’s Mill hospital in Ashfield, and I am sure that helped me to get re-elected. King’s Mill was built on a private finance initiative deal by the last Labour Government and is going to cost £3 billion for a £300 million hospital. Will the Secretary of State please now assure me and the people of Ashfield that this will never happen again?
Wes Streeting
Despite my best efforts, the hon. Gentleman is back. I congratulate him through gritted teeth.
I was very impressed by what I saw at King’s Mill hospital, and I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record of delivering the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. As I said during the election campaign, we will build on that success and learn from some of our shortcomings, too.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Better late than never, as they say.
I have been to Hillingdon hospital, which has amazing staff and appalling buildings. That is why the people of Hillingdon, and people right across the country, deserve honesty, clarity and certainty about the new hospitals programme. This Government will provide it and stick to it.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that handing over powers to the World Health Organisation, undermining the UK’s ability to make its own sovereign decisions, would be unacceptable?
Wes Streeting
The World Health Organisation is an intergovernmental arrangement. It is of vital importance that, first and foremost, we agree only to things that are in our national interest, but we should not lose sight of the fact that there are lots of things that we need to do together in pursuit of our national interest, from tackling antimicrobial resistance to preventing future pandemic threats. That is exactly what we will do.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I would be delighted to do that. As my hon. Friend knows, we visited Specsavers during the election campaign. There are lots of high street opticians, and they can make a real difference to cutting the backlog. The Conservatives should have gone to Specsavers, and this Government will.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituents have struggled to get pre-diagnosis ADHD and autism support for their young daughters. We cannot diagnose children at a very young age, but that does not mean that families do not need help. Can the Minister confirm what engagement he will have with support organisations such as the National Autistic Society to ensure that best practice means that families are not struggling for support?
Stephen Kinnock
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. She raises a vital issue. We have a plan for improving mental health services, including 8,500 more mental health workers. Autism is, of course, a vital part of that, and I will be more than happy to meet her to discuss further how we might be able to take it forward.
Debate on the Address
Immigration and Home Affairs
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 117 / Noes: 384 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 103 / Noes: 363 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 382 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected amendment (l) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which will be moved at the start of the debate, and amendments (d), in the name of Stephen Flynn, and (k), in the name of Ed Davey, which will be moved at the end of the debate.
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I beg to move amendment l, at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not commit to boosting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 with a fully funded plan, fails to include measures that provide an adequate deterrent to migrants crossing the channel illegally, fails to mention rural communities, farming and fishing, does not include a legally binding target to enhance the UK’s food security or a commitment to increase the UK-wide agriculture budget by £1 billion over the course of the Parliament, introduces new burdens on businesses without sufficient measures to support them, fails to set out a concrete plan to tackle the unsustainable post-covid rise in the welfare bill, does not adequately protect family finances and the UK’s energy security in the move to net zero, and fails to provide adequate protections for pensioners and working people to keep more of the money they have worked hard for.”
Yesterday, at the Dispatch Box, I welcomed the Home Secretary to her role, and I now take the opportunity to congratulate the wider ministerial team who work with her. They will have inherited a hard-working team of civil servants dedicated to the protection of this country and the people within it. However, I am sad that the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock) has not made the transition from shadow immigration Minister to immigration Minister. His contributions are a great loss to the Conservative party.
With the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) in her new ministerial role, I am sure the Clerks of the Home Affairs Committee will be looking forward to arranging her first session promptly and will, like me, be closely monitoring how quickly her new boss fully implements all the recommendations of the Committee she formerly chaired.
While I do not have time to mention each of the new ministerial team individually, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). She knows I planned to single her out and I do not apologise for doing so; I think that it is a very good appointment and she is well suited to her role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for victims and safeguarding. She knows that tackling violence against women and girls was a priority for me. We have previously shared the stage at events in the House discussing that subject. I genuinely look forward to working with her and contributing in any way I can to her success in this incredibly important area of public policy. She has highlighted some of the crucial work that this place can do in bringing to the attention of the country and the wider world the continued plight of too many women.
The election highlighted the important work of the Home Office in defending democracy. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), the former security Minister, for his work with the defending democracy taskforce. Again, that is an area where we will seek to be a constructive Opposition. I was disgusted to see how the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley and many other, mostly female, colleagues and candidates were treated during the general election campaign. No one who cares for democracy, irrespective of their party affiliation, should be willing to tolerate that. The defending democracy taskforce continues to have incredibly important and urgent work to do. We should continue to work together, as we did when our roles were reversed, to root out violence and intimidation, and to ensure that candidates and Members can vote with their conscience and campaign with their hearts, free from intimidation or threats.
While the Prime Minister has been enjoying his honeymoon period at NATO and welcoming visitors to the European Political Community event at Blenheim Palace, which was very well organised by this Government’s predecessors in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the same honeymoon period has sadly not been afforded to the Home Secretary. Members will all be familiar with the seven days of creation; the new Home Secretary has managed seven days of destruction. On day one, she cancelled the partnership with Rwanda, taking away the deterrent that the National Crime Agency said we needed in order to break the business model of people smuggling gangs. In doing so, on day two, she created a diplomatic row with Rwanda, whose Ministers sadly had to read about the Government’s decision in the British media, rather than receiving direct communication from the Government. That was a level of diplomatic indecency that will cast a shadow over the relationship not just with that country, but with many others.
On day three, the Home Secretary announced an effective amnesty for tens of thousands of people who arrived here illegally. We said that the incoming Labour Government would do that. They promised that they would not, yet that is exactly what they did. On day four, she started work on getting back into the EU through the back door by negotiating to take more migrants from the continent. On day five, a Labour Government Minister went on national radio to advocate the relaxing of visa rules from the EU, before being slapped down for saying the quiet bit out loud.
On day six, Home Office figures released by the Government showed that the visa curbs that I put in place when I became Home Secretary have cut migration by 48% since last June—she can thank me for that later. On the seventh day, the Home Secretary probably tried to get some rest, but she will now know what I have long known, which is that, as Home Secretary, there is not the luxury of that day of rest.
Therefore, despite a terrible first week of weather to bring in the new Labour Government, we saw almost 500 asylum seekers arrive on small boats. As of today—
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Mr Cleverly
The Home Secretary will be making a speech in due course.
As I say, almost 500 asylum seekers arrived in the first week, and, as of today, more than 2,000 asylum seekers have arrived in small boats since Labour took office. The second week at work was not much better.
Mr Cleverly
The right hon. Member has the opportunity to speak in a moment. We have seen riots in her back garden, on the streets of Leeds, and police officers, clearly not confident that they will enjoy her support, having to take a backseat. Like so much of what was said ahead of this general election, “Take back our streets” was clearly just a Labour slogan.
We then saw Neil Basu, a very highly respected former police officer, with whom I worked when I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority, and General Stuart Skeates, a senior official at the Home Office, with whom I worked in a former life as well as when I was Home Secretary, ruling themselves out of leadership of the new so-called border security command. They did so, I am sure, because they know what we know, which is that that is little more than a fig leaf to hide the fact that the Labour Government are doing less on migration and hoping to achieve more. The reality, as everybody including the people smugglers know, is that the small boats problem is only going to get worse under Labour.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for giving way. It is a shame to puncture his fantasy and bring him down to the real world in which he and his party trebled net migration and left us with the highest level of spring boat crossings on record. Perhaps he can answer just one factual question. He has spent £700 million over two and a half years running the Rwanda scheme; can he tell us how many asylum seekers he has sent?
Mr Cleverly
As I said on the radio this morning, if the right hon. Lady is going to pluck figures out of the air, she should avoid nice round numbers, because it is a bit of a giveaway. She will know that we brought people into detention and that we had chartered flights. The fact that the new Government scrapped the scheme and, with a degree of diplomatic discourtesy, did not even—[Interruption.] Labour Members can groan from their Benches, but they will get used to the fact that we cannot treat international partners in this way.
Our relationship with Rwanda was entered into in good faith by both parties. The Rwandans discovered that the incoming Government were tearing up that bilateral relationship in the pages of the British media. The Home Secretary should learn that her new Foreign Secretary should have had the diplomatic courtesy at least to pick up the phone to his opposite number in Rwanda to explain what was going to happen before they read about it in the British press. She and I both know that her Government would not have acted with that level of vile discourtesy had that partner been a European country. [Interruption.] Labour Members can groan all they like, but we all know that is true.
The simple fact of the matter is that the new border security command replicates in all respects the work of the small boats operational command. It took almost the whole general election campaign before the right hon. Lady attempted to clarify the roles. We still have very little clarity on the division of labour between the so-called new border security command and the small boats operational command. Yesterday, at the Dispatch Box, she tried to imply that there had been no returns under the Conservative Government, but let me put some facts and figures on the record. Last year, we returned more than 25,000 people to their home countries, including almost 4,000 foreign national offenders, in order to keep ourselves safe—foreign national offenders for whom, I would remind the House, her Prime Minister in his former guise fought tooth and nail to prevent being deported. Voluntary and enforced returns were both up by more than two thirds, at their highest level for five years—operations done by our immigration enforcement officials, which sounds a lot like a returns unit to me.
I am not sure what the right hon. Lady was doing while in opposition, but she might be surprised to learn that we were indeed smashing the gangs, and we were making sure that people were arrested and incarcerated. Last year, we smashed almost 100 criminal gangs through our law enforcement agencies. I remind the House that Labour Members voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which is the legislation that we have been using to incarcerate those people smugglers. They voted against that legislation. Labour, in government, are now so worried about their continuing reputation for being and for looking weak on immigration that they felt the need to announce a raft of things to sound tough which basically already existed. They announced the border security command, even though there is already a small boats operational command. They announced a returns unit, even though immigration enforcement already does that. What will they announce next? What will they invent—the RAF? I look forward to seeing what functions are to be replicated.
We will look at legislation when it comes forward but, as I have discussed, the Government already have the tools they need, and as long as they do not undermine their own efforts by scrapping more things, we might see an opportunity for them to reduce numbers, in large part because we passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. The right hon. Lady has tools at her disposal.
On legal migration, I remember coming to the Government Dispatch Box in December last year and presenting to the House a series of visa curbs to cut net migration. With our measures, 300,000 people who came here last year would no longer have the right to come, reducing migration by a record amount. Already the data is showing that, because of the actions I took as Home Secretary, visa applications are down by 48% compared with June last. On the current trajectory, net migration is set to halve in the next 12 months, thanks to the actions that I took—actions opposed by the Labour party at the time.
The Labour manifesto said that net migration would come down, but not by how much. As I said, the first 50% of that reduction is because of actions I took. Perhaps, in her speech, the right hon. Lady can confirm how much further than that 50% she envisages bringing net migration down. Labour talked tough ahead of the election about clamping down on employers bringing in foreign workers, but those plans have apparently now been shelved, as we saw nothing of them in the King’s Speech and have not heard anything more about them.
On policing and crime, I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) as shadow Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime. There are many brilliant things about Stockton, a place I have visited and enjoyed, and he is of course one of those wonderful things. I welcome the plans set out in the King’s Speech for a crime and policing Bill to tackle issues such as antisocial behaviour, retail crime and knife crime and to drive up standards in the police force. Of course I welcome them, because those are issues that I put forward when I was Home Secretary. The Government can therefore count on our general support for these measures, if they bring forward detailed proposals that properly address the issues. I really hope that the right hon. Lady has more success than I had getting her colleague, the Mayor of London, to focus on bringing down violent crime in our capital city. We will of course scrutinise the legislation alongside the victims, courts and public protection Bill.
Over the previous Parliament, it was the Conservative party that put 20,000 new police officers on the streets. At the election, we promised to hire an additional 8,000 full-time, fully warranted police officers to protect our neighbourhoods. During the general election campaign, the Labour party made no such commitment, limiting their aspirations to only 3,000 full-time, fully warranted officers. I hope that they will match our commitment to 8,000.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State should also remember that the Labour party opposed our measures for bringing in 20,000 extra police, and during the general election campaign it committed to having 13,000 extra neighbourhood officers, which many police and crime commissioners have said cannot be funded, because they are not clear how they are to be funded. Is it not the case that the Conservative party has a track record of delivering on more policing, and the Government have no idea whatsoever?
Mr Cleverly
I am very proud of the fact that in many parts of the country, including my county of Essex, there are now more warranted police officers than at any time in the force’s history—in sharp contrast to Labour-run London, where the Conservative Government put money on the table to recruit extra Metropolitan police officers and the Labour Mayor of London has spectacularly failed to recruit those officers, has not backed officers when they said they needed to do more stop and search, and has seen knife crime accelerate, distorting the whole national picture. I really hope that the right hon. Lady takes this seriously. She can chuckle all she likes, but this is about kids getting stabbed on the streets of London, and she should take this more seriously. [Interruption.] She should recognise that we introduced tougher sentences under the Public Order Act 2023 to clamp down on disruptive protests—the benefit of which we have already seen this week with the jailing of Just Stop Oil protesters—in addition to plans to grant the police further powers to clamp down on protests that go too far and disrupt the lives of people around this country.
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Home Secretary knows he should not make such disgraceful, unfounded allegations about my response to knife crime. He knows that I have met families right across the country who are devastated by knife crime, including in towns and smaller communities and suburbs where this terrible crime is going up. His party, when in government, repeatedly failed to ban serious weapons on our streets. Will he now support this party and this Government when we bring in the bans on ninja swords and dangerous machetes that he should have brought in long ago?
Mr Cleverly
I made the observation that, while I was talking about young people getting stabbed, the right hon. Lady was chatting and chuckling with her colleagues on the Front Bench. That was a statement of fact. The point is that we have got a grip of crime, but in the parts of the country controlled by Labour police and crime commissioners, including London, that is sadly not the case.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he will know from his tenure as Home Secretary that those sorts of crimes—stabbings and shootings—are happening all across the country, and not just in cities; they are happening in towns such as Warwick and Leamington, where we have had someone shot dead through drug dealing, many people stabbed maliciously and some killed. The reality is that under his watch over the last 14 years we have seen a degradation of the numbers of police officers on our streets and rising knife crime. Does he not accept that?
Mr Cleverly
The figures speak for themselves. People will be able to see the levels of crime, including violent crime, in Conservative-run parts of the country, and compare them with those in Labour-run parts of the country. The figures are in the public domain. Anyone can check them.
Unfortunately, it appears that the Government have not seen fit to lay out their plans to address the issue of violent, aggressive, intimidatory or disruptive protest. For the safety of our streets, and for the confidence of the officers who need to police protests, I hope that the Government do the right thing and change that vacuum where policy should be.
Under Conservative leadership, we announced a raft of changes to support victims of domestic abuse, putting more abusers under management of the police and under increasingly strict arrangements by designating violence against women and girls as a national policing priority—a national threat on a par with the threat of terrorism. As I have said, the Home Secretary and her Front-Bench colleagues should know that I will always give my wholehearted support to actions they take to protect women and girls. We have made improvements through Operation Soteria, changing the way the investigatory system operates to ensure that victims of rape and serious sexual assaults can get justice and providing specialist training for officers.
We were committed to ensuring that rape victims felt confident to come forward to report, because we know the sad truth that, even with the good work of Operation Soteria, far too few people come forward. We want to encourage them to do so, and we will support the Government in any action they take in this area.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for giving way on that important point. He will recognise that one issue we have all campaigned on is the fact that many of those women do not come forward because they have no trust in the police. A key issue we have been working on is getting senior officers to suspend those police officers who are found guilty of wrongdoing. Does he agree that we need to make sure that that works now, so that those women can have the confidence to come forward, including where those allegations are against other police officers?
Mr Cleverly
The hon. Lady is absolutely right; although it did not make its way through all its parliamentary stages, the proposals that we put in the Criminal Justice Bill strengthened the accountability framework for officers and strengthened police leadership to take action. Again, I hope that the Government will continue that incredibly important work, and once again I put on record my willingness to support them in ensuring that the disciplinary practices within policing give women the confidence to come forward.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Is it not true that the net number of police is lower after 14 years of Tory Government? There has been a net loss to policing. Does the shadow Home Secretary agree that the reason we have not hit our numbers in London for the Met Police is that we are in special measures, and there needs to be caution over the police who are recruited? We need to ensure there are good police officers, so it is about quality, not just quantity.
Mr Cleverly
I disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of police numbers. That does not accord with the figures that I have seen. Police numbers are up, and we had plans to recruit even more. I get the party loyalty towards the Mayor of London, but the simple fact of the matter is that all police forces have to ensure that there are vetting procedures in place. The vetting procedures for the Metropolitan Police are no more onerous than for other forces around the country, yet many other police forces, including my own, have record numbers of police officers. The Metropolitan Police is the best-funded police force per capita in the country, and yet, with all the freedoms that the Mayor of London has and with all the money that was put on the table, he has failed to recruit the police officers that the capital city needs. That has an impact not just on people who live and work in London, but on visitors and people who travel through it.
In a constantly evolving criminal landscape, we delivered the online fraud charter. It was a world-first agreement, with 12 of the biggest tech companies as signatories, proactively to block and remove fraudulent content from their platforms. Facebook, Instagram and Amazon were among those key signatories. We introduced the National Security Act 2023 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and we proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir, Terrorgram and the Wagner Group, to make promotion and membership of those organisations illegal.
To conclude, the right hon. Lady has a tough job. Home Secretary will always be a tough job. However, during our time in government we ensured that she has more police officers at her disposal, an effective small boats operational command, an effective immigration enforcement command and a suite of legislation to allow her to match the rhetoric of the campaign to her action in government.
The Home Secretary has inherited falling met migration figures, a growing economy and a large parliamentary majority to ensure she gets her business through the House. While we will be critical when the Government make mistakes and will seek to ensure that they do the right thing, we all have a desire for her Department to succeed and indeed an interest in its doing so. On that point, I wish her the very best of luck.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
I welcome everybody to the final day of the King's Speech debate. I also welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s words about the excellent ministerial team that we now have in the Home Office, and his continued support for the defending democracy taskforce, which I know he and his shadow Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), took immensely seriously when they were in government. I can tell the House that we will be meeting later this week, our first meeting after the election, to review some of the issues that I know have affected Members right across the country. We are extremely serious about what happened during the election and how we all need to respond and to stand up for our democracy.
To listen to the shadow Home Secretary, no one would think he had just spectacularly lost a general election; apparently under the Conservatives we have just all had it so good for such a long period of time. However, I am glad to see him enjoying opposition so much. Long may it continue!
This may be the final day of the King’s Speech debate, but of course it is only the beginning of the Tory leadership hustings. The shadow Home Secretary’s name is on the list, and we look forward to his launch, maybe late this week—it is very exciting. As someone who has unsuccessfully stood for their party’s leadership in the past, I do have some sympathy with his predicament. It is not just that he is only the bookies’ fifth favourite; he is not even the leading candidate from Essex, or even the leading candidate from his shadow Home Office team.
I have some bad news for both the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge. Their chances have been dealt a hammer blow by that strategic brain and deputy leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who was elected at the same time as them in 2015. When asked who the stars of his generation are, he said:
“There’s only two people from my generation that I could see leading the Conservative party: Rishi Sunak or Vicky Atkins.”
How disappointing is that? Discounted by the great election guru of the Conservative party before they have even started.
Mr Cleverly
Just for expectation management, may I ask when the Home Secretary will start talking about her portfolio?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Home Secretary spent his entire speech not talking about any of the challenges that the country faces but simply playing to the Conservative Back Benches with a fantasy leadership application speech.
What is it about these former Home Secretaries and Ministers? Apparently, of the last seven Home Office Ministers in Cabinet, six of them are running. We have the previous Home Secretary, the Home Secretary before that and the Home Secretary but one before that—the same person, strangely, because, never forget, it is possible to be sacked from the same job twice—plus the Home Secretary before that, the former Security Minister and the former Immigration Minister.
They have quite a record between them: they have trebled net migration, let boat crossings hit a record high this spring, decimated neighbourhood policing—there are 10,00 fewer neighbourhood police and police community support officers on our streets—let record numbers of crimes go unsolved, bust the Home Office budget by billions, and, yes, spent £700 million sending just four volunteers to Rwanda. If they are now lining up to do to the Tory party what they have already done to the Home Office and the country, well, frankly, they deserve each other. Every one of them championed that policy on Rwanda—although the shadow Home Secretary, to be fair to him, did notoriously describe it as “batshit” crazy. Well, maybe that is what someone needs to be to stand for Tory leader right now. [Interruption.]
We have heard that the Conservatives are going to run this contest until November. We have five months—[Interruption.] Oh, does the shadow Home Secretary want to deny having ever described the Rwanda programme and development partnership as “batshit”? I will give way to him if he would like to respond.
Mr Cleverly
If the right hon. Lady can say when, where and to whom that was said, carry on.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman was the one who said it, so he is the one who will know. If he wants to deny that he ever said it, I will not say it again—honestly—but I think that he protests a little too much with this sort of wriggling. He would not do very well under interrogation.
We have heard today that the leadership contest will run until November. We have five months of this. There are hardly any Tory MPs here because they are all off doing their little chats and meetings. It is like a cross between “Love Island” and the jungle. Rob and Suella have broken up, and now John has gone off with Kemi. Everyone is looking over their shoulder for snakes and rats. Apparently somebody has had a nervous breakdown, and that is probably all of their Back Benchers, dreading getting a little text saying that another candidate wants a chat. We can see it. Look at them all. They are all saying, “I am a Tory MP. Get me out of here.” That is exactly what our Labour MPs have just done: they have got a lot of Tory MPs out of here because the country is crying out for change—for what the Prime Minister has described as a decade of national renewal on our economy, our public services and our relationship with the world, and in politics itself, by bringing politics back into public service again.
I say to all hon. Members, on my side and on the Opposition Benches, that I will work with everyone to restore Britain’s sense of security, public safety on our streets, secure borders, and confidence in our police and criminal justice system. Yes, I will repeatedly challenge the Conservatives on the legacy that they have left us, because the damage is serious, and I think that they have been hugely reckless with the safety of our country. Yes, the approach and values of our parties may be different, but I think that there are important areas where we should be able to come together to bring change in the interests of our country, our communities and our security, because that is what public service means. That is what this Labour Government are determined to do. We have set out in the King’s Speech three Home Office Bills on crime and policing, borders and asylum, and security. I will cover each issue in turn, starting with safety on our streets and confidence in the police and the criminal justice system.
Everyone will have, fresh in their minds, the concerns raised by constituents during the election campaign. I fear that, at a time when we have 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police and PCSOs, confidence in policing has dropped. Street crime and knife crime are surging in towns and suburbs—not just in our cities—and shoplifting has become an epidemic. Those are the kinds of crimes that really affect how people live in their own communities, yet too little is being done.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new position. Before the election was called, we had succeeded in a cross-party campaign to make cuckooing a criminal offence in the Criminal Justice Bill, which then sadly fell. I notice that in the crime and policing Bill, there is no mention at all of cuckooing. Does she support the idea of making cuckooing—using the homes of the most vulnerable in society for criminal behaviour—a criminal offence? If so, will she commit to introducing that process again? She would have my support, and I can guarantee that she would have the support of the previous Government, because I told them so at the time. Over to her.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member raises an immensely important point, which we support. I am happy to talk to him further, or he can talk to the Minister with responsibility for victims and safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). A series of issues included in the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell when the election was called, had cross-party support and need to be taken forward.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment. One issue that was agreed on a cross-party basis was the campaign that we led on abolishing the Vagrancy Act 1824. We concluded that that change would be beneficial for homeless people because they would no longer face arrest and would be provided with assistance. Will she commit, on behalf of the Government, to introducing that change as part of the legislation?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an important point—there was a lot of cross-party agreement. There were also areas where the last Government’s attempt to respond ended up provoking a lot of disagreement and where we had different views. I suggest that he discusses the detail further with the new Home Office Ministers, because we take the matter seriously but want to ensure that we get it right and do not make the errors that the previous Government made in the detail of their response.
As well as the issues around community and town centre crime, we have had an important report from the police today warning that violence against women and girls is “a national emergency” that has not been taken seriously for far too long. We have record levels—90%—of crime going unsolved. The criminal justice system and prisons are being pushed into crisis. Too many people have the feeling that nothing is done and no one will come. We cannot go on like that.
For us in the Labour party, this is rooted in our values. Security is the bedrock of opportunity. Families cannot prosper and get on in life if they do not feel safe. Communities cannot be strong if they do not feel secure. A nation cannot thrive if it is under threat. Respect for each other and the rule of law underpin who we are as a country; they are how we sustain our democracy and our sense of justice and fairness. Too often, those things have felt undermined.
That is why we have made safer streets one of the five central missions of this Labour Government—a mission to restore and rebuild neighbourhood policing, to restore trust and confidence in policing and the criminal justice system, and to deliver our unprecedented ambition of halving serious violence within a decade. That is a hugely ambitious mission: halving serious violence means halving knife crime and violence against women and girls over the next 10 years. I know that will be extremely difficult, but I ask everyone to be part of it, because it is so important and we should all be trying to keep people safe.
Florence Eshalomi
I welcome the Home Secretary to her place, and I know that she has campaigned on this really important area for many years. She talked about all of us being involved in this mission. Does she agree that the people who are working with these communities on the ground—youth workers, independent domestic violence advocates, doctors in A&E units, school employees and teachers—all need to be involved in this conversation? Many of those people see what is happening before the authorities do, and it is vital that they are part of this national conversation.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This has to be a mission for all of us—it is not just about what the Home Office does, although we want the Home Office to do so much more in this area. It is not just about what the Government do; it has to be about all of us. It has to be about recognising that for generation after generation, people have just shrugged their shoulders about unacceptable violence against women and girls. It has just been seen as normal—just one of those things that happens—when actually, we should not stand for it. This is an opportunity for change, and to bring everyone together to make that change. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those who are on the frontline, seeing that violence in practice, are often also those who know what needs to be done.
As part of the new crime and policing Bill, we will bring forward measures to tackle violence against women and girls. That includes making sure that we have specialist rape and sexual assault units in every police force and specialist domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, recognising the terrible tragedy of what happened to Raneem Oudeh and how devastating it was: she called 999 four times on the night she was killed, and no one came. For her and her family, we have to make sure that we make changes. We have to get neighbourhood police back on the beat, so we will introduce a new neighbourhood policing guarantee and new arrangements to cut waste, compelling forces to change the way they procure, in order to make the savings we need—savings that we will put back on the frontline.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her speech and for all the possibilities she has put forward, which we will hopefully endorse later today when the votes come. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned, an attitude change needs to happen in society, and it is important that the media promote it in a positive way.
There have been, I think, 28 murders of women and girls across Northern Ireland over the past few years. That concerns me greatly, so when the Home Secretary brings forward the ideas she is describing in the form of legislation in this House, will she share those policy and legislative changes with the Northern Ireland Assembly? What she has described today can be beneficial for all of us in this United Kingdom, and in particular for Northern Ireland. It is really important that my constituents and ladies and girls across Northern Ireland feel safe, and at the moment, they do not.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes a really important point: this is about all of us, and Northern Ireland has some of the highest levels of domestic abuse murder. This issue is immensely serious, and the safeguarding Minister is already planning to have those discussions, because we should all be learning from each other about what it takes to save lives and keep people safe.
We will bring in new powers on antisocial behaviour, including new respect orders and new action on off-road bikes, which are dangerous and deafening and are being used to terrorise some communities. We will also take action against the soaring shoplifting that has seen supermarkets chain butter, cheese and fabric conditioner to the shelves, reversing the previous Conservative policy on low-value theft, and we will stand up against the appalling violence against shop workers. For years, the Co-op, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, major retailers, small shop owners and shop workers across the country have urged us to strengthen the law against assaults on shop workers, and through this King’s Speech, we will do so.
We will also increase standards in policing, including through mandatory vetting standards across forces and improvements around misconduct.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On the topic of mandatory vetting, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should also have psychological testing for the police? Some of the incidents that have been brought to light, such as the kidnapping and killing of Sarah Everard and the pictures taken of Bibaa and Nicole in Brent, are appalling and can only be done by people who have lost compassion in their job.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some of this is about the vetting standards before people are appointed as police officers, but some of it is about the culture that can operate within forces—or small groups within forces—that always needs to be challenged, including by leadership. We want to see national vetting standards.
Let us be clear: there are police officers who do an incredible job every day of the week to keep us all safe, while also showing immense bravery. For 14 years running, I have been to the police bravery awards to hear incredible stories of heroism, but those brave officers are badly let down—just as communities are badly let down—when other officers fail to meet those standards or when they abuse the power they have. That is why the standards and safeguarding issues are so important.
Turning to knife crime, no parent should have to lie in bed worrying that a son or daughter might not come home. One of the hardest things is to talk to parents who are grieving—who stand with a photo in a frame, because that is all they have. It is important that all our communities take action to prevent our young people from being dragged into crime and violence. The King’s Speech means new laws to get dangerous knives off the streets, such as ninja swords of the type that was used to kill 16-year-old Ronan Kanda near his home in Wolverhampton two years ago. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of Pooja, Ronan’s mother. We will also set up a radical new Young Futures prevention programme to stop our teenagers being drawn into a life of violent crime, bringing services together around young people in the way that the last Labour Government’s Sure Start programme did for our youngest children. It will be a programme for teenagers, to help them get back on track.
We will also bring forward new legislation on borders, security and immigration. Legal migration has trebled in the past five years; the biggest driver has been overseas recruitment, with work visas soaring because the last Government ran what was effectively a free-market, laissez-faire approach to both the economy and the immigration system. They completely failed to tackle skills shortages: areas such as engineering have been on the shortage list for decades if not generations, never having a proper programme. We have seen the number of engineering visas go up while the number of engineering apprenticeships has gone down. We have to turn that around, which is why, as well as continuing with visa controls, we will draw up new arrangements to link the points-based system with new skills plans. That is why the Education Secretary has drawn up plans for Skills England.
Jim Shannon
One of the issues we have been pursuing over the past few years has been the fishing visa scheme to bring crews in. The last Government brought suggestions forward, but they put a very high ceiling on wages, meaning it was impossible for some of the crews in the fishing boats to bring people in under the visa scheme. Will the Home Secretary meet me and other interested parties in this Chamber who represent fishing communities to discuss a way forward? I believe there is a way of doing it, and I very much look forward to working with the Home Secretary to ensure that that is a possibility and that we have a future.
Yvette Cooper
I am sure the hon. Member will continue to raise issues in this Chamber until every Minister has met him on one issue or another, and I am sure all of our Home Office Ministers will be willing to do so.
Let me turn to the issues of asylum policy, many of which we discussed yesterday. I have highlighted them, and I will continue to do so because I am still, frankly, shocked about the amount of money that was spent.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
We have heard lots about tough action on asylum seekers and tough action on immigration. What the Home Secretary has not talked about in her statement yesterday and her speech today is the value of immigration, how it assists our economy and how it enriches some of our communities. Can we hear some more about that from the Home Secretary, because surely we are not going to replace one Tory hostile environment with a new Labour hostile environment?
Yvette Cooper
Let us be clear: immigration is important to our country and has been through the generations, with people coming to this country to start some of our biggest businesses or to work in a public services, but it also needs to be properly controlled and managed, so that the system is fair and so that rules are properly respected and enforced. The issue of illegal migration trebling over the last five years has, I think, reflected some fundamental failures around skills and fundamental failures around the way the economy works. It is important that those are addressed, and that we do not just shrug our shoulders and turn our backs. We believe in having a properly controlled and managed system, and that is the right way to deal with this.
Similarly, turning to asylum, it has always been the case that this country has done its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict, and we must continue to do so, but we must also have a properly managed and controlled system. We raised yesterday the shocking scale of the £700 million spent sending four volunteers—just four volunteers—to Rwanda. The decisions on the asylum hotel amnesty that the Conservatives have in effect been operating are actually even worse and have cost even more money. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has said that he does not recognise those figures, but I wonder if he actually ever asked for them. I would say to him that it was one of the first things I asked for, because I am sick and tired of seeing Governments just waste money with careless policies when they have never actually worked out how much they are going to cost.
The Conservatives’ policy under the Illegal Migration Act 2023—with the combination of sections 9 and 30 —was to have everybody enter the asylum hotel system or the asylum accommodation system, and never to take any decisions on those cases. There is a shocking cost to the taxpayer of up to £30 billion over the next few years on asylum accommodation and support. It also means that the rules just are not being respected and enforced. It is deeply damaging and undermines the credibility of the asylum system, but it also leaves the taxpayer paying the price.
Yes, the King’s Speech does bring forward new legislation on borders, asylum and immigration. That will include bringing forward new counter-terror powers, including enhanced search powers and aggressive financial orders for organised immigration crime, and we are recruiting new cross-border police officers, investigators and prosecutors, as well as a new border commander. This is part of a major upgrade in law enforcement, working with cross-border police stationed across Europe to be able to tackle, disrupt and dismantle the actions of criminal gangs before they reach the French coast.
Finally, let me turn to national security, because when it comes to defending our nation against extremists and terrorists, against state challenges and hostile threats, or against those who try to undermine our democracy and values, I hope this House will always be ready to come together. I pay tribute to the police and the intelligence and security services, which work unseen to keep us safe. In that spirit, I hope the whole House will be ready to support Martyn’s law, drawn up by the tireless Figen Murray in memory of her son Martyn Hett, so that we learn the lessons from the terrible Manchester attack, when children and their parents who went out for a special night never came home and lives could have been saved. That, I hope, is the moment to end on, because we will debate, argue and have differences of view, but in this House, at the very heart of our democracy, we can also come together to keep communities safe.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome the Home Secretary to her place and congratulate her on what I hope will be a new era in home affairs in this country. I thank her for her declared openness to working together across the House in the best interests of everyone.
I have to say that I have had one small disappointment in that I had anticipated we would not argue about the Rwanda scheme today. For too long, it seems, we have had to listen to the empty rhetoric about a failing immigration and asylum system and the botched attempts to fix it. Today we should be looking forward with more of a sense of anticipation. It is like the day someone gets their exam results and chooses their university, with the anticipation of the choices—the positive choices—they will make in the future. Could we be entering a period of more positive attitudes towards immigration, as well as fixing the asylum backlog, having more community policing and, as the Home Secretary mentioned, having a continued focus on tackling violence against women and girls?
Today’s report estimates that one in 12 women in England and Wales will be a victim of male violence every year. That is shocking. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was important in moving us forwards, but there is more to do, and I welcome the comments of the Home Secretary on working together. While I have confidence in the new Government’s determination to tackle violence against women and girls, I urge them to continue with the same cross-party approach that, as mentioned, proved so successful with the Domestic Abuse Act. Working together on that was key, and it can be again on the crime and policing Bill and the victims, courts and public protection Bill. Specifically, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, has been clear that we really need to see full ratification of the Istanbul convention and new mandatory training for police on supporting the victims of violence against women and girls.
I am sure everyone here agrees with the sentiment that all of us deserve to feel safe in our own homes and communities. That provides the security and the stability from which people can live their best lives and create the best communities. Yet for too many people in the UK in the past decade, that has simply not been the reality. Unnecessary cuts and the ineffective use of resources have contributed to the rise in unsolved crimes, as police forces have been left overstretched and under-resourced. Serious violence has destroyed too many young lives, our communities are plagued by burglaries, fraud and antisocial behaviour, and far too many criminals are getting away with it. As I say, violence against women and girls remains horrifically high.
On top of that, the huge backlog in the courts is denying victims the justice they deserve. Prisons are in crisis—overcrowded, understaffed and failing to rehabilitate offenders. We need to free up local officers’ time to focus on their communities, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will continue to call for a return to proper community policing. However, we also need to look at how we are working with our neighbours to tackle international crime. It will come as no surprise that I hope this Government will work to repair some of the damage done to that co-operation by the previous Government’s attitude to Europe, as well as to build a better relationship with Europe and improve co-operation with our neighbours on tackling cross-border crime, human trafficking, the illegal drug trade, cyber-crime and terrorism.
We need to recognise the golden thread that runs through Departments, and that success will be much more likely if we do not work in silos. As the Home Secretary said, we need to invest in youth services that are genuinely engaging. What this all comes down to is prevention and early intervention to improve lives and make our communities safer.
If I could beg your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make something of a personal plea to the Government. In the last Parliament, I introduced a private Member’s Bill motivated by my own experience and my family’s experience of losing a parent too young. I worked closely with leading charities, such as Winston’s Wish, which provide bespoke counselling, group sessions and online services to help young people deal with their grief. I was delighted to see the children’s wellbeing Bill and its recognition of the need for better bereavement support. I would hope, when we see the detail, that it will provide clear guidance for local councils, schools and other public bodies on how to ensure that every bereaved child knows where to find the right help for them when they need it, so that their lives are not blighted and they do not go into adulthood carrying the burden of that grief.
There is one other issue I would highlight. I live in and represent part of Edinburgh, a diverse city, which at this time of the year is preparing for a massive influx of performers and audiences from across the world. It is fun and it is entertaining, but more than that, it is a vital event that brings more than £400 million into the local economy every year. It is part of our creative industries, which are worth £126 billion to the UK economy every year. They have suffered as much, perhaps more, than many other sectors from the chaotic and ineffective immigration and visa system we have had in this country for the past decade. Make no mistake, we need to improve it, but we need to improve it for our economy and for our NHS. Generations of people from all over the world have greatly enriched our economy, our culture and our communities, and as liberals my party and I would like to see people treated as just that: people who come here and benefit our country.
But our immigration system has been broken by the Conservatives. Damaging rules mean British employers cannot recruit the people they need and families are separated by unfair complex visa requirements. In my constituency of Edinburgh West, I have sat with families torn apart by these rules and done my best to reunite them. The dysfunction in the system has made the asylum backlog soar, and public confidence in the system is shattered.
The Home Office has not been fit for purpose and I hope this Government’s policies as set out in the King’s Speech will address that. It needs to put people at its heart, with safe and legal routes to sanctuary, and it cannot be stated how pleased I am that the unworkable Rwanda plan has been scrapped. But we must smash the criminal gangs at the root of the people trafficking that is causing so much distress. I welcome what the Government have announced so far but we do need more, and those safe and legal routes I mentioned are surely the best way to take power away from the gangs. Along with that, we need to expand and properly fund the UK resettlement scheme.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Member will know from being a Scottish MP and the work of the Scottish Affairs Committee that we face a pressing demographic issue in Scotland. We are the only part of the UK that will have a falling population in 20 years’ time. Will she support the emerging cross-party talk about a specific and distinct Scottish visa so we can finally get on top of our demographic and population issues?
Christine Jardine
The hon. Gentleman knows that I believe we should be looking at the sectors that suffer. The fruit production and picking sector and the food processing sector in Scotland need a workforce and need immigration as much as those sectors in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should not look at specific geographical areas; we should be looking at sectors. We should be looking at industries and what benefits the whole of the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom.
I have mentioned the UK resettlement scheme, but we also need clarity on whether the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 will be repealed and consigned to history as the expensive mistakes we surely recognise them as.
This Government have much to do and, where we can, we will support and work with them. Later today we will be proposing an amendment detailing the areas we would like to see strengthened: upholding public standards; addressing the crisis in our health system; having a cross-party commission on social care; and scrapping the two-child benefit cap. On those areas where we can work with this Government, we will do so. What they have set out is only a beginning, however, and we look forward to seeing the detail of the legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
Order. Unfortunately, there will have to be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, although those making a maiden speech are exempt from that. I call Debbie Abrahams.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a surprise to be called so early, but I am absolutely delighted.
I welcome the King’s Speech and its focus on fairness and opportunity for all—quite the antidote to the last 14 years when things have been anything but fair. The UK now has the highest level of income inequalities in Europe and the ninth highest of 38 OECD countries. Inequality in wealth is even worse, with the top fifth of the population having over one third of the country’s income but two thirds of the country’s wealth. These inequalities in income and wealth are particularly concentrated in the north but also among disabled people and ethnic minority communities.
The impact of these inequalities on health has been described by Professor Sir Micheal Marmot in his latest report, “Lives Cut Short.” He wrote in The BMJ:
“if everyone had the good health of the least deprived 10% of the population, there would have been 1 million fewer deaths in England in the period 2012 to 2019.”
Poverty and inequality are not inevitable; they are the result of political choices. The choices of consecutive Conservative Governments over the past 14 years have led to not only our flatlining economy, but our flatlining life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. In deprived areas such as mine, life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are actually declining.
We also have growing levels of economic inactivity due to this ill health, and the International Monetary Fund has revealed that there is a causal impact from these health inequalities on economic growth. For every 1% increase in the income share of the richest 20%, growth is reduced, whereas increasing the income share of the poorest 20% increases growth. Ensuring a vibrant, stable and fair economy with sustainable growth will enable us to renew and restore our overstretched public services. With fair funding formula and public spending allocations based on need, there is an opportunity to improve health in areas, such as Oldham, that have fallen behind.
There are many Bills and initiatives that will make a positive difference to our lives and living standards, and these include the new deal for working people that will make work pay, ending the outrage of over 8 million working people living in poverty and 3 million children in poverty living in working households, transforming the lives of millions of people up and down the country, including in Oldham East and Saddleworth.
The new GB Energy company will not only support new quality jobs but provide cheaper, cleaner energy, reducing the energy bills of my constituents and millions of others. The children’s wellbeing Bill, with free breakfast clubs and 100,000 extra nursery places, will also help to reduce cost pressures for young families while making life a bit easier for families. Our plans to enable 1.5 million new quality homes to be built while at the same time ensuring legislation to end no-fault evictions will be a huge relief to tenants and mortgage holders everywhere.
Collectively, these measures will help improve the living standards of millions of people, but they will not happen overnight or for all people. Some 2.6 million working-age people are out of work because of an illness or disability. While many sick and disabled people want to work and will benefit from the extra NHS appointments and therapies, it will be many months before we see inroads into these waiting lists. Similarly, I would like to think that the attitudes of employers towards hiring disabled workers will shift quickly, but we recognise that is unlikely to be the case. And then there are other disabled people for whom the possibility of working is unrealistic.
Those who are disabled or who live in a household with a disabled adult or child are more likely to live in poverty. Over the past 14 years, disabled people have been absolutely battered by consecutive Conservative Governments. As the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities described, there have been systematic violations of their rights under the UN convention.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Six years on, that Committee did a follow-up report which found that things had in fact got even worse for disabled people, so does she agree that it is now absolutely right that a new Labour Government will change course?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am absolutely convinced that under a Labour Government we will see these changes.
I think it is important that we put on the record where we are at the moment. We need to ensure that the right to adequate social protection and social security is in place, and we know that is not the case at the moment. We must do better not just in changing the culture of the Department for Work and Pensions, but in recognising the extra costs, the fear and the poverty disabled people face and feel, because otherwise I fear that we will be seeing more deaths of disabled claimants.
Similarly, while I support the measures in the King’s Speech to improve our lives, that cannot happen soon enough for the nearly one in two children living in poverty across Oldham. Children living in poverty now will be affected by the experience for the rest of their lives. There is evidence that living in poverty changes the wiring of their brains. Many will not reach their first birthday. Shamefully, we have the worst infant mortality rate in northern Europe. There is no law of nature that decrees that children from poor families have to die at more than twice the rate of children in rich families. I welcome that the Secretaries of State for Education and for Work and Pensions have established the child poverty taskforce to deliver the cross-Government child poverty strategy, and I look forward to it reporting in the early autumn. We cannot forget the 1.6 million children across the UK with special educational needs. SEND education is in crisis and that cannot continue.
This Labour Government are a Government for everyone, and the King’s Speech is a starting point on that. I look forward to working with the Government to deliver the change that all our country needs.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Andrew Snowden to make his maiden speech.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is truly an honour to rise as the new Member for Fylde to give my maiden speech in this historic House, the global seat of democracy for centuries before us. I have chosen to make my maiden speech today because, having served as Lancashire’s police and crime commissioner until May this year, it felt incredibly poignant to speak in the home affairs debate. It gives me the opportunity to thank the police officers and staff I worked with for their bravery, their sacrifice and their service.
During my term of office, I was truly inspired by so many people at Lancashire Constabulary. I threw myself into a job I loved, spending as much time on the frontline as I could. I learned the most about policing when there were no cameras around, sat in the back of carriers on the way to drug raids, walking the beat on a cold, wet evening, or taking part in training side by side with officers. They seemed to make the most of the commissioner being there with them, not sparing me the newbie treatment just because of who I was. I have been set on fire twice, had drainpipes sawn off my arms and, despite doing all the videos people would expect from a politician, the most-watched video from my whole term of office was the one in which I got bitten by three different police dogs. With hindsight, given that the public appeared to enjoy the video of me getting bitten by dogs more than the ones about my budget, I suppose I should have seen my election defeat coming in that particular election.
In all sincerity, though, I place firmly and proudly on the record my gratitude to everyone I have worked with at Lancashire Constabulary and in the office of commissioner. As this House debates the future policy and funding of policing in the UK, we should never forget those at the heart of it, on the frontline, working and making sacrifices to keep us safe every day.
I am able to give this maiden speech today only because the people of Fylde have given me the honour of serving as their Member of Parliament, and it truly is an honour. Being elected to represent an area where my family connections go back before I was even born, that we as a family love, and where my two-year-old son Walter will grow up and call home, is an incredibly special and humbling moment.
Fylde is a proud and beautiful area, steeped in the history of Lancashire and our country, nestled on stunning coastline with many towns and villages across the countryside, each with their own history. Might I add that it is also an area that we intend to fight to keep green and beautiful for generations to come?
Fylde is far more than coastline, countryside and being part of our county’s history. Some of the most advanced technology in the world is being developed and built here. In fact, often when out near Warton and Freckleton we can hear the jet fighters taking off from the site where they are constructed. While I was out on the election battlefield, campaigning every day, it felt strangely reassuring to hear the incredible noise as the fighter jets powered overhead—to be honest, I needed all the back-up I could get in the battle to keep Fylde blue this time.
From the defence sector to farming and agriculture, tourism and hospitality, the care sector and others, there is a strong local economy. However, to build on that, to create more opportunities for young people and to better connect our businesses and those seeking opportunities across Lancashire and beyond, we need to improve infrastructure and public transport. I am grateful to the work that my predecessor as the Member for Fylde did to secure millions in extra funding. Working with the Government, local councils and other partners, he was critical in securing the £27 million that enabled the M55 to Heyhouses link road to be constructed, and it has recently been opened.
A few months earlier, the £150 million Windy Harbour to Skippool bypass opened, an important link road for the people across Poulton-le-Fylde. The boundary review brought this historic market town of Poulton in Wyre to the constituency of Fylde. I therefore also place on the record my thanks to the former Member for Wyre and Preston North, and former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Ben Wallace, and not only for the role he played in securing the funding for that major project, but for his unwavering work as Secretary of State for Defence in such critical, unpredictable and dangerous times. The global leadership he demonstrated in galvanising the international response to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is a legacy that he should be incredibly proud of.
Going back to Fylde, we need to focus on continuing to improve the existing road network, as well as expanding it. Equally as importantly, we need to secure investment for the rail network, and I will be campaigning hard for a passing loop on the south Fylde line to improve the regularity and reliability of services.
I would also like to talk about an important personal area of work that I will undertake as a Member of this House. I would not be here today—I would not have survived the journey to this moment—without the support, encouragement and love of my wife, Caroline. We have been each other’s strength through good times and difficult ones, and the fact that Caroline has always had the strength to support me in such magnitude when she has had her own battles to fight is testament to the person she is. Caroline, like thousands across this country, lives with what is often known as an invisible disability. It means that she has often concealed just how sick and in pain she is. She has had to explain why she is in hospital when just weeks earlier she may have been visibly well to everyone, and therefore suffering in silence.
I want to champion the work of Crohn’s & Colitis UK, and other charities and organisations that support and advocate for those with disabilities that are not visible, and to help remove the stigma, indifference and even hostility that they receive, for example when needing to use facilities marked as for disabled people. The hurt and humiliation that can cause only adds to the incredible difficulty of living with these conditions, and we must do much more to raise awareness.
To conclude, Fylde is a place where some of the most advanced fighter jets in the world are built, and it is at the cutting edge of artificial intelligence and other technology, but it is also a place where towns from Lytham to Kirkham, and villages from Staining to Singleton, still crown the young rose queens each year and hold galas and parades, and a place where people take pride in looking after the countryside and preserving our heritage. I intend to spend my time in this House fighting for Fylde—yes, for the investment in our future, but also the preservation of our history, our coastline and our countryside.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on his maiden speech. It was a moving speech, and I know that his family and his constituents will be very proud of his commitment to work on the issues around Crohn’s and colitis, which is a devastating and difficult disease for those who have to endure it.
It is a privilege for me to represent the communities of Dulwich, West Norwood, Herne Hill, Gipsy Hill, and parts of Brixton, Crystal Palace, Camberwell and Tulse Hill, and I am grateful to everyone who voted to send me here for a fourth time. I am especially grateful to the residents of Champion Hill ward, who voted for me for the first time in this election due to boundary changes.
I am delighted to be speaking for the first time from the Government side of the House of Commons. Over the past nine years in this place, I have seen the impact of the Conservatives’ political decisions on my constituents. I have seen the housing crisis deepen every single year. Our local schools have struggled as the schools funding formula was changed to redirect funding away from constituencies like mine with high levels of deprivation to more affluent areas of the country. Local authority funding has been decimated, affecting the ability of our local councils to keep delivering the services that residents need. Our local health services have been placed under unbearable pressure. Parents are paying more than their rent or mortgage for a childcare place, and our police are unable to fill essential roles in neighbourhood policing. There is not a single part of our public sector that is not at least partially broken after 14 years of cuts and neglect, while every Gracious Speech that I have listened to until now has made something else worse than it was before.
Among the most egregious legacies of the past 14 years of Conservative government has been the impact on the life chances of children and young people. Seven hundred thousand more children are living in poverty than in 2010. There has been a shocking decline in children and young people’s mental health. We have seen 1,300 Sure Start centres close, spiralling numbers of teenagers entering the care system and parents across the country battling for special educational needs and disabilities support. So I am deeply heartened to see that this Gracious Speech sets out a legislative programme that begins the process of renewal and restoration that our country needs and that will start to improve the life chances of children and young people.
Legislation will increase the number of teachers in our schools, improve the mental health and wellbeing of young people, ensure that no child in primary school has to start the school day hungry, increase the number of nursery places and deliver better support for young people who are at risk of serious violence. I welcome the establishment of the child poverty taskforce. Child poverty is a scourge on our society. The increase over the past 14 years is shameful, and it must be a core driving mission of the Government to eradicate it.
Child poverty does not happen in isolation. Children live in poverty because their parents are poor. The solutions to poverty are multiple and include making work pay; more genuinely affordable housing; reducing energy bills; and creating a social security system that actually acts as an effective safety net.
I understand the need both for a comprehensive strategy for tackling child poverty and for all public spending decisions to be fully funded and affordable, but two things are important. First, the child poverty taskforce must work with urgency and speed, and it must result in concrete action soon. Childhood is short, and the years that are blighted by poverty cannot be rerun. Secondly, the taskforce and the Government must follow the evidence. That includes evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Trussell Trust and a wide range of experts showing a clear correlation between the two-child cap on child benefit and increased child poverty, as well as the alleviation that would come from lifting it. I hope that the Government will consider that evidence as part of a wider, comprehensive strategy.
Several wider challenges affecting children and young people were not included in the King’s Speech but will require imminent strategic decision making from our new Government. They include the crisis in SEND support and the safety valve programme, which is forcing many councils to make impossible cuts to services that vulnerable residents rely on while families are left fighting in the tribunal for SEND support.
There is also the financial crisis in our university sector, which should be the pride of our country, helping us to face the future, prepare the next generation and deliver world-class research. Universities are also the fulcrum of the local economy in cities and towns across the country. Their collapse would be catastrophic for jobs and economic growth. The Government must therefore ensure that a plan is in place that offers meaningful interventions to stem the current crisis and allow our universities to stabilise and chart a sustainable course.
When a country invests in its children and young people, it invests in the future. When it delivers a better society for children and young people, it delivers a better society for everyone. When it acts to protect the most vulnerable. It places all of us on a more solid foundation. I welcome this Gracious Speech from our new Labour Government and look forward to seeing the Government deliver for our children and young people in the coming months.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I spent 13 years on these Benches in opposition, and I know how frustrating it can be.
The reality is that when the sheer size of our defeat became apparent, I had some difficulty in coming to terms with it. In order to characterise it, I do not think one can do better than our late colleague Peter Brooke, who, when describing a similar calamity, said, “the battle of Isandlwana is lost, so now begins the defence of the mission station at Rorke’s Drift.”
I had no doubt that the Government were always going to abandon the Rwanda scheme—they made that absolutely clear, and they have every right to do it—but I do think that the House will ultimately come to regret not having such a deterrent to hand. Had it been allowed to develop, it could have been such a deterrent. It was never a silver bullet but always part of a complex jigsaw of measures, of which, of course, the holy grail would be returns agreements.
The previous Government should be utterly congratulated on the returns agreement they made with Albania, which has been a tremendous success. Such agreements are hard to come by. I remember being sent to negotiate with President Ghani in Afghanistan to try to get him to take a more helpful approach, given the blood and treasure that we were expending on behalf of his regime and the people of Afghanistan. He turned to me and said, “My priority is the young men and women who are taking the battle to the Taliban, and you want me to give time and resource to those people who’ve chosen to run away?” Well, it was a fair point—of course, ultimately he ran away himself. But I had little more success in negotiations on returns agreements with other Commonwealth members. These agreements are extraordinarily hard to achieve. I think that we would have wanted a third country where we could have settled people, because ultimately our ability to do so will be finite and limited.
I want to draw attention to what the Prime Minister said yesterday in his statement, when he pointed out that he had just authorised a very significant increase in money to regimes in Africa. Ultimately, that has to be the long-term answer—the very long-term answer. We made an agreement back in 1970 with the wealthy countries of the world to spend 0.7% of our national income on international development in the economies of those countries from which so many people are now coming and will continue to come as long as the incentive of life being so much better here exists. It took us until the coalition Government in 2011 to actually honour that commitment to spending 0.7% of our national income, and we subsequently abandoned it—or certainly reduced it. If all the nations that had entered that agreement had honoured it and delivered it when they made it, perhaps the flow of population from the developing world would have abated substantially and we would be dealing with a different situation.
Ultimately, it is all about jobs. Take Zaatari, the huge refugee camp on the borders of Jordan and Syria: a great city now, made from scratch. Those who are accommodated in Zaatari will find that the housing provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is of a substantially better quality than that available in many cities and shanty towns across the world. They will find that the World Food Programme will feed them, and their children will be educated by the UN children’s agencies. Perhaps most importantly, security will be supplied by the Jordanian forces and be of a much greater standard than they might enjoy in many other parts of the world. Despite all those advantages, people from Zaatari will spend every penny they have, and borrow, in order to escape and get the one thing that Zaatari cannot supply them: a livelihood and a future for their family. That is the driver of so much migration.
Ultimately, we must return to that original policy, restore the 0.7%, and start building for the long term a world that is much more secure as a consequence of the economic developments available in those other places.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but does he accept that much of that aid went to propping up corrupt regimes, which denied people the rights that we have in this country and was one of the things that drove immigration in this country? If aid is misspent or used to prop up regimes, it is detrimental, not helpful.
Sir Desmond Swayne
That is absolutely right, but we did not do that. We did not spend our money in that way. We supported people under desperate regimes, not by giving money to those regimes but by providing sustenance through third parties and NGOs, which delivered that. Some of the greatest damage done by much of our own press was how our international development aid effort was painted as destructive in the way that was just described. It never was.
I return to my original point: we cannot take everybody, and we certainly needed somewhere else where they could have gone. Rwanda struck me as somewhere that that possibility could blossom.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Let me begin by saying how good it is to see the Conservative party on the Opposition Benches and in such diminished numbers. No doubt some will say that I am being unsporting, but since politics is not a sport, I will say it anyway: I will never forgive Conservative MPs for the 14 years of damage that they have inflicted on our communities. Child poverty has never been higher and NHS waiting lists have never been longer. Life expectancy is falling and food bank queues are rising. Our public services are cut to the bone and our infrastructure is broken. Our trains are permanently in crisis and our rivers are pumped full of sewage. Our teachers, doctors and nurses have been forced to strike. According to one academic study, 330,000 excess deaths between 2012 and 2019 can be attributed to Tory austerity.
When I say that politics is not a sport but a matter of life and death, that is what I mean. For some it appears to be a parlour game about the next zone 2 dinner party invite, but this is about people’s lives and their material conditions. While the Conservatives scapegoated minorities and slashed support for the poorest, they helped the rich get richer. Workers’ wages are lower than in 2008, but the wealth of UK billionaires is up threefold since the Tories came to power.
The general election results show that people across the country are crying out for change. Our new Labour Government must now deliver it. I am pleased to say for the first time in my parliamentary career that this King’s Speech includes Bills that I look forward to voting for, but I will surprise no one by saying that I want our Government to go further, by introducing the new deal for working people and banning all zero-hours contracts. They must totally end fire and rehire, repeal all anti-trade union legislation, roll out sectoral collective bargaining across the economy, and recognise that the argument that we make for public ownership of rail applies to water, mail and energy too.
In the short time I have to speak today, I want to focus on two areas that I believe need urgent action. First, if the Labour party has a moral mission, it must be to eradicate poverty. After 14 years of the Conservatives, a record 4.3 million children are growing up in poverty. They go to bed hungry, they struggle more in school and their physical and mental health takes a hit. Their parents are put through hell to try to make ends meet. I welcome the child poverty taskforce, but everyone in the Chamber has read the briefings, and everyone knows that the evidence is overwhelming. The key driver of rising child poverty is the two-child benefit cap, and the single most effective way of tackling child poverty is immediately to lift 300,000 children out of poverty by scrapping this cruel policy.
Zarah Sultana
I will be voting for it, thank you. It is a move backed by everyone from Gordon Brown to all 11 trade unions affiliated to the Labour party, the TUC, which represents 6 million workers, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Save the Children. With a 1% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, we could raise the funds needed to pay for the policy three times over. Kids should not have to suffer a single day in avoidable poverty. I will vote for the amendment selected by the Speaker to scrap this cruel Tory policy and, at this late stage, I appeal to our new Labour Front-Bench team to deliver the change that the country has called for, and adopt the policy and immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty.
The second area needing urgent action relates to my amendment (c). As we debate here in Westminster, raining down hell on Gaza is Israel’s fleet of F-35 fighter jets—planes described by their manufacturer as the most lethal fighter jet in the world. Israel has armed those jets with 2,000 lb bombs with a lethal radius of 365 m—the equivalent of 58 football pitches. A recent UN report identified the bombs as having been used in emblematic cases of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on Gaza—attacks that clearly violate international law. I raise this because every F-35 fighter jet is made in part here in Britain, in a deal estimated to be worth £368 million.
That is just one example of Israel’s use of British-made arms in its assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 38,000 people—disproportionately women and children. The legal threshold for these sales to be banned has clearly been met, so they should be banned. There is a clear risk that British-made weapons might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, hence why, in February, UN experts called on these sales to end immediately. Other countries—Spain, Canada and the Netherlands to name just a few —have suspended sales. Previous British Governments suspended sales after far fewer Israeli assaults: Margaret Thatcher in 1982, Tony Blair in 2002, Gordon Brown in 2009 and David Cameron in 2014.
Today, the Palestinian people face death and destruction on a scale unlike anything they have faced before, but British-made arms are still being licensed to Israel and used to kill innocent people. Again, I say to our new Government: it is time for us to uphold international law and end arms sales to Israel.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve in the Chamber with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish the new Government Front-Bench team well. They know that I have high regard for many of them, including the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who are in their places.
As a patriot, I wish the Government well, because they are in a position to run our country and there will be many matters on which we can agree. I have worked with a number of Government Members on the kinds of matters that go well beyond Punch and Judy politics, if I can call it that, particularly on national security. However, those good wishes are not the same as wishful thinking. Too much wishful thinking pervades the Government Benches. Having made change itself the brand, the risk they face is thinking that change alone is enough. CS Lewis said:
“If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.”
Nevertheless, I wish the Government well.
We are debating a number of challenges in this aspect of the King’s Speech today, but none more challenging than that of lawlessness. Too often when we debate crime, lawlessness and order in this Chamber, we give too little regard to the victims of crime. We simply must end the culture, which has pervaded for most of my lifetime, of believing that crime is an illness; to be treated. It is not an illness; it is a malevolent choice made by those who are careless of the harm they do. When we understand that, we understand why the principal objective of the criminal justice system must be punishment. A justly retributive response to that malevolence is necessary not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the component of the criminal justice system which maintains the public’s faith that justice will be done and be seen to be done.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am listening intently to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he therefore believe that people are born wicked? I believe that, with good education at a very early age and early intervention, crimes can be prevented.
Sir John Hayes
I imagine you will not allow me to talk about the fall from the state of grace and the character of sin, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let me say briefly to the hon. Lady that human beings are capable of the greatest wickedness and the greatest good. When they choose to do good, they can do immensely joyful things. I hope that the people in this Chamber all seek to do good, which is why I began my speech by wishing the Government well. My experience of this place is that people, regardless of party, are here because they want to make their constituents better off and the country they live in a happier and more agreeable place. Of course people have the capacity to do good, but we know too that people can do the most dreadful things, and when they do so it is absolutely right that law-abiding decent patriotic people see that they get their just deserts. That is not a strange or curious idea; it is one that has informed most criminal justice systems in all civilisations for all of time, and the most obvious way of ensuring that people who do harm get their just deserts is to incarcerate them.
That brings me to the second principle of the criminal justice system, which is that we take people out of harm’s way. The best way of doing that is to imprison those who seek to do harm. I am shocked, as are my constituents, that the Government now intend to let more of those dangerous people on to our streets. We are now told that people will be released—including people who have done violent things, who have hurt and damaged other people’s lives—after they have served 40% of their sentence. When most people I represent hear of a sentence for such crimes, they assume that people will serve 100% of it. Of course, that has not been the case for a long time, but we now know that the Government, on the grounds of prison overcrowding, are to release many more of these dangerous people on to our streets. I am afraid that the wishful thinking I described earlier will soon turn to the wish that the Government would see the sense of why that is an entirely unacceptable course of action. The last Conservative Government added to the number of prison places, but not enough and not fast enough—I think all of us on the Conservative Benches would acknowledge that—but given where we are, we simply cannot subject the British people to the fear, and not only fear but the reality, of letting out of prison others who would do them harm.
Let us deal with the third aspect of criminal justice, which is to try to prevent recidivism by reforming those in prison. As a Minister, I worked on prison education, because it is important that we try to ensure that people who have committed a crime and have been punished for doing so do not commit another, but that cannot be the only or defining characteristic of criminal justice. We have to recognise what Philip Bean, the criminologist in the 1970s said: retribution has to be a core part of what the public see in order to maintain their faith in the system and in what the Government and the authorities are doing. Yes, let us have a debate about rehabilitation; let us try to save souls, not only because it prevents recidivism but because it is the right thing to do for those individuals. But we should understand that punishment is not a dirty word. It is what most of our constituents take for granted, yet I never hear those sentiments expressed with any vehemence or conviction by the liberal establishment in this country, which unfortunately is too well represented in this place.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are different types of crimes and different types of prisoners, and that many people in our prison system at the moment, particularly those responsible for relatively low-level, non-violent antisocial behaviour, could powerfully serve much better and more rehabilitative community sentences? I do not want chain gangs in Norfolk and Lincolnshire, but good community service, where people can see that they are actually putting something back into society, would ease a lot of pressure on the system.
Sir John Hayes
Community sentences can play a part, that is true, but my hon. Friend will recall that the problem I described earlier of misunderstanding crime as an illness to be treated has its roots in thinking that stretches right back to the 1960s. You will perhaps know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 began intermediate treatment orders, which essentially rewarded young people who had committed crimes with the kind of community activities that my hon. Friend describes. People were sent to the Brecon Beacons when their law-abiding neighbours had to make do with a week in Clacton. I mean no disrespect to Clacton or its representative, I hasten to add. [Laughter.] That is not the kind of response to crime that the vast majority of my constituents—or, I suspect, those of my hon. Friend—expect. Yes, community sentences can play a part, but they must not in any way distract us from the fundamental truth—I think it was Grotius who said it, Mr Deputy Speaker—that criminal justice has to have at its heart the idea of an ill suffered for an ill inflicted. I hope that the new Government will recognise that to crack down on crime, they really do have to restore public faith in the fact that, as I said, justice will be done.
It is fact that 10% of convicted criminals are responsible for half of all convictions. It is true, too, that those individuals are known and can be identified and must not be released in the way that has been suggested. Yet, disturbingly, the new Prisons Minister is on the record as saying:
“We’re addicted to sentencing, we’re addicted to punishment. So many people who are in prison, in my view, shouldn’t be there.”
That is both the opposite of the truth and anything but what most people think.
I welcome the attention given in the King’s Speech to shoplifting, but again I fear that the Government’s approach amounts to little more than wishful thinking. We have a shoplifting epidemic in Britain. Police forces do not respond to almost nine out of 10 serious incidents and UK retailers already spend around £1 billion each year on trying to deal with a problem with which they struggle to cope. Many offenders persistently commit crimes and get away with it.
So let us, in this debate and in the programme that follows it, not simply rely on wishful thinking but face up to the profound truths which seem to have escaped the notice of Labour Governments forever and, too often, of Conservative Governments too: reflecting the sentiments of the vast majority of law-abiding people means the guilty must be punished and the innocent must be protected.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Dr Beccy Cooper to make her maiden speech.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to make my maiden speech among such an outstanding group of people. I hope that people who have seen the maiden speeches over the past few days, and will watch them in the days, weeks and months to come, might see some of the warmth, kindness and decency that I have met in my fellow MPs in these first couple of weeks in Parliament.
I am the newly elected Member for the beautiful constituency of Worthing West. Nestled between the south downs and the English channel, we are often described as that area just west of our big sister, Brighton. But, as with all younger sisters, we have many often unsung merits, about which it will be my absolute pleasure to tell the House a little today.
Worthing West is made up of two thirds of Worthing town, the other third now being ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland). In this part of my constituency people can find Worthing town centre, our beautiful old lido building, and the recently returned Worthing wheel. Before being elected to Parliament, I had the great privilege of being the leader of Worthing council. Our vision for Worthing is for it to be both the fairest and the greenest coastal town in the UK, an ambition that I am sure my coastal colleagues will try to wrestle from me. Alongside an ambitious decarbonisation plan, work on Worthing’s town centre gardens will begin this autumn in a community and council-led project. We are also privileged to be part of the Sussex Bay project, a movement of radical collaboration initiated by Adur & Worthing Councils with the mission of restoring a healthy blue ecosystem to our seas and waterways in which nature, people and the local economy can thrive.
Worthing West is also home to the beautiful coastal and country villages of Ferring, East Preston, Angmering, Findon, Clapham and Patching. I can tell any keen campers—I have not been in Parliament long enough to know how many MPs actually like being without wi-fi and a good latte, but I am hoping to find a few—that the Fox Wood campsite in Patching is a firm local favourite. There are two very handy pubs near the site, The Fox and The Worlds End, which serve the most excellent food when your fire will not light and even the kids are sick of beans on toast.
I am only the second Member of Parliament to represent Worthing West. It was first formed in 1974, and for the past 30 years has been represented by Sir Peter Bottomley, who I know was very well respected here as the Father of the House. He was known for working cross-party on a variety of important campaigns, including leasehold reform and the infected blood scandal. Sir Peter and I share a great affection for Worthing West, and during the election campaign we often bumped into each other enjoying a quick cuppa with constituents. I should confess at this point that I am a northerner originally, adopted by the south as one of its own, and a good brew is a must-have for a day to start and end well. We have many excellent cafés in our area. To anyone who is listening to my speech and thinking that this newbie MP is not doing too bad a job of selling the merits of her home town, I can thoroughly recommend the cakes at Sea Lane café on Goring beach, the coffee at both Coast café and Finch in Worthing town centre, and the breakfast at the Bluebird café in Ferring, among many others.
At this point, I should also confess that my extolling of the virtues of cake—and all credit to the House staff for the incredible muffins in the parliamentary café—is tempered by the fact that I am by profession a medical doctor, and, as my children will testify, I am reasonably obsessed with making sure that cake is part of a healthy balance that allows us to enjoy all the different types of food. To be fair, my children would not necessarily recognise that description and might just say that their mum is a bit of a nag with a carrot obsession and an aversion to playing computer games for too long, but such are the joys of parenthood.
When people ask what type of doctor I am—and I definitely do not have the patience for a PhD—the response that I am a public health consultant is often met with slightly puzzled stares, a recalibration of what they have heard, and the decision that I am probably a GP by another name. However, I am delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) to represent public health here in the House. It is the reason I chose to go into politics. It is the art and science ofkeeping populations well and helping people to live healthy lives. I appreciate that today’s debate primarily concerns home affairs and immigration, so I will talk about public health on the basis of the explicit principle that health is essential in all things to ensure safety and security for all people.
As part of my public health training I spent time with the Health Protection Agency, now part of Public Health England. That training stood me in particularly good stead during the pandemic, when I found myself with a daily slot on BBC Radio Sussex talking about covid, debunking myths and providing reassurance that our fantastic scientists and public health specialists were doing everything possible to develop vaccinations and to keep us safe. The results of the covid inquiry, published last week, revealed the clear conclusion that investment in preventive measures is always money well spent, and that was sadly lacking before the pandemic. Public health funding was cut by 25% between 2015 and 2024, so there are some salient lessons to be learned quickly about prevention being better than cure.
My time in local government, as a public health consultant and subsequently as a councillor and council leader, taught me that politics is often the frontline where we grapple with the issues that arise from inequality and inequity—two indicators which tell us that the decisions made by those of us in a position of influence are not yet decisions that are maximising the health and wellbeing of the people we represent. The resources required to meet basic human needs should be available to everyone, regardless of where we live or which family we are born into. For people like me in public health and politics, there is a wealth of data and evidence—as well as, I would contend, basic common sense—showing that when resources are not allocated fairly to allow everyone’s basic human needs to be met, we all suffer for it.
People do not thrive without clean water, clean air, access to green space and good food. Our physical bodies become far less resilient to illness when those are not available to us, and the same is true of poor housing, poor education and poor jobs. The causal link between poor housing conditions and poor health outcomes is long established, with health outcomes associated with poor housing costing the NHS an estimated £1.4 billion every year. We know that exposure to poor housing conditions, including damp, cold, mould and noise, is strongly associated with poor health, both physical and mental. Inequalities in life expectancy are increasing, especially for women. In Worthing West, a woman living in one of our poorest areas will live an average of 8.3 years less than a woman living in one of our wealthiest areas, and for the population as a whole, the time spent in poor health is increasing. As Sir Michael Marmot so saliently put it,
“If health has stopped improving it is a sign that society has stopped improving.”
When people become physically and mentally ill, potential is lost, and before you know it, your country does not have a national health service; it has an overwhelmed national sickness service.
I am so proud and privileged to be part of the Labour intake of 2024. For too long now, our politics has been making people sick. This is the start of a journey that I very much hope will lead to a politics that helps to keep people well for many generations to come. Reducing inequality and inequity will allow everyone to do better. The politics of health is the narrative of our nation. A Government who focus on the health and wellbeing of the people we serve are a Government who enable us to rise together to face the challenges of both today and tomorrow.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate the new hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on an excellent speech. She will clearly be a force to be reckoned with in this Chamber and beyond, and I wish her well in her parliamentary career. She follows the former Father of the House, so she has big shoes to fill.
I thank the good citizens of Harrow East, who have allowed me to return to the House for the fifth time. I am delighted that on what was not a great night for my party, I was able not only to hold my share of the vote but to increase my majority substantially, although sadly I was probably the only Conservative Member to do so. I also thank many colleagues from the opposite side who came to visit my constituency during that time, and enjoyed the hospitality of the residents of Harrow East while at the same time increasing my majority.
Harrow East is, of course, the most multiracial and most multi-religious constituency, and has a greater adherence to religious faith than any other constituency in the country. I am proud to represent people of all faiths and none, and, in particular, the large number who have come from the Commonwealth to live in this country and to live in Harrow East. I am dedicated to serving them to the best of my ability, for as long as they wish me to do so.
Given the debate we are having today on the Gracious Speech, there are some things that I want to raise, particularly on home affairs. We have heard from the Home Secretary about the Government’s plans to deal with both legal and illegal migration. One challenge for the new Government will be very clear: how we deal with the 52,000 illegal migrants who have come to this country, and who would have been going to Rwanda or another place for resettlement. Clearly, there is a decision to be made by the Home Office about what happens to those people, because the previous Government could not return them to their previous country. That will have to happen, and the other challenge will be how we stop this country being a magnet for illegal migration in the first place. We all want to see that happen, and it is vital that it is done.
Obviously, we have challenges in other fields, and I welcome the words in the King’s Speech, and indeed the new Prime Minister’s words, about many of the things to be included in the new Government’s programme. I was absolutely delighted to hear that they will continue with the tobacco and vapes Bill, which, as many colleagues will know, I have championed through Parliament on many occasions. We had reached the end of its Committee stage, which you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we did not progress the Bill afterwards. I hope that it will be introduced rapidly, and that we can get it on to the statute book as fast as possible.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who is on the Front Bench, will welcome my saying that the football governance Bill needs to be progressed quickly as well, so that we encourage the football clubs that we love to be properly organised and helped.
I am also pleased that the Holocaust memorial Bill, which completed its stages in this House, will be enacted as fast as possible. Prior to the election, I was the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and educational centre. The fact is that antisemitism in this country is rife and has grown, and we must combat it at every possible stage. We must also ensure that the memorial and learning centre are placed alongside this building, so that we can demonstrate to the world that we must learn the lessons of what happened during the second world war and the Holocaust, and never allow it to happen again. It is vital that our young people and older people understand the consequences of that, and such work has been done on a cross-party basis. In many ways, it is going to be absolutely vital to work on a cross-party basis.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), who is still in her place, raised the issue of what is going on in Gaza right now. I noticed that she made no mention of the hostages who are still held by the terrorists and the need for them to be returned. Once that happens, the weight of the world can lead to a cessation of hostilities and, indeed, a peaceful resolution in the middle east.
Sammy Wilson
Did the hon. Gentleman also note that there was no mention at all of the cynical way in which Hamas have used civilians as human shields? They have used their schools, hospitals and homes. They are guilty of causing many of the civilian deaths that have occurred, because they have cynically used their own people.
Bob Blackman
I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point before I give way to those on the other side.
The reality is that on 7 October, the Jewish people suffered the worst atrocity since the Holocaust. We must remember that that is what happened, but we must also recognise the deprivation that the Palestinians in Gaza are suffering at this point in time. I am sure that the new Government will seek to ensure that justice is brought to all, and that the terrorists are not allowed to thrive or gain.
I will move on to one or two other areas.
Bob Blackman
I will not. The hon. Lady has had a chance to speak already.
I will mention some other aspects of Government legislation. Clearly, we have to combat the abuse of women and children, and I will work with colleagues from across the House on that issue. In the last Parliament, I championed women going into refuges so that they can be helped by people outside, rather than having intrusion from public services when they are in desperate circumstances. Of course, we must make sure that the police are properly trained, properly skilled and able to deliver the services provided. Equally, we must get the message to our police and crime commissioners, and particularly to the Labour Mayor of London, that more work must be done to combat crime, but also to recruit police officers and make sure that they are properly trained to do the job that they should be doing.
I have already discussed the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824 with the Home Secretary. As many colleagues will know, I have championed the plight of homeless people in this place. The fact that homeless people still face being criminalised on our streets is a disgrace and an affront to our society. We have tried on several occasions to get the Act removed from the statute book. It should be consigned to the history books as fast as possible, and people should be given the right to have a proper home of their own—one that they can be proud of living in. Equally, we have to recognise that having a secure job that brings in an income is the best route out of poverty. Despite the rhetoric we have heard, the reality is that the last Government created an economic miracle, given the number of jobs created. We created more jobs in this country than the whole of the European Union combined, and the reality is that that is the route we should be pursuing.
Finally, when the Prime Minister spoke in the debate on the Gracious Speech, he recognised the late Jo Cox and the late David Amess, both of whom suffered the ultimate problem of being an MP: death in service. We must combat that and make sure that all MPs, regardless of their political position, are safe, secure and able to do their jobs. I say gently to colleagues on the Government Front Bench that we agreed, on a cross-party basis, that the pre-recess Adjournment debate in the summer would be forever known as the Sir David Amess pre-recess Adjournment debate. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to have a pre-recess Adjournment debate, but they still have time to adjust the timetable accordingly.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate and for affording me the honour of making my first speech in this House on behalf of the people of Gateshead Central and Whickham—in fact, the first speech on behalf of the new constituency of Gateshead Central and Whickham. To represent a community you care about deeply, including friends and family, is of course a source of great pride, but to speak in this place as their voice is a great responsibility.
My friend Ian Mearns, the former Member for Gateshead, served the people of our community for 41 years—27 as a councillor, and 14 in this place. He has always been and will remain someone I seek guidance from, even when we disagree, which we will. I will aim to carry forward his passion for education in this place, as education, alongside my family and the Labour party, has given me every opportunity I have had in my life. Ian served as a member of the Education Committee, and was knowledgeable and rigorous in that role. He also served as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and I know that many Members will have been grateful to him for making sure that they had the time to raise their issues in this Chamber and Westminster Hall.
I am fortunate, too, to have another immediate predecessor sitting behind me: my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). We are both proud trade unionists, and she has done inspirational work on self-harm and suicide prevention, which I know is deeply personal to her. I am indebted to her for her guidance and support, and will be for as long as I am lucky enough to work alongside her.
In Gateshead, we are proud of our manufacturing history. Our own Sir Joseph Swan invented the first incandescent light bulb, and his home in Low Fell was the first in the world to be wired for domestic electric lighting. Manufacturing in Gateshead is part of my history, too—my father worked at the old Clarke Chapman factory—yet we are equally excited about our manufacturing present and future. Situated on both the east coast main line and the A1, we are ideally suited for the jobs of the future, and I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and those in the relevant Departments that I will be collaring them about this if I haven’t already. Work is key to the people of Gateshead and Whickham. We are working people, never shy of hard work and proud of what we do for work, but all too often in search of skilled work and better pay and too often forced to live in poverty. That is why, among all the excellent Bills brought forward in this King’s Speech, one stands out above all others: the employment rights Bill.
I must now declare an interest, and it is one I am proud to declare. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) stated yesterday, I too am proud of the amount of work that I and others within Labour’s affiliated trade unions, working with Labour Members on these Benches, have put into developing a package known as the new deal for working people, now the employment rights Bill. In places like my community where people work hard but all too often their pay is not what it should be, this will change lives. In every corner of our country, in every constituency represented in this place where there are those working without dignity on exploitative zero-hours contracts, being subjected to the brutality of fire and rehire, being paid wages they cannot live on, or toiling as care workers or school support staff on insufficient wages, this Bill will change lives in their communities too, and I urge Members to give it their full support when the time comes. Right now, for far too many, work does not pay and you only need to visit Gateshead food bank or a food bank in your constituency to see that.
Decent work and better pay are at the heart of why I came into politics, because dignity in work is the key that unlocks everything else, but it is not all that matters. What matters too is what makes the heart sing—what we do with our families and friends that makes memories and elevates us above the everyday. The cultural power of my local area is too often overlooked. We are the home of institutions such as the Baltic centre for contemporary art and the Glasshouse on Gateshead quays, but also of smaller, older and no less important venues such as Shipley art gallery and the Little theatre—the only theatre built in Britain during world war two. This cultural tradition has endured for centuries, with the work of the engraver Thomas Bewick, the writings of Daniel Defoe, who lived on the south bank of the Tyne, the 18th-century comic operas of William Shield of Swalwell, the satirical songs of Low Fell’s Alex Glasgow and the rock anthems of AC/DC’s Brian Johnson, born in Dunston. But don’t worry, I am not going to sing.
Mark Ferguson
You haven’t heard my voice.
We are a place of learning, too, with Gateshead college and Cardinal Hume school—recently judged outstanding by Ofsted—two of the fantastic educational establishments I have been proud to visit already. I look forward to working with others, including Whickham school, Gibside and Kingsmeadow. In our thriving Jewish community, who I am proud to represent, stands Gateshead’s Talmudical college, the oldest yeshiva in the country, founded in 1929. I am told that it is the foundation upon which Gateshead gained its reputation as the Oxbridge of the Jewish world.
Sport, too, is important to Gateshead. Sir Brendan Foster has a long and proud relationship with our town, and of course the great north run runs through Gateshead. The image of people running into Gateshead over the Tyne bridge is burned on the collective consciousness of our country. The famous oarsman Harry Clasper was raised in Dunston, as was Paul Gascoigne. And we love our football, including Gateshead FC—the 2024 FA Trophy winners, by the way—even though the Boundary Commission has given the honour of being the football club’s MP to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). The fact that my grandfather played for the club in the 1940s is a source of great pride. While most of my constituents support the black and white of Newcastle, some of us support the red and white of Sunderland and many of us are united in our support for Gateshead too. To those Opposition Members who may be coming to terms with the feeling of being in the minority, let me say what my father said to me as a young man growing up a Sunderland fan in Gateshead, “It will be character building.”
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate. This is a time of great importance for our country, one where trust in this place has fallen on hard times and where we must, on all sides, work to rebuild it. I will do all that I can to be a voice for the people of Gateshead Central and Whickham. I will work my hardest for them, and I will try to represent them to the best of my ability.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I congratulate most warmly the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson). That was a tour de force around his constituency and I am absolutely certain that he will be a passionate advocate on behalf of his constituents. The only thing we missed was the opportunity for him to sing, but when we get the all-party music group together, we will give him that opportunity and the House will be able to revel in his talents on that front.
I am delighted that the Speaker, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to select our amendment on the two-child benefit cap for a vote this evening. It is absolutely right that this House should make a decision on this pressing issue. This is the early test for Labour Members. It is an early test for their commitment to take on the scourge of child poverty across the United Kingdom. We have just had new figures from the House of Commons Library, and they are absolutely shocking. I am not going to pick on the new Labour Members because they are all new and they are all finding their feet, but what this does to our nation is utterly appalling. We know that 87,100 children in Scotland are impacted by this cap.
I do not know if any of the Labour Members in the Chamber represent Glasgow constituencies, but let’s just have a look at Glasgow, where 4,500 households are being impacted by this two-child benefit cap. This is the first big test for Labour Members. We know that Scottish Labour opposes this cap. We have heard its leader talk passionately about making sure it is done away with. Labour Members have got to vote tonight to show that. This is an early challenge for the hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who now represent Scottish constituencies.
This is a very much changed House, and I congratulate the Labour Government on their quite stunning victory. I also want to congratulate my new Labour colleagues on their victories across Scotland. I really hope they enjoy being an MP and the experience that this offers in this House, representing our wonderful nation on these green Benches, but they will know from the bitter experience of 2015 that tides come in and tides go out. The only thing that seems to be constant in Scottish politics is that there will always be a Member of Parliament from the Scottish National party representing Perthshire in Scotland, and I want to thank the people of Perth and Kinross-shire for returning me for a record seventh time in 23 years. I promise that I will serve them as I have served all my constituents in the past 23 years on these Benches.
Immigration is the subject of the day, and this is important. This is big stuff. It is really important that the Government get this right, but I am not encouraged by what I have heard so far. I am not really sure and certain that Labour really knows what it wants to do when it comes to immigration. I have heard lots of tough talk, with strong language on deportations, enforcement and getting people out of this country. What I want to hear about is the experience of these people who come to our country in appalling destitution and poverty, who have lived through some of the most unimaginable experiences, who are real living beings and who do not want the scapegoating language that has been deployed in the past. Think about them! Explain to us the safe and legal routes by which people can get to this country. Open up a way for citizenship to be acquired. Let’s be creative, for goodness’ sake. Let’s have some of these asylum seekers working. Why is it right that they have been left unattended for so long?
Surely a new Labour Government could start to get into that sort of territory, but I am not encouraged by what I have heard thus far from the Labour party. We do not want a Tory hostile environment to be replaced by a Labour hostile environment. We need to see a better understanding and empathy about the plight of people who are leaving war zones devastated and traumatised by what has happened to them. What we want to hear is a proper, thought-out, pragmatic approach to immigration that finally acknowledges the value of immigration and that has humanity and common decency at its core. That is not too much to ask from a Labour Government.
This is a priority for us in Scotland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom whose population is predicted to fall—by 2033 our population will be starting to decline. We will have a smaller base of working people who are expected to support a non-active, ageing population, which raises a whole series of issues and difficulties for us, particularly economic issues, and this has to be addressed.
We also have to make sure that our public services are staffed. Such is their current situation and condition that, if every school leaver in Scotland went into social care next year, there still would not be enough people to fill the places required. We need to hear a solution, and we are starting to get there. During the general election campaign, I was encouraged that the parties were actually talking about a Scottish visa, which is the Rolls-Royce gold standard we require. It happens in nations across the world without issue and without difficulty, so it could happen here. The nations of the United Kingdom have their own political jurisdictions, and they even have their own tax codes to ensure that it can happen.
We have done it before. I was a Member of this House when the previous Labour Government delivered the Fresh Talent initiative, and it worked. I cheered them on when it was delivered, and it is something this Government could do. If Scottish Labour Members want to go to the Home Office to demand a solution to our very real difficulties and problems, we will hold their jackets and cheer them on, but they must do something, because this is a pressing issue for the Scottish economy.
I gently say to Conservative Members that over the last couple of years we have heard such a degree of rubbish from them. They tried to tell us that people would not come to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, because apparently they are put off by our lower council tax, our lower house prices, our free tuition and our free prescription charges. Most of all, they said that people would not come to Scotland because we had asked them to pay just a few more pounds of income tax. Well, that fox is well and truly shot, as National Records of Scotland has shown that there is net migration into Scotland, so let us not hear any more about that rubbish.
I end with a plea to our Scottish colleagues. We want to work with them to ensure that we get Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. It is now up to them. They have the power and the responsibility. They can make these changes to sort out our immigration and, for goodness’ sake, they should back us in the Lobby tonight so that we can do something about child poverty in Scotland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Andy MacNae to make his maiden speech.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I am in awe of the maiden speeches and all the other speeches that have been made today and on previous days. The standard and quality of both this intake and longer-serving Members is inspiring. I am filled with excitement, pride and belief in what we can achieve in the years to come. It is a truly exciting time.
I am honoured and privileged to speak as the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, my home. I am very aware that this could happen only because of a huge amount of hard work by friends and Labour colleagues across the constituency, and of course because of the decision made by so many of my fellow residents to put their trust in me and a changed Labour party. I offer my heartfelt thanks to everyone who put me in this place. I will do my very best not to let them down.
My constituency and home is a special place. Indeed, I was tempted to say that it represents the very best of Lancashire but, wary of controversy, I will simply say that it is a wonderful part of a wonderful county. It is a post-industrial place of moors, hills and valleys that frame the communities of Darwen, Whitworth, Bacup, Crawshawbooth, Stacksteads, Weir, Waterfoot, Rawtenstall, Edenfield, Helmshore and the west Pennine villages—I will have missed one out, so I am sure I will be shot as soon as I get home.
In representing my home, I succeed Sir Jake Berry, who served our constituency for 14 years. I pay tribute to him for his service and, in particular, his work campaigning on provision for children with special educational needs.
Rossendale and Darwen is very much a swing seat. Prior to 2010, we had been splendidly represented by Janet Anderson. I was pleased and proud to call Janet a friend. We sadly lost her last year, but I will always remember her as a true role model of a constituency MP. She was always available, always responsive, always engaged and always willing to roll up her sleeves and get stuck in.
What more can I say about Rossendale and Darwen? I will spare Members a full geography lesson and go for some fun-ish facts. First, the constituency is a quirk of boundary commission methodology that will forever remain a mystery to us. There is little historical or physical connection between Rossendale and Darwen. Indeed, drivers have to leave the constituency to travel between the two halves.
Rossendale was once known as the “golden valley” and lay at the very heart of the industrial revolution. Indeed, a book on that time by local author Chris Aspin is subtitled “When Rossendale led the world.” We are also referred to as the “valley of stone,” and the flagstones in Trafalgar Square come from a Rossendale quarry. Crown, in Darwen, is Britain’s oldest paint maker.
In 1931, Mahatma Gandhi came to meet mill workers in Darwen, seeking to understand the hardships they were facing—on reflection, that in itself is quite remarkable. He said, “they treated me as one of their own. I shall never forget that.” This sense of inclusion and understanding remains. We have many wonderful community organisations and, while being reluctant to single anyone out, I must pay tribute to the vital work done in my hometown by the Bacup family centre and Bacup Pride, and across the constituency by our volunteer-led food banks and credit unions, and Keep Darwen Tidy and Civic Pride Rossendale, to which I wish the best of luck in Britain in Bloom judging this week.
Something we are less proud of is that Rossendale is the only local authority area in the north without any sort of commuter railway service, which is a fact that I hope the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), does not become too bored of hearing.
I have a few more. Darwen is home to Darwen Live, the UK’s—and possibly Europe’s—biggest free music festival. Mr Fitzpatrick’s in Rawtenstall is Britain’s last surviving temperance bar. Darwen football club was formed in 1870 and was the first club in the world to have professionally paid players. And Brent Peters, manager of Bacup Borough football club, is said to be the longest-serving manager in world football.
Rossendale and Darwen are distinct places, each with a deep history. At the same time, they have much in common. I was in many ways heartened that, during the campaign, one of my most frequent asks was for a better politics. The people of Rossendale and Darwen are honest and hard-working. They value integrity, co-operation and community service, and they want to see this in their politicians. I believe this reflects a feeling across the country, and hence it is a great opportunity and responsibility for us. With over 300 new MPs, we have a real chance to set a new tone, to work together across the House and to hold to the standards that our residents expect of us.
A less positive thing that Rossendale and Darwen have in common is a concern about the direction in which too many of our schools have been heading. Too many parents agonise over the choice, or lack of choice, available to them. It simply must not be the case that a child’s future is determined by an education lottery. That every school be a good school is an imperative we must hold to, and I am proud to see our new Labour Government committing to removing barriers to opportunity, raising school standards and ensuring that the school system is fair for every child.
Another commonality is our topography—hills, crags, moors and valleys. I am a climber and cyclist, and these are my playgrounds. I am fortunate to have enjoyed an active life, which has turned into a career. It has taken me to amazing places, and I know that I am healthier, wiser and happier as a result. In many ways, what these sports have taught me is what has brought me here. It is a sad fact that, in the UK today, nearly 40% of the population is not active enough for good health. This contributes to one in six deaths and is estimated to cost the UK economy £7.6 billion annually. Yet physical activity can help to prevent and manage over 20 chronic diseases and conditions, including some cancers, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Overall, it is recognised that £1 spent on physical activity generates £4 of benefits in return. In short, investing in physical activity is a no-brainer. It has been heartening to see the importance of prevention recognised so clearly in our manifesto, in this debate and, indeed, at Question Time this morning.
Sport and physical activity can change lives, and they can save lives. Active lives start young, yet around 50% of under-18s do not get enough exercise. How often do we hear kids telling us that “there is nothing to do around here”? I believe that every child should feel they have full and inclusive access to the countryside and to recreational facilities that give them the opportunity to live active lives, escape constraints and explore their potential. I believe this mission underpins many others, and I look forward to speaking again on this subject in the years to come.
The hills of Rossendale matter to me in other ways. On the moors close to home we scattered the ashes of our daughter, Mallorie. She had been born in Burnley hospital with Edward’s syndrome, a condition we were told is not compatible with life. Her time with us was short but her impact on our lives was great. The support we had from Burnley hospital and local baby loss charity Friends of Serenity was vital.
While Edward’s syndrome is rare, it is far from being the only cause of baby loss. Every day, an average of 13 families suffer the pain of baby loss—that is around 5,000 families a year. Some reports suggest that up to one in five of those family tragedies are avoidable. There is a growing movement around baby loss awareness. Indeed, in October we have Baby Loss Awareness Week. I hope to use my time in this House to support the ongoing drive for greater care and support for the families affected by baby loss and for continued improvement in its prevention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I tabled an amendment to the Humble Address that read:
“At end add ‘and submits that the Government should immediately recognise the state of Palestine.’”
The wording was confirmed by me to the Table Office at 4.40 pm yesterday. It was co-signed by the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
Order. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s intention to challenge the ruling of Mr Speaker when he selected the amendments to be voted on tonight? What is his point of order?
Ayoub Khan
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the fact that the amendment was not tabled despite being submitted to the Table Office on time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that would have made any difference to Mr Speaker’s decision about which amendments the House will be voting on later. However, his point is noted.
I call Nigel Farage to make his maiden speech.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I believe it is customary in a maiden speech for the Member to pay tribute to their predecessor, which I am very happy to do. Giles Watling is a very decent, nice, honourable man. He is former actor who wears his Garrick club tie. There is nothing even vaguely Conservative about him, but he is a jolly nice chap, and it was a clean-fought campaign.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made reference to Clacton as being the place for a traditional English seaside holiday, and indeed it is, with its pier, miles of sandy beaches and arcades. Perhaps it is not a holiday destination that is as popular as it used to be, now that people go to Spain and elsewhere, but it is still there.
Other parts of the constituency are genteel and quite wealthy, but if we go to Jaywick we find the most deprived community in the whole United Kingdom. Those communities have little faith, trust or belief that Government can make their lives better. Indeed, what I found, when knocking on doors, was that people were saying, “We want to work—we want to get on and make money—but as soon as we work 16 hours a week or more, our benefits get taken away, so we’re better off staying on benefits.” I feel immensely sorry for those people, because the benefit system, which is designed to help them, is actually keeping them trapped in levels of relative poverty. I will do my best as the MP for the area to bring business investment—private money—into the constituency, with jobs, training and skills. I cannot promise that I will do it, but I will do my absolute damnedest to make it happen.
It is funny, because I spent nearly 21 years as a Member of the European Parliament, in Brussels and with its monthly journey to Strasbourg. I have to say that this place is very different indeed. It is smaller. There is not a chauffeur-driven Mercedes available for each Member. There are no large lump sums of money that Members do not have to spend on anything or show receipts for. I wonder whether that is why so many in the British political system seem to adore the European Union so much, because it is a rather wonderful place to work.
What I did not expect was to come here and find that I, with my Reform team, am more outnumbered here than we were in the European Parliament, because there are more supporters of Brexit in the European Parliament than I sense there are in this Parliament of 2024. This is very much a remainers’ Parliament. I suspect, in many cases, that it is really a rejoiners’ Parliament.
If we look at the King’s Speech, it is interesting that the word “immigration” is mentioned only twice and “asylum” just once. Perhaps that is not a surprise, as when the now Prime Minister laid out the six big priorities for the Labour party before the general election, he did not mention legal or illegal immigration. That is the other area in which the five of us sitting on the Reform Bench will find ourselves massively outnumbered in the House, because we actually want to talk about these issues.
I believe that the population explosion is having a bigger impact on the quality of life of ordinary folk than any other issue. It all started, of course, when the current Home Secretary became a Member of Parliament back in May 1997. It is worth reminding ourselves that net migration was the same during the late 1940s, the whole of the 1950s, the whole of the 1960s, the whole of the 1970s, the whole of the 1980s and in the 1990s, up until Mr Blair. Net migration ran at 30,000 to 50,000 a year for over half a century. Then Mr Blair got in and decided that we were going to open the doors in a way that had never been done before, to the delight and joy of big companies, especially giant multinationals, who have always wanted as much cheap labour as they can get, and to hell with the consequences for working-class families and people.
Perhaps it was even more of a surprise to see that massive acceleration in our population through immigration then further accelerate, because despite promises in four consecutive manifestos, the Conservative party actually accelerated what had happened under the years of Mr Blair, so we have seen a population increase of 10 million people since the time that Labour won its last landslide. Even the net figure is a migrant a minute.
Even during the course of this debate, many hundreds more people will have come to our country. Nobody is making the argument that there are not some exceptionally wonderful people among them—there are, of course—but the sheer level of population means we have to build a new house every two minutes. Even if the Labour Government are able to fulfil the 1.5 million houses that they want to build during the lifetime of this Parliament, that will make no dent at all in the current shortage of housing. Rents have risen by 25% since 2021. Why? Population increase and pressure. The list goes on, from access to health services to congestion and pressure on infrastructure. The population crisis has the biggest impact on people’s lives, damaging their quality of life, and virtually nobody in this place even wants to talk about it.
It is on illegal immigration that I really want to make a point. Four years ago, I went out into the English channel repeatedly, filming dinghies coming across the channel, with an average of 16 people per boat. I was described as being a sad, lonely, desperate figure, always seeking attention, and I have no doubt there are some who think that is still the case today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
I call Lola McEvoy to make her maiden speech.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
It is customary to pay tribute to the speaker before me for his first contribution to this House, but, let us face it, that was quite a polished contribution that he has had 21 years to prepare—so thank you to him.
This is my maiden speech as the first woman to represent Darlington from the Government Benches. I wish to pay tribute to Baroness Chapman, the first female MP for Darlington, for paving the way. She smashed that glass ceiling and now I have the privilege of serving our town in a Labour Government. Representation matters, and I will use my platform to highlight the issues facing women in the town—issues such as low-paid work, additional care responsibilities, the childcare crisis, menopause discrimination, maternity services and poor paternity rights. I will also be a champion for women’s health and support services.
I wish to pay tribute to the work of our police and crime commissioner, my friend Joy Allen and her team, on ending violence against women and girls in the town and to Harbour and Family Help, which do exceptional work in very difficult times. I am proud that this Labour Government will bring forward strong legislation to tackle this important issue.
I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor Peter Gibson, first for his respect throughout the general election campaign and secondly for his work ethic. Trust in politicians across both sides of this House is at an all-time low, and Mr Gibson worked tirelessly to communicate positively to everyone in Darlington about the work that he was doing. People thanked him for it, and I will emulate it. I genuinely wish him well.
I am a product of my constituency and proud of it. I am from good stock: west end star Zoe Birkett of “Pop Idol” fame went to my high school; “Big Brother” winner and men’s mental health campaigner Anthony Hutton is a Darlington resident; and we have a proud and active veterans community. In fact, two of the brilliant Doorkeepers in this Chamber told me earlier that they know Darlington well because of their training at Catterick Garrison, just outside my constituency. I thank Dan Smith, an active campaigner for veteran support in Darlington, for his work for our town and for his friendship to me during the campaign.
We have a bustling business and hospitality community across the town. We have Dan the Bakerman, whose sourdough is nationally acclaimed, the Echo 3 and Hatch coffee houses, which keep me caffeinated, and Claire from the Cheese & Wine Shop who herself welcomed our Prime Minister and Chancellor very recently.
We have a brilliant sporting community, from Spraire Lads football team, which my brother used to play for, to the Headlanders netball club and the Hundens Lane bowls club to name just a few. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Quakers, Darlington’s football club, which have a very famous alumni in the Three Lions’ best ever goalkeeper, Jordan Pickford. Like many of us from Darlington, I love the town, I like a laugh, I work hard and I do not like to be taken for a fool.
I was sent here to right the wrongs that have led to too many in our town being let down, and I will do just that. I will not lose sight of those who sent me and went above and beyond to put their time and trust in me—my teachers, the St Augustine’s community, my Labour family and, of course, my parents, my brothers and my husband, all of whom have had their personal lives thrust right into my political story, not entirely through choice, but in the name of our common goal, which is a better future for our community.
I am lucky to be here. I got a second chance on a vocational master’s degree at Newcastle University, where I was taught on the job how to be a journalist. I come from a long line of people who have done better for themselves than was expected for them and I will dedicate my time in Parliament to knocking down barriers to opportunity for everyone in our town, so that no matter their postcode they can live the life they want, well.
I was inspired by those who went before me on our brilliant Northern Echo paper, which was founded in 1870—two years after the constituency of Darlington—and still boasting fantastic campaigning journalists. They include Chris Lloyd, the town’s historian—I am mentioning him in this speech so that he will help with my new blue plaque scheme for the town—and Kayleigh Fraser, who is still chasing me for a quote. Sorry, Kayleigh.
This Saturday just gone, I had the joy of visiting a new tourist attraction in Darlington—Hopetown, named after the area of the town in which I grew up, where Darlington’s famous contribution to the railways and the industrial revolution was based. The new attraction incorporates our railway heritage and has incredible artefacts, top-of-the-range art installations and digital interactive educational points to tell our story to visitors. I am telling Members this because I welcome everyone—on both sides of the House—to come and visit. When they do, they must try the Black Diamond ice cream; it is already taking off on social media.
I have huge pride in the town’s industrial contribution and I am delighted to be the first Darlington Member to represent Heighington and Coniscliffe, and with them come their beautiful villages and even more railway history. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is for you to note especially. I learned something new about my home town this weekend. Before the establishment of the railways, our clocks were not standardised and Darlington operated a full four minutes behind Westminster, so, as those who know me well will attest, I still like to operate on Darlington time. As a nod to tradition, I shall be keeping to my town’s original time for the duration of my time on these Benches.
One of the artefacts that caught my eye in the museum, among the railway medals and the framed timetables, was an award from 2019 for the manufacturing giant Cleveland Bridge. Like so many brilliant companies over recent years, Cleveland Bridge has ceased trading. What makes this company particularly of note is its vast global contribution. It built the Sydney harbour bridge and, in fact, the former Health Secretary and Labour Darlington MP, the right hon. Alan Milburn, referenced it in his maiden speech two decades ago. I am determined that our manufacturing contribution in Darlington is not consigned to museums and the history books. We are proud people and we are grafters. We do not need handouts; we need a Government who allow our brilliance to shine again. I have already had the excellent engineering firm Cummins to Parliament to discuss making our area a green hydrogen cluster and ensuring that hydrogen is at the heart of our decarbonisation strategy. I look forward to working with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), an expert in green hydrogen and the future of steel, in his new brief.
Over the course of the campaign that led up to my election, the biggest thread from the people of Darlington, from people of every income, background and political persuasion, was that the cost of living is too high and public services are at breaking point. I firmly believe that this Government must urgently tackle the mental health crisis blighting our town and region. In my own network, I know seven men who have died by suicide. Mental health waiting times and services for men, mothers, children and veterans are way behind where they need to be. I will be relentless in my approach to improving our mental health services for everyone in our town. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who I know shares my passion for equity between mental health and physical health, will not be able to avoid me, just as soon as I can work my way around the Palace labyrinth.
As a woman in politics, I am frequently offered unsolicited advice and told that I need a thick skin, although I firmly believe that those with too thick a skin have been ruling this Chamber for too long, and I am here to represent ordinary people with compassion, because I am one of them. I am only too aware of the emboldening effect that online platforms give bullies and harassers. I think we have reached a fork in the road and I will use my position to stamp out online bullying, not just for those who are victims of it now, but for the next generation, who I believe we have a duty to protect.
This Labour Government are committed to tackling climate change and wealth creation, and that is an opportunity for our region that must be grabbed with both hands. That is why I have already visited Hitachi with my neighbour and friend the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), to put my full support behind efforts to secure the future of skilled and essential jobs at the Newton Aycliffe plant that employs many of my constituents.
The Treasury and many other key Departments have a presence in my constituency, providing skilled graduate jobs, which we welcome and want to build on. I will be a champion for public money being better spent. I have made my career improving public procurement contracts, fighting for working people to earn a wage they can live on and have decent terms and conditions. I will use that experience to ensure that when public money is spent in Darlington, it provides the best possible bang for our buck in impact and outcomes for our town. I will be a loud voice on this issue and will work with everyone and anyone who believes, like I do, that we can get our regional economy thriving with decent jobs for local people, so that people can work hard and earn enough to save for their future, and have safe, secure housing and spend quality time with their families. I am very fortunate that the Chancellor will be visiting her second office in Darlington regularly and I am committed to maximising the opportunity that brings to benefit my community.
My constituency and everyone in it has the potential for a bright future, and I will do everything I can to secure it. While I want to make our country better, my priority is improving the lives of those in my home town, those who raised me, those who have sent me here—the good people of Darlington. So, in keeping with my railway theme, full steam ahead!
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)
Before calling the next speaker, I have to announce that we will have to reduce the time limit for speeches by all those other than maiden speakers to five minutes.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy). I congratulate her on a fantastic maiden speech. I know she will be a proud champion for her area.
I must start my first speech of this Parliament by expressing to my constituents how humbled I am to be elected as their new Member of Parliament for Epping Forest. Epping Forest has given so much to me and my family over so many years and it is an honour and privilege to try to repay that and stand up in Westminster for our fantastic communities.
I cannot mention my constituency without mentioning my predecessor, Dame Eleanor Laing. I pay tribute to her 27 years of tireless service on behalf of Epping Forest and this place, as an MP, in shadow Cabinet and as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means. She was in the Chair for my maiden speech, a very personal and emotional occasion, a few days after the passing of my father Christopher, her constituent whom she knew so well. I am so pleased that she will continue in public service in the other place. Our area is privileged to have been represented not only by Dame Eleanor Laing, but by the former Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, who represented the then seat of Epping from 1924 to 1945.
Today we are talking about home affairs and security. I want to pay tribute to our brave, hard-working police on the frontline, who are keeping our streets and communities safe and secure in Essex and right across the country; to our brilliant Essex police, fire and crime commissioner Roger Hirst; and to our chief constable, Ben-Julian Harrington. They have truly led the way in reducing crime, with antisocial behaviour down by at least 63% in the past five years. I firmly believe that that needs to continue. I know, of course, that my constituents in Epping Forest feel that there is a lot more we need to do to keep our communities secure and safe; their concerns include violent crime, fly-tipping, drug crime, burglary, shoplifting, fraud and car crime.
We also need to think about international security. I am proud that the previous Conservative Government supported Ukraine and I am pleased that the new Labour Government will be doing that as well. I was disappointed that the new Government omitted from the King’s Speech our cast-iron commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence; I really urge them to move forward on that quickly.
I welcome the fact that in the King’s Speech mental health was given the same attention and focus as physical health. Parity of esteem between mental and physical health is so important; it is something that I have raised since my maiden speech. I urge the Government to confirm the work we did with 3 Dads Walking to get age-appropriate suicide prevention on to the school curriculum to protect our young people.
As a veterinary surgeon, I was disappointed by the lack of any mention of animal health and welfare in the King’s Speech. In the last Parliament, huge strides were made to bolster our reputation in the area of animal welfare, with the Animal Welfare Sentencing Act 2021 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. I urge the Government to continue that progress and to support legislation on issues such as banning the smuggling of puppies and heavily pregnant dogs and the importation of dogs with cropped ears.
Epping Forest is a beautiful area and has precious green spaces, but I am nervous that the Labour Government will put some of that in jeopardy by re-badging the green belt as grey belt. We must make sure that new housing is put in the right places and that infrastructure is protected. I urge this Government to carry on with the capital build projects committed to by the previous Conservative Government: a new community diagnostic centre at St Margaret’s hospital in Epping and rebuilds for the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow and Whipps Cross hospital—hospitals my constituents depend on. Those projects were committed to by the previous Government and I urge the Labour Government to carry on with them in full.
It is important that we as a constructive Opposition help this Government to serve our communities and get things right, but that we point out things when we feel they are getting them wrong. I wish this Government well, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on important issues of public health, animal health and welfare, protecting our green spaces and ensuring that our constituents have access to the good health and education systems that they deserve.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), who I am delighted to see back in this place, and all the new Members who have made fantastic maiden speeches in this debate. It is a huge honour to be re-elected to represent my community in Liverpool West Derby, and to continue to serve in the place I grew up, especially under a Labour Government.
It is fantastic to welcome into my constituency the new wards of Page Moss, Swanside and Old Swan. It has been a real pleasure meeting my new constituents, who do so much for our communities. I look forward to working with Jan and her team at Swanside Community Centre, Rhiannon and her team at The Gate Community Centre, and Kate and her fantastic team at The Joseph Lappin Centre.
I am delighted that we now have a Labour Government with an historic mandate for change from the British public—a mandate to end the destruction of working-class communities; to end the decimation of public services; and to end austerity and create opportunity for all, lifting millions of people out of poverty. We must boldly seize this opportunity to deliver on the trust placed in us.
On behalf of so many families in my constituency, I will continue to campaign for the right to food to be enshrined in UK law, so that everyone is legally protected from the scourge of hunger and we can end the obscene growth of food banks since 2010, which was caused by political choices. As a proud trade unionist, I am delighted that the Government will legislate for a new deal for working people. I have seen the human cost of fire and rehire with my brother, who was a victim of the British Gas cull, and many constituents have written to me about their experiences. As a former trade union organiser with Unite, I know the difference trade unions can make in the workplace, improving terms and conditions and transforming lives and the economy.
I welcome the Bills that will bring rail services into public ownership and at last allow communities to take their bus services back into public ownership. I look forward to working with the metro mayor to achieve that. I am also delighted to see the return of the football governance Bill, which I was proud to scrutinise in Committee during the previous Parliament. Giving football supporters a real voice in shaping the beautiful game is vital to securing its future and continued success.
A shameful legacy of the previous Government and their austerity agenda is that 43% of children in Liverpool West Derby are now living in poverty. The reason I am in Parliament is to ensure that those children and others like them are given a chance to thrive and live their best life under a Government who support them, rather than consigning them to a life of limited opportunities from an early age. That is why I wholly support the removal of the two-child cap on benefits, which would immediately lift 100,000 children out of poverty.
Finally, I welcome the inclusion of a Hillsborough law in the King’s Speech. Shamefully, no one has been held accountable for the unlawful killing of 97 people and the injuries and enduring trauma suffered at Hillsborough, despite the 2016 verdict of the longest inquest in this country’s history. I pay tribute to all families, survivors, campaigners and legal experts such as Pete Weatherby, Elkan Abrahamson and Debbie Coles, who have fought for a change to the law to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families and survivors is not repeated, and that there is a fit and lasting legacy. I also pay tribute to the many Members and former Members of this place who have fought across parties for that law.
Many people would benefit from a Hillsborough law. I have had the privilege of hearing directly from people affected by a range of scandals and tragedies, including the Post Office Horizon scandal, Grenfell, covid-19, the “Truth About Zane” campaign, nuclear test veterans, the Manchester arena bombing, the infected blood scandal and hormone pregnancy tests. What is clear in those cases and many more is that the Hillsborough playbook has been used time and again by public servants and institutions. They are still allowed to withhold the truth, lie about their actions and blame victims for their own failures and mistakes. That is why a full Hillsborough law is urgently needed, including a legal duty of candour on all public bodies and parity of legal representation to ensure that the scales of justice are rebalanced.
The 97 who were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, their families and survivors, and indeed all who have suffered such a fate at the hands of the state, deserve nothing less than the legacy of a Hillsborough law implemented in full. That would begin to end the culture of state cover-ups that has shamed our nation for far too long.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
For his maiden speech, I call Richard Tice.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and others on their excellent maiden speeches?
It is a great honour to represent Boston and Skegness, which I believe is the most fertile constituency in the country. I refer of course to the productivity of the amazing agricultural farmland in the constituency. At the heart of it is Batemans Brewery, a fantastic family brewery launched in 1874.
Richard Tice
Good beer indeed. There is the extraordinary engineering feature of a lattice of ditches, dykes, drains, rivers and havens that ensure that the farmland is productive.
At the eastern end of this great constituency is sunny Skegness, where millions go for their holidays every year—the home of the first Butlin’s, in 1936—and where the fourth longest pier in the country was built in the late 1880s. It is an extraordinary and remarkable town. It has the benefit of producing what I think is possibly the best value, most delicious and greatest portions of ice cream, to which I am very partial.
If we head west from Skegness, over the farmland, we reach the historic market town of Boston. It has the tallest parish church tower in England—known as “the Stump”—built over 500 years ago. A couple of hundred years ago, Boston was the largest trading port outside London. Of course, it was Bostonians who, in 1630, left the Isle of Wight for north America, where they established Boston, Massachusetts. It is a remarkable constituency that I am proud to represent.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Matt Warman, who was the MP for nine years. His legacy is in healthcare in particular. We are building at the moment a £40 million accident and emergency facility—he played a role in that. He saved a children’s unit from closing, and he had a significant role in securing the diagnostics care unit that is under construction. Those are great achievements.
There is a reason I overturned the largest ever Conservative majority in the country. Despite the Jolly Fisherman being the symbol of Skegness, my constituents are not feeling very jolly at the moment. Seven out of 10 of them voted to leave the European Union. They trusted the previous Government—they took them at their word—but they now feel a sense of political betrayal in a number of areas.
The first people who are not very jolly are the fishermen themselves, who feel that various bureaucrats including the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities are acting so as to try to suppress or destroy this great industry for our seafaring nation, one that produces food and generates great revenues. In addition, bureaucrats are making the issue of flooding a serious problem in my constituency. Thousands of homes have been flooded, and with a failure to properly maintain sea level defences, tens of thousands of homes are at risk, again because of bureaucracy and inertia. Another reason why my constituents are really quite grumpy is that the stupid net zero policies will result in hundreds of massive, ugly pylons blighting the environment and countryside of my constituency, as well as solar farms planned on incredibly productive agricultural farmland. It is absolute idiocy.
Then, of course, there is another big issue that is making my constituents very grumpy indeed. One of the slogans for leaving the European Union was to take back control. The previous Government promised it; do you remember that slogan? It was about money, laws and borders—yes, borders. It was about controlling immigration and having smart immigration—working, integrating and speaking the language—which we should all agree is a great thing. Instead, the previous Government opened the doors to mass immigration, with significant consequences for towns such as Boston and other towns up and down the country.
I will give Members an example. Every morning in the centre of Boston, dozens and dozens of east Europeans arrive in the marketplace with nothing to do. They have been hoofed out of the houses in multiple occupation where they are hot-bedding—two or three shifts a day on the same mattresses—because of mass, uncontrolled immigration. They have got nothing to do, and they have been aided and abetted in coming to the UK by false promises made by morally bankrupt businesses, which are helping them to get national insurance numbers for overseas persons under a scheme that we thought had closed.
We thought the EU settlement scheme had closed, but it turns out that it has not. If someone fibs about how much time they have spent here before 2020, they can still apply, so many are still arriving, and they are not integrating. They are not learning the language, and regrettably, it creates an intimidating atmosphere in the centre of the town—I know this goes on elsewhere. The implication is most seriously felt by women who work in the town centre, who feel unsafe leaving their place of work, and by constituents who do not want to go into the centre of this great market town at night because they fear, frankly, that it is not safe. When they go there at night, there is no chance of seeing any police whatsoever—I have been there on a number of occasions. What those people will see is drug dealers in the centre of the marketplace, plying their hideous, vile trade night in and night out. That is completely unacceptable.
During the election campaign, I went to numerous houses; for example, there was one where seven people were living in a house with two bedrooms. It was a Bulgarian family, and only one member of that family spoke any English at all. They said, “We’re here to claim benefits—your health benefits and housing benefits. We would prefer it in Bulgaria, but we want to take your benefits and then send the money home.” That is what is going on up and down the country, and it is completely unacceptable. [Interruption.] There is muttering—the truth hurts. The establishment do not want to talk about this, do they?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. The convention is that during maiden speeches, everybody keeps very quiet. Whatever you think of what is being said, for a maiden speech, keep quiet.
Richard Tice
I repeat that smart immigration—working, integrating, speaking the language—is a great thing, but there are serious consequences of uncontrolled mass immigration.
As Member of Parliament for this great constituency, my objectives are to attract more business and more investment. The great port of Boston needs to grow and expand, and we want more infrastructure—for example, a new bypass around Boston itself. With these things, my constituency of Boston and Skegness can be great once again.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the people of Bassetlaw for putting me here. My commitment is to serve all residents to the best of my ability. I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for his contribution, and I look forward to debating with him in this place. Today’s debate has a direct link to the ongoing discussions on poverty. Having seen the last Government shut all three Bassetlaw police stations and both courthouses, I will have much to say on the issue in this Parliament. Crime and poverty have a clear connection.
I need no lessons on how a lack of money impacts on children growing up—I lived it—but that experience taught me something far more valuable in understanding the impact of poverty and inequality, because what my family lacked in money, we more than made up for in love and in hopes and dreams. I was brought up to believe in me and what I could achieve. My mother got herself out of poverty because of the Open University, and my father made a choice all too familiar today. He gave up his engineering job to be a Sainsbury’s warehouseman to guarantee cheaper food, and of course he served as a shop steward for USDAW. I remain proud of both my parents for what they did for me. I was a free school meal kid—separate queue, of course—and a free school uniform kid, with clothes from the jumble sale and no new, smart, bright white socks for me, but I had no poverty of aspiration, no holding back, no shutting down of my dreams. That is good parenting, backed by their hard work. I commuted six hours every day to complete my own studies, taking my newborn baby in a carrycot with me. That is what learning to aspire results in.
I get the little mes so common in Bassetlaw and elsewhere: they are my people, my responsibility. Money is often a problem, but poverty of aspiration is much a bigger one to overcome. You are told that you cannot do that, that this door is not for you, that you stink, that you are thick, that your hopes are only ever dreams and can never be realised; well, this kid never stopped dreaming. Today’s little mes—the ones who do without the flashy trainers, who play outside but never go inside the big sports stadiums or the posh restaurants and the cafés, who do not fly on aeroplanes or get taken to museums or theatres, who have never seen the King or his palace or Big Ben—in my area, in my constituency of Bassetlaw, are too often expected by this place to celebrate a rapidly changing world by getting to the back of the queue and behaving themselves. I am not having that. I drove trucks across the channel—the only woman in the drivers section on the ferries. Small boats—new problem? The flight cases I drove were huge, with ventilation and a false bottom. The border sniffer dogs were an infrequent luxury. I regularly ran the gauntlet of organised crime and desperate people.
My predecessor had the biggest swing in 2019. I broke the record again but then quickly lost it to even more historic big swings to Labour. I know he likes his beer and I applaud his regular support for our local pubs, where he can drown his sorrows every time his beloved Notts County football club fails to deliver. I do not know whether he is planning on taking up golf, but Bassetlaw is the centre of British golf with seven serious golf courses, Ryder cup hosts and star players, and a magnificent municipal golf course. We regularly provide more of the Ryder cup team than entire golfing countries and Joe Dean of College Pines golf club showed the potential to reach these heights at the Open this weekend. From Danny Willett to Matt Fitzpatrick, we continue to grow international golfers—Lee Westwood, our freedom of the borough champion, continues to inspire our young boys and girls. He learned his trade on the council-run golf course, which is open and affordable to all.
Nobody stopped me dreaming big and that is the Bassetlaw I intend to deliver. My style of being an MP will be outcomes-based. If I can do it, then so can you. Look not only at where you are, but at where you are going. This kid made it here and I put you all on warning: I will be knocking on the doors that kids in my area do not go through, and they will be coming with me, and I can assure you that I will channel my inner Michael Caine for those of you who choose to ignore my knock. The biggest single crime would be to get here, where people like me are not supposed to be, and merely sit here and make up the numbers. This kid has only just begun and there is no time to waste.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
It was inspirational to listen to the story of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and her determination to never stop dreaming. It was also inspirational and fantastic to hear maiden speeches from many others. I was interested to hear the competition among some Members about the length of piers in seaside towns. I hail from the great town of Eastbourne. While some hon. Members might have a longer pier than mine, it is important to remember that what you do with it is what is most important. On our pier we have cafés, we have bars and we have a former nightclub, at which I once organised parties. We have got it all going on on Eastbourne pier.
But it is also an inspiration, looking around this House and reading about its Members, to see and be part of the most diverse Parliament ever: more women than ever before; more LGBT people than ever before; and more Joshes than ever before—this House’s population of Joshes went from zero to seven overnight on 4 July. That is what we call an open-door policy. If Members struggle to remember which Josh I am, I can make it very simple for them: this Josh represents Eastbourne, officially the sunniest town in the UK. As an Eastbourne lad born and bred, it is the honour of my life to represent my home town and in particular to fight to protect services at our local hospital where I was born, the Eastbourne district general hospital, as our Member of Parliament. I am so grateful to the people of Eastbourne for placing their trust in me.
Gorgeous sunrays aside, my town shines brightly in the many other accolades that it holds too. We are the home of the first roller-skating ice rink in the UK in 1875, the first five-a-side football tournament in 1957, and the birthplace of the Arctic roll in 1958. Most personally, Eastbourne is the town that made me me.
Home was not always safe when I was growing up, but thanks to a wonderful family who loved me, thanks to Scout leaders at 1st Seaside troop who challenged me, and thanks to teachers at Cavendish school who believed in me, Eastbourne gave me opportunity. In fact, there is a particular supply teacher I had who I want to pay tribute to right now: Caroline Ansell, who went on to become the Conservative MP for Eastbourne and is my predecessor. Mrs Ansell and I first met in the religious education classroom—room 116 in Cavendish school—when I was 15 years old. Perhaps she would have given me a detention or two had she known at that time that one day I would come for her next job at the ballot box some years later. But seriously, Caroline dedicated herself to Eastbourne, and I put my recognition of her commitment on the record.
I also pay tribute to another predecessor: Stephen Lloyd, my good friend, whose service to our town inspires my own. He is a complete and utter legend. There is another predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Eastbourne whose memory this House can, and must, never forget: Ian Gow, who served from 1974 until he was appallingly assassinated in 1990. A few years before my time, Ian Gow is remembered and still admired by Eastbournians as an extremely hard-working member of Parliament. The shield that honours him in this House serves as a reminder of his service, his grave sacrifice and our duty to pursue debate and disagreement with civility, respect and peace.
Turning to the subject of this debate, I want to share a migration story that says a lot about the character of my town. It started on a summer’s day in 1960s Eastbourne, when a sweet, retired lady, Mrs Baker, noticed a curious sight. She saw another lady, also white, pushing a small black boy in a pram. Mrs Baker, curious, struck up a conversation with that woman and asked what was going on. Mrs Baker learned that the boy had been sent to live with that woman by a young Nigerian couple, and she was caring for the boy while the couple studied in London. Inspired, Mrs Baker said that she would love to do the same. Coincidentally, the black boy’s mother was pregnant again, and was for a third time a couple of years later. Babies 2 and 3 were sent to live with the Baker family in Eastbourne. They were Toki Babarinde and Wale Babarinde, my uncle and my dad, and it was part of a sort of private fostering arrangement that was not uncommon between west African families and white families at that time, although it was not without its complications.
In my dad’s case, and for his brothers too, moving to Eastbourne was a ticket to opportunity. They loved their upbringing and Eastbourne embraced them. Sadly, my uncle Toki died earlier this year. Sat in the chapel during his funeral, I turned behind me, and among a sea of Nigerian faces was one white lady also paying her respects: Charmaine Baker from the Baker family. That moment gave me goosebumps, just like those moments when old-school Eastbournians look at me in all my brownness, all my gayness and all my working-class-rootedness and say, “Josh, you are one of our own.”
I share that story to say that while Eastbourne’s hospitality traditions are often associated with the mighty bucket and spade, they go far deeper. Eastbourne’s true hospitality traditions are of generosity, welcome, tolerance, multiculturalism and compassion. The story of how I ended up in this House is testament to that, and I believe that with those values the same goes for our country, regardless of what other Members in various places in this House may say.
While our town benefits from more sunshine hours than any other in the country, that blaring sun sometimes casts shadows, too. I am gutted to say that Eastbourne is also home to the busiest food bank in the country. Last year, it distributed more food parcels per head than any other food bank in the UK, according to the Trussell Trust. That is why, working with Eastbourne food bank’s inspirational CEO, Howard Wardle, I led Eastbourne to become the first council in the country to declare a cost of living emergency and to unlock emergency funding for those struggling most. It is also why I sincerely believe that the Government should be even more ambitious in leading the fight against poverty by scrapping the two-child benefit cap.
A compassionate state is by no means a state that makes us soft or weak. In fact, care is power. We cannot have enterprise, innovation or justice if we do not have a culture of care and compassion. That has underpinned my career’s work, founding and running an organisation supporting vulnerable young people out of crime, out of gangs and into employment.
Our constituents have sent us here to be bold in rebuilding and reimagining our great country’s spirit of having one another’s backs. As Eastbourne’s MP, I will strive to achieve nothing less.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and to see Labour’s Home Office team in their places. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) on a charming speech?
Under the previous Government, we became used to theatrical announcements of legislation on crime and punishment that went nowhere while the infrastructure of our courts and prisons decayed, so I was encouraged last week to hear the straightforward way in which the Lord Chancellor made her statement on the prison population. The overcrowding of prisons is a problem that the Labour Government inherited, and a problem that they intend to solve. The early release scheme run by the previous Administration was chaotic: the probation service was completely overstretched and prisoners were being released without support.
I have spoken before in the House about the appalling conditions in our prisons, most recently after a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison, which is sadly no longer in my constituency. I visited the Scrubs with the previous prisons Minister, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar). Despite the best efforts of governors and staff, we were met with overcrowding, doubling up in single cells with unshielded toilets, 23-hour lock-ups and a building subject to extremes of temperature due to antiquated heating and cooling systems. Is it any wonder that with the prison population so high and conditions near uninhabitable, prison as a rehabilitative exercise is a thing of the past? One might think that the squalor and violence that blight many prisons acts as a deterrent; in fact, it ingrains and normalises the culture of offending and reoffending.
I welcome the announcements from the Government and the Home Secretary in the knife crime action plan. It is right that we ban the sale of zombie knives, ninja swords and machetes, but there is another angle to this. Home Office homicide statistics show that more than 40% of all deaths from knife attacks are caused by kitchen knives. Two years ago, the elderly parents of one of my constituents were stabbed to death by a man with a serious mental health condition who then killed himself. The weapon in those horrific crimes was a kitchen knife taken from his family home. In the past, I facilitated meetings between Home Office officials and campaigners calling for knives for general sale to be made with rounded tips. That is a simple but effective way of reducing deaths and serious injuries, which I hope the Government will take up.
Another problem inherited from the previous Government, and one that I know will be a top priority for the Lord Chancellor, is the courts backlog. There is a human cost to the backlog: victims of crime waiting years for justice, children trapped in limbo in the family court system, and the bereaved waiting years for inquests in the coroners courts. Those issues are inextricably linked with other failings of the previous Government, including the systematic destruction of legal aid resulting in a chronic shortage of legal aid providers, an unprecedented barristers’ strike, and courts in such a bad state of disrepair that they are unable to function. All of us who have been involved in the legal profession know how important the role of legal aid and early advice is, and we look forward to the full implementation of the Bellamy review.
There are many more problems within the justice system that this Government will seek to address over the next few years. The Criminal Cases Review Commission must be made fit for purpose. Here again, the Lord Chancellor has already taken action. The terrible mistake in devising and expanding imprisonment for public protection must be unwound. Anti-SLAPP legislation is needed to protect free speech. It would also be good to see the implementation of Lord Leveson’s proposals for low-cost arbitration in media cases.
Finally, I know that the Lord Chancellor is committed to introducing all aspects of the proposed Hillsborough law, alongside legal aid to victims of state actors, to create a level playing field in inquests and inquiries. A welcome addition would be the national oversight mechanism proposed by Inquest and other campaign groups to ensure that inquiry recommendations are actually implemented.
It is a great relief to know that justice and home affairs issues are back at the top of the Government’s list of priorities. I have no doubt that this Labour Government will achieve the change they promise, and I am looking forward to working with colleagues to help make that happen.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I believe that tributes have not yet been paid to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his fantastic maiden speech—I apologise if I did not notice that. I want to put on the record what a wonderful speech he gave, particularly his personal story, his campaigning for those who have suffered child loss and his work for the north. I hope that we have seen a future Minister for the north in him.
I thank my constituents for returning me to the re-formed Runneymede and Weybridge constituency. Since then, several people have asked me, “Ben, you’ve been a Back Bencher in the party of government, and now you’re a Back Bencher in opposition. How’s your job going to change?” I said, “Actually, the main job won’t change that much.” I am here to support the Government to succeed. I want them to succeed—we all need them to succeed. I do not want the Labour party in power, but I want the Government to succeed. I am here to hold the Government to account and to work with them to ensure that things go well.
My mission continues to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving—something that I am sure my constituents were sick of hearing during my re-election campaign. I look forward to continuing to deliver for people locally. I am proud to represent Runnymede and Weybridge constituents. One of the best things about the area I live in and am proud to represent is our wonderful communities. Under the boundary changes, we have taken in Cobham, Downside, Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon, which have fantastic local communities.
If hon. Members will indulge me, I want to talk about one of our community champions, Councillor Charu Sood, who sadly is very poorly with cancer and is undergoing treatment in hospital. Charu is a councillor for St George’s Hill and is the embodiment of a local community champion. In the years since her election in 2018, she has achieved a huge amount: setting up Weybridge in Bloom and Sew Weybridge, which prepared personal protective equipment during the crisis, supporting Ukrainian refugees and raising funds for various charities. She is an amazing community champion, and I pay tribute to her and wish her well in her ongoing treatment.
In the two minutes I have left, I would like to talk about amendment (g), which stands in my name, to the motion on His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech. Sadly, my amendment was not picked for a vote, but I see it as the first stage in the battle against the Government’s awful policy to tax education. Like many people across the UK, and in Runnymede and Weybridge, where one in five children are educated in the independent sector, as a family we have also chosen independent education for our children, so I declare a financial interest as part of this campaign.
I have spoken to many independent schools in my patch, which have told me that 5% to 10% of kids will move back to the state sector as a result of the policy. Most parents who send their kids to independent schools are not the mega-rich magnates characterised by the Government, but, like all parents, people who make difficult budgeting decisions on how to spend their money.
The policy of taxing education, which we have never done before and never should, will only put more pressure on the state sector. There will be more disruption for the kids who are forced to move out—disruption that the covid generation of children just do not need. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at the challenges, the problems and the fact that a lot of children with special educational needs in independent education do not have education, health and care plans, and are thus saving the Government money, and think again about this awful policy. I will hold them to account, as will many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
I call Nesil Caliskan to make her maiden speech.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I am honoured to deliver my maiden speech, and I thank the wonderful people of Barking who have elected me. If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to thank my wonderful husband, who has been by my side every step of the way. This year, 2024, has been quite the year for us. With a new baby girl, seven months old, and a general election being called, sleep has not been on our side as a household. But of course it has all been worth it, and I now have the absolute privilege of representing the east London constituency of Barking.
I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Dame Margaret Hodge, who served diligently as the Member of Parliament for Barking for three decades. Dame Margaret has become known not only for her tenaciousness, but for her warmth. She held several ministerial posts in the last Labour Government and served as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. From taking on and winning against the far right in Barking to campaigning against tax evasion and avoidance, Dame Margaret was always fiercely brave in standing up for what she thought was right, regardless of political party.
As I prepared for my maiden speech, I thought about some of the parallels between Margaret’s family and my own. Margaret’s family were Jewish, escaping Nazi-occupied Europe, and Margaret herself fled Egypt for the United Kingdom in 1948 in fear of persecution. My grandparents, Osman and Neriman Tango, are of Turkish Cypriot Muslim background. They escaped violence in Cyprus, arriving in London on Christmas eve in 1972. My mum, Alev, was born in Cyprus in 1967 and was cared for in a United Nations tent. The three of them sought safety in the melting pot that is London’s east end. They spoke no English, they had no qualifications and no money, but they were safe.
As I stand in this Chamber and address hon. Members, I cannot help but think of my grandfather, my late grandmother and my mum. I do not think my grandparents could have envisioned that in one generation their granddaughter would be a Member of the mother of all Parliaments. It shows what is possible in this country, and I feel so deeply honoured to be here. I thank my mum, who taught me and my two sisters, Neri and Eda, that we must always try our best, work hard, look after and care for others when they need our help, be grateful for an education, and, when we can, find a way to give back. Those are my values, and I know that they are the values held by families in my constituency.
Barking and Dagenham is a special community in London and a place that I have come to know and love. Many of my constituents have a similar story to my family, with heritage from different parts of the world. There are also communities in my constituency that have lived there for generations, deeply proud of their Barking and Dagenham roots—and so they should be. Barking constituency is a place with a rich history, whether it is industrial heritage, including the former Barking power station opened by King George V, or the UK’s largest council estate built after the first world war as part of the Government’s “homes fit for heroes” scheme. Now Barking is younger and more diverse than the London and national average. That is one of the things that make it such a vibrant place in which to live, but it faces challenges. The unemployment rate in the constituency is worse than in any other London borough, and average earnings are much lower than elsewhere. Shamefully, 23% of children in Barking are living in poverty.
Economic growth is critical for the whole country, and for my constituents. Economic growth is what allows Governments to invest so that we can all benefit from public services—schools, our NHS, frontline services run by local authorities, and a welfare system that values dignity for the individual. Economic growth means additional investment in crucial work delivered by children’s services, tackling youth crime and violence in our communities. But economic growth does more than just pay for decent public services; it can deliver people good, well-paid jobs that secure a roof over their heads, food on the table and hope for the future. It is the only route out of poverty, and indeed it is how my grandparents broke away from the cycle of poverty. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s commitment to economic stability and growth outlined in the King’s speech last week, including plans for a national wealth fund alongside a new deal for working people.
I also support the Government’s commitment to address the housing crisis, especially because it is one of the drivers of poverty. The average house price in Barking has gone up by 21% over the last five years, and rents have soared. There are thousands of people in temporary accommodation, and a quarter of my constituents live in the under-regulated private rented sector. That is why the Government’s plan to bring forward a renters rights Bill to end section 21 no-fault evictions is so important for Barking, as is their commitment to speed up planning and infrastructure to get more homes built.
The King’s Speech was an agenda from a Government who are on the side of my constituents. It is a plan that gives hope to people in this country who for too long have felt abandoned. Hope for the future, with deliverable plans to improve lives, is why I entered politics, and, I am sure, why Members on both sides of the House entered politics. It is why I served as a council leader before coming to this place, and why I decided to run to be Member of Parliament for Barking. Politics is perhaps the greatest vehicle for change, and it is why this place matters. Building more homes, giving children a better start in life with free breakfast clubs and more qualified teachers, cutting NHS waiting times, lowering bills with Great British Energy—these things matter, and they will improve the lives of people in my constituency. They are all possible, and only possible, with economic growth.
So to the good people of Barking I say: I promise to be on your side. I will represent you faithfully, and I will fight for a better future for Barking so that every person has the opportunity to fulfil their potential—something that is possible only if people feel safe in their communities. I will always champion public services, and I will stand up for investment so that local people benefit.
I am honoured to speak in the Chamber, and I will repay that honour by working hard for my constituents as the MP for Barking.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great honour to speak in this new Parliament, my fifth, and particularly to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), who spoke with dazzling eloquence about her constituency, but also about the importance of diversity in our democracy. It is wonderful to see such diversity in the new Parliament. I congratulate the new Prime Minister and his team of new Ministers on that, and on their laudable tone of humility and public service. In the same spirit, I thank our Leader of the Opposition for both the fantastic tone in which he conceded on election night, and the tone in which he started his new role. One can say many things about the politics of the last few years, but our Leader of the Opposition was not doing this for money; he was doing it out of a very deep sense of public service in the finest traditions of this country.
At a time when so many democracies around the world are struggling, democratic trust is under threat. I want to highlight what a wonderful 10 days it has been here, because we have seen the transfer of power with such peace and stability. The pictures from this Chamber that are going around the world show how this Parliament still stands for the very best of democratic civility. As a new generation of newly elected MPs and new Ministers take office with a mandate for change, all of us who have served in government and seen how hard it has become to deliver real, lasting reform will wish them well in the spirit of the late, great Jo Cox. As democratically elected parliamentarians, we do indeed have far more in common than divides us.
Whatever our politics, we share a deep and urgent need to show that MPs, politics and Parliament can make a difference, that there is serious respect for Government accountability throughout this House and at the sweaty corners of the Dispatch Boxes, and that Government is not—as I fear so many have, sadly, come to believe—an inevitably unaccountable, bureaucratic machine that always wins, no matter who people vote for. For my part, in the field of science and technology, I stand ready to help this Parliament and this Government see through the vital work needed to unleash the science, technology, engineering and mathematics economy.
Mr Speaker, you may be asking how I survived the Chernobyl meltdown of conservatism in Norfolk—we delivered not one but three Portillo moments on the night. I thank the people of Mid Norfolk for electing me for a fifth time, and I will quickly share with the House the key messages that they gave me as I knocked on 29,000 doors. They said that they wanted a politics of honesty, integrity and accountability first and foremost, and they wanted the new Government and the new Parliament to tackle three key issues. The first was immigration. It was very clear across the whole of my constituency that people feel that our security and our sustainability, both economically and in terms of public services, require the new Government to go further in tackling the wave of immigration that has hit this country in the last few years.
The second issue mentioned was housing and planning. There is deep exhaustion with the way that too many big developers are running rings round our councils and dumping big commuter housing estates in the wrong places, with no investment in infrastructure. We need new towns on railway lines to drive a net zero and sustainable model of living.
The third issue was the NHS and healthcare. People are fed up with our pouring billions of pounds into the system in London, because they are not seeing properly integrated mental health provision, social care and healthcare on the ground locally.
As we debate the King’s Speech, it is important that we are honest about the legacy of the last 14 years. It has not been 14 years of failure and cuts, as one or two Government Front Benchers have portrayed it. The truth is that we were hit by an extraordinary legacy from the financial crash in 2008, which caused £700 billion of debt. Then we had the Brexit disruption, followed by the pandemic, which led us to spend £400 billion on relief. The war in Europe has cost us £40 billion. Any one of those events would have knocked the breath out of the great Lady Thatcher.
This has been an extraordinary period of unprecedented shocks, and there is much in the last 14 years to be proud of. I would cite the introduction of universal credit; the tackling of welfare fraud; the school reforms; the 5 million apprenticeships; the degree apprenticeships; the huge reduction in youth unemployment, which was at a scandalous level when we took office; the progressive tax cuts for the lowest paid; huge improvements in life sciences, technology and innovation; green growth—we are the only country to have halved emissions while growing our economy; and the pensions triple lock.
On a personal note, I am deeply proud of the work that we have done in the life sciences and in the creation of the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the 10-year science and technology framework, the creation of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, our re-entry into Horizon and our groundbreaking international collaborations. If we are to make this a decade of national renewal, the innovation economy is completely key to driving investment, opportunity and clusters around the country, and to harnessing the regulatory leadership needed for this country to be the dynamic innovation economy that we can be. In that vein, I welcome the new ministerial team and wish them all support as they seek to unlock that mission.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The House will know that the election of Deputy Speakers took place today. Before I announce the results, I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for serving as Deputy Speakers over the past week.
I will now announce the results. Nusrat Ghani was elected Chair of Ways and Means. Judith Cummins was elected First Deputy Chair of Ways and Means. Caroline Nokes was elected Second Deputy Chair of Ways of Means. I congratulate those elected and look forward to working with them. I thank the people who did not make it for standing, and for the way that the election has taken place. The results of the count will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published online.
I call Sojan Joseph to make his maiden speech.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House as the first ever Labour Member of Parliament for Ashford. I am delighted to be called to speak in this important debate. I congratulate all new Members who have delivered their maiden speeches today. I am beyond grateful and deeply proud to have this opportunity to do so, and I am excited to represent a community such as Ashford, which is waiting upon change—not just any change, but change that speaks volumes. I was excited to commute to London after I was elected, but I was shocked at the expense of £93 for an hour-long train journey. That is the same as it would cost me to get my weekly groceries at a bargain shop in Ashford. Luckily, we have more and more bargain shops opening for business in Ashford.
I intend to press for the implementation of policies that will maintain and restore our town’s natural beauty, as well as introducing more local businesses to help Ashford to thrive and bring back its prosperity. I take joy in representing such a diverse community as ours and, coming from Kerala, a southern state in India, I am proud to have been selected by the people of Ashford.
Ashford has been a market town since the middle ages and is home to a hospital named after the renowned physician William Harvey. It is a major hospital for those within east Kent. Many rely on that establishment to deliver many forms of healthcare, but recently it has been overcrowded yet understaffed. Having worked in the NHS as a mental health nurse for the past 22 years, this is a subject I hold close to my heart, and it is certainly something I would like to look into.
I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Damian Green, and the work he has done for Ashford over the past 27 years, as well as acknowledging his impressive record in the House, having been First Secretary of State, Minister for the Cabinet Office, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice and, finally, Minister of State for Immigration. I have great respect for the successes he had, such as working on a cross-party basis with local councillors to bring an excellent skills-focused college to Ashford, attracting more keen students to the heart of the town. He also supported work to convert the previously derelict Newtown Works into a film studio and he has helped to protect the Kent countryside, both of which I value dearly, as protecting the beauty of the constituency is vital.
I would also like to acknowledge Damian Green’s efforts in campaigning to bring back services to the continent from Ashford International train station, which is a personal target of mine. I believe Ashford would benefit from restoring that international travel, as it previously heightened tourism and the number of businesses, both foreign and local, situated in the town. I am pleased that the King’s Speech highlighted the idea of a better relationship with Europe through the creation of a new policy, which will assist in bringing international travel back to Ashford.
Ashford has great connectivity to London, thanks to the development of HS1. As a result, more people have chosen to move towards Ashford and make it their home. However, the infrastructure has simply not caught up. GP surgeries, dentists, housing, roads and schools need improvement, and I will campaign on these issues as the new Member of Parliament.
As there have recently been boundary changes to my constituency, I would also like to pay tribute to my other predecessor, Damian Collins, who represented the parts of Folkestone and Hythe that are now within the new Ashford constituency—namely, Hawkinge and surrounding villages. I am glad to embrace the natural beauty and historic significance of these areas. RAF Hawkinge was important during the second world war and, as the closest operational airfield to France, it was used during the battle of Britain to defend against enemy aerial attacks. I could go on and on about the constituency’s unique and vibrant towns and villages. As the House can tell, I am very content and very proud to represent these areas.
Our farmers play a valuable role both locally, in rural areas of the constituency, and in the wider economy. Importantly, they help to provide food security, stabilising the agricultural sector. However, they also face workforce shortages and are being hit hard by increasing energy costs. I am pleased that the King’s Speech contains a Bill to create the publicly owned Great British Energy, which will reduce energy bills in the long term.
It is clear that our public services are in decline. The NHS faces many problems. Staff lack morale, and mental health services, in particular, are deteriorating. My career background is in the NHS and mental health, so this is close to home. I have seen children as young as nine years old self-harming, and I have seen many people, young and old, end their life while waiting for treatment. This is a serious issue, and it must be addressed.
It is clear that, in recent years, the importance and value of our NHS has not been highlighted, so its maintenance has not been prioritised. We face an ever-growing yet ageing population, leading to hospital overcrowding and a heavy dependence on social care, which is itself hanging by a thread. Yet the hospitals are severely understaffed and hugely underfunded, to the point that we can no longer fulfil people’s demands or catch up with these growing issues.
After hearing His Majesty’s Speech, I am reassured that a new Bill will be introduced to address mental health and learning difficulties, and that the Government have already taken the initial steps. This is a necessary step towards reaching a better NHS and a better future in which we can get people back to work, supporting economic growth.
Finally, I thank the members and supporters of Ashford Labour party for their work to secure this historic victory in Ashford, as well as extending my thanks to my wife, Brita, and our three children. I am incredibly proud to be standing here on behalf of my constituents, and I look forward to working with those around me, from all parties, to make the change that our country desperately needs.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) on his maiden speech, in which he spoke about his constituency with passion. Having NHS experience myself, I welcome any Member with frontline experience of our public services, which I am sure he will put to very good use during his time in the House.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on immigration and home affairs, which are two areas that are important to me. I believe that how we tackle illegal migration will be a totemic political issue in the coming decades, not just because of its probable global scale but because it will test whether Governments in the UK and elsewhere are willing to face down often well-meaning but misplaced ideas about how best to protect the rights and welfare of individuals while preserving community cohesion and overall fairness in society. Criminal justice was one of my primary reasons for wanting to come to this place because, despite recent good progress under the previous Government, I feel that our criminal justice system does not do enough to secure justice for the victims of serious crime.
At the end of 2023, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the number of people who had been forced to flee their home stood at 117 million. Irregular migration to Europe is rising. According to the European Union’s border agency, Frontex, there was a significant increase in irregular border crossings last year, estimated at approximately 380,000 people, driven, it says, by economic, social and security instability in parts of Africa. Over the last 15 years, Frontex has detected 1.4 million irregular border crossings into the EU. The United States has seen even bigger increases of migrant flows from South America. The question is what to do about it.
First, I do not demonise people who make the journey—that is something we should avoid. People naturally want to improve their lives and their family’s lives. For those arriving from conflict zones, their original motivation for leaving was, of course, to protect themselves, but Governments and politicians cannot afford the luxury of blind sympathy for people in difficult circumstances. We have to act rationally. What is sustainable? What are voters in democratic countries, who have to pay to provide refuge for people, willing to accept?
I supported the Rwanda plan because I believed it was both fair and rational. Right now, who gets asylum in this country and who the British taxpayers pay to support is determined by the ability of people to make the journey into Europe and the UK. That is not fair. I believe that the agencies that placed people in Rwanda for re-homing were against the plan, because they failed to move with the times in understanding the changing nature of the issue.
This is no longer the same problem that the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the refugee agencies were set up to address. The scale of the problem has, and will, continue to grow. There is a fear that if the UK implements such a policy, as Australia did, it will become more and more difficult for anyone to apply successfully for asylum in a western country. I understand that concern, but these agencies and well-meaning human rights advocates need to wake up to what will happen if we do not control these movements of people. We will see a surge in far right support and risk even more unpalatable solutions.
Providing safe and legal routes is, by no means, an answer. Whatever safe and legal routes we set up will have criteria and, inevitably, not all people will be able to make it here on that basis. The fit and young will continue to make small boat crossings to overcome that barrier, so we will be right back to where we started.
Labour may have some short-term successes, for example on some obvious thing we may not have done when it comes to tackling gangs, but let us look at Labour’s track record. Labour Members opposed all of our measures to increase sentences for people trafficking and the Prime Minister himself opposed the deportation of foreign criminals. That is not an encouraging track record. I wish them luck in the proposals they have put forward, but none represents a sustainable solution. As a number of EU countries have recognised, moving people and offshore processing are the way forward.
I pay tribute to the good progress we made on crime and justice in the previous Government. We introduced a whole-life tariff for premediated child murder. We introduced Harper’s law, a mandatory life sentence for the manslaughter of emergency service workers. Importantly, we reformed Labour’s halfway release, bringing it up to two thirds for the most serious offenders.
There is no doubt that the pandemic, the associated court backlog and the increase of thousands of prisoners being kept on remand have made other difficult decisions necessary. I take the Justice Secretary at her word when she says these are “temporary” solutions, although if she had sunsetted them she might have had more credibility. However, I send her my goodwill.
More generally, there is an intellectual snobbery towards people who think the punishment of offenders is a public good, a positive thing that is necessary for the functioning of our society. In my experience, the Ministry of Justice is happy to focus on the experience of victims but not so much on whether they actually get justice. I will continue to campaign and push this Government, as I did the last Government, to move the whole-life sentence for child murder away from just significant premeditated child murder to all child murder. We will all have been horrified by stories of parents murdering their own children, very often not in premeditated circumstances. I think people like that deserve to face justice with a whole-life order.
I will also campaign on the use of life sentences. The term is misleading, often reported as jail for life, when it almost never is, which is an insult to victims. Those are my priorities. I will welcome the new Government’s progress in those areas, but I will be there as a sceptical champion for victims of crime along the way.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
This morning we woke to the horrifying confirmation that violence against women and girls in the UK is endemic. The national policing statement detailed that there are 3,000 offences recorded each day, but let us remember, that will be the tip of the iceberg. For example, 83% of women do not come forward to report rape to the police, and many offences will not even be recognised as such by the victims because of the deep-seated misogyny in this country. The system, as it currently stands, fails women and girls. What we need now is root and branch change.
In March 2023, the now Prime Minister promised to halve violence against women and girls if Labour won office. He said he would put domestic abuse specialists in police control rooms and set up dedicated courts for rape trials. I am proud that in the King’s Speech the Prime Minister is living up to his promises. In my Government’s proposed Bills, I was reassured to see specific measures to tackle misogyny, from teaching children about healthy relationships and consent, to putting rape victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system.
Until now, rape conviction rates have been appallingly low. A total of 68,387 rapes were recorded by the police in 2023, but, by the end of that year, charges had been just 2.6%, and the average wait time for rape cases to get to court was 839 days. That should shame us all. I am hopeful that the plans to introduce specialist rape courts to fast-track cases will make the change and I support them.
On that note, I wish to take a moment to thank the victims and survivors, as well as the past and present Victims’ Commissioners, for the hard work that they have done in campaigning to make these necessary changes. I thank my Government for acting on my campaign to stop registered sex offenders from changing their names. And I greatly look forward to working with those on the Front Bench to close all legal loopholes that allow dangerous sex offenders to slip through the net.
Following many years of fighting alongside inspirational survivors, including Della and the Safeguarding Alliance, I am optimistic that we are finally nearly there with Della’s law.
Now I turn to a topic that needs all of our attention—child protection. Safeguarding should start with every parent and every child having access to a Sure Start. Unfortunately, most people are not automatically born to be a good parent, but Sure Start can give them the support and encouragement that they need to become one.
Early intervention is always the best and cheapest solution. I urge the Government to rebuild this inspirational offer, after the Tories tried to demolish it one centre at a time. I welcome the Home Secretary’s plan to introduce a statutory definition of “child criminal exploitation”. This is something that I have been campaigning on for many years and could never understand why the previous Government resisted it. Until now, there have been multiple definitions, resulting in a confused and fragmented response by authorities. Between 2022 and 2023, more than 14,000 children were identified as at risk of, or a victim of, child criminal exploitation. I hope to work with the Government to ensure that the new statutory definition is in line with international standards of child trafficking, not just an extension of the adult definition. For too long, we have seen the abuse of child victims being misinterpreted as “choice”. A child can never “consent” to their abuse or exploitation.
I wish to end where I started, with Labour’s commitments to halve violence against women and girls. I urge my Government to seize this moment and to be bold and ambitious. We owe women and girls more than just lip service. They deserve real, tangible action. I stand ready to assist as a friendly critic, but also as a helping hand.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
I call Shockat Adam to make his maiden speech.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) who spoke on a subject on which we can all agree—safeguarding our women and children. There have been many excellent contributions today, and it is an honour to follow each and every one of them.
In my short time in this House, it has become abundantly clear to me that the most important person is you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your desire to keep speeches and contributions short, and that that is the best way for me to curry favour with you. With that in mind, I shall make my maiden speech.
I arrived in this country as a toddler from the heart of Africa to the heart of the midlands—Leicester. That city nurtured, schooled and shaped me. It would be fair to say that, no matter where I am in the world, there is a corner of a foreign field that is forever Leicester. The vibrancy, the diversity and, occasionally, the complete rawness of the city were the backdrop of my upbringing.
I remember very well as a child those free, small, cold bottles of milk that I used to get at school—I remember very well when it was stolen from me as well. I remember embarking on my life journey with friends from all different creeds, colours, religions and no religion, and we made a life for ourselves in this amazing country. I remember also moments of racism. One that comes to mind was with my late mother. We were in a park and were set upon by a group of people who hurled abuse and foul things, including language and objects, in our direction. But those incidents were superseded by kindness, love and understanding from the great people of this country.
As the youngest child by a distance, I was often referred to by my family members as the mistake, but my mother always referred to me as a miracle, and ever since then I began to believe it. My mother, who did not get the opportunity of a formal education in her lifetime, ensured all her children made the most of what this country had to offer. It was this mother who, when I suggested when I grew a bit older that I wanted to study history at university, looked at me as if I was about to become history, so, like a dutiful child, I did optometry at university.
And that brings me to here. I have checked the archives, and it appears I am only the second optometrist to have ever become an MP. So, I hope I can bring a little of my professional skills to help the House to focus on what matters and not be myopic in our decision making. With laser-like reflections, I believe we can bring 20/20 vision to matters before us and not make a real spectacle of ourselves. But the serious point is this: with better usage of optometrists, our GP services and our pharmaceutical colleagues, we can ease the burden on secondary care in our hospitals. We all need to work joined up and together.
As we are on the topic of health, at this juncture I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor Jon Ashworth, a shadow Health Secretary for more than five years before latterly taking on the shadow Paymaster role. He had the honour before me of representing the wonderful Leicester South constituency. In his maiden speech in 2011, he said it perfectly:
“I am privileged to represent a constituency of huge diversity, vibrancy and tolerance, and while we must never be complacent, our communities generally live harmoniously together. We are part of a city renowned across the world for welcoming incomers. Families have come from across the globe to make their home in Leicester South…Our diversity”—
ethnicity—
“enriches our cultural, social and civic life, and contributes immensely to our economy, too.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 200-201.]
He represented Leicester South with distinction for 13 years and I hope I can live up to the reputation he earned as a dedicated champion for our city.
Talking of champions, Leicester is the city of champions —another miracle. I am from the city that defied all the odds in the 2015-16 season when Leicester City became premier league champions, proving again that miracles can happen. I have been a diehard fan ever since I was a child, when one of our favourite sons, Gary Lineker, was still on the bench. We have the Tigers for our rugby force and the Foxes for the cricket, whilst the Riders are usually top of the court in basketball, and in Mark Selby we have a snooker world champion. But on a serious note, we must invest in sports facilities, not only to continue this rich tradition but to give our youth opportunities to improve their physical and mental wellbeing and occupy their time in positive pursuits. Too many of my young constituents told me they have nothing to do, and we must give them that opportunity.
Young people also bear the brunt of the housing crisis, and in Leicester we face overcrowding and waiting lists of over six years—worse than some London boroughs. We urgently need more affordable homes.
Leicester—another miracle—is where we found the remains of the last Plantagenet king. The bones of Richard III had been lying undisturbed for over 500 years until they were discovered under a car park in 2012. Please do come and visit him at our beautiful cathedral. We are a friendly bunch, regardless of what you may have read and heard about us. To quote Shakespeare,
“My heart is ten times lighter than my looks.”
My city is a united city. We celebrate all religious festivals—Christmas, Diwali, Vaisakhi, even the Caribbean carnival—with equal vigour, and have lived in harmony for over half a century. However, in recent years fractures have appeared, sown by those who wish to divide us, often by weaponising language. I understand that our isle has finite resources, but we must always have infinite empathy, infinite sympathy and an infinite vocabulary to build bridges, not to destroy them. In the words of the great Muslim Sufi poet Rumi, “We must raise our words, not our voices. It is rain that brings forth flowers, not thunder.”
During my campaign, I was humbled: I thought I knew my city, but I really did not. Within my city there was an underbelly, a shadow, a city within a city. While I used to speak about people who had a conflict between eating and heating, during my campaign I met them. Food banks at 11 o’clock on a Tuesday morning had over 80 people queuing, and I was told that was one of the quietest days they had ever had. We must tackle the cost of living crisis and reduce the wealth inequality in our country. It is not ethical or sustainable for any civilised nation to go on that way.
One poignant incident from my campaigning was when I knocked at a house and a lady peered through a partially opened door. I could not see her whole face, but saw enough to see a life of sadness and tragedy. She explained that she had had a relatively successful life, but something had happened a work—a little bit of bullying—and she went into a depression cycle and never really recovered. She said to me, “I will vote for you if you can do one of two things.” What did she ask me? She said, “If you could just plant me a tree so I can see it, that would make me smile, and if you could get me a fountain so I can see some water trickling, I’ll vote for you forever.”
It is important to remember that it is the simplest things that people want and that make the biggest difference to their lives. They want someone to speak up for them in these corridors of power, to speak about the injustices in the world, to give a voice to those who do not have one, who have no might, authority or power—whether that is the forgotten in Yemen, the victims of conflict in Sudan, or the victims of the ongoing devastation in Palestine—regardless of where they are in the world. I will always endeavour to speak truth to power and demand that this new Government take action for the poor and dispossessed, not just the powerful.
Finally, if my campaign ever had a catchphrase, it would be the Chinese proverb that says, “The best time to plant a tree was 25 years ago, in order to enjoy its beauty, its shade and its fruit, but the next best time is today.” We must plant that seed of unity, equality and justice now to ensure that our future generations can enjoy the fruits of friendship, fairness and peace.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
I call Brian Leishman to make his maiden speech.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam); I am sure many of us will find him a very hard act to follow. I congratulate all the hon. Members who have made their opening contributions to this Chamber. I have listened intently and been impressed by their passionate delivery and the personal content they have shared.
From the outset of my speech, I would like to thank my family for the encouragement and strength they have given me on my journey to this place. Without their unwavering support, I would not have become a local councillor and then an MP. It is with gratitude, and with enormous pride at being elected as the first ever Member of Parliament for Alloa and Grangemouth, that I take my turn to address the Chamber.
I also take this opportunity to highlight my respect for all the candidates who were on the ballot paper. I admire anyone who wants to dedicate themselves to public service, and I pay special tribute to Mr John Nicolson. Those hon. Members who were re-elected to this place a few weeks ago will all know that Mr Nicholson’s sartorial elegance was matched by his trademark eloquence in this Chamber and in representing the constituents he served with great distinction.
With the Forth running through Alloa and Grangemouth, many people on both sides of the river felt it was not a natural constituency, but when we look at the communities and towns that make it up, our new constituency makes perfect sense.
Clackmannanshire, being the smallest county in Scotland, is affectionately known as “the wee county,” but be under no illusion: although it is small in size, it is mighty in its industrial heritage. Industry is a tradition that stretches right across our constituency. Alva and Tillicoultry were the home of luxury woollen mills. Both run along the foot of the impressive and beautiful local hills, as does Menstrie, the westernmost village of the three, which is synonymous with yeast manufacturing —vital, of course, for one of Scotland’s national drinks. Indeed, alcohol production has been a fixture in Alloa for decades, and it was once regarded as Scotland’s brewery town, but sadly nowadays only a few remain.
Crossing the Forth, we leave Scotland’s brewery town behind and come to Grangemouth, which was once known as Scotland’s boom town. The Grangemouth refinery started operating in 1924. This being the centenary year means that it should really be a time of great celebration, but it has been announced that refining oil in Grangemouth is to stop—possibly as soon as May 2025. What happens next to the Grangemouth refinery will reverberate around all our constituencies. Oil will be part of the energy mix for years to come—that is a fact—but we also know that we need to accelerate the cleaner, greener energy industries that will combat climate issues, lower our bills, increase national security and reindustrialise communities.
The term “just transition” has entered the modern lexicon, but many people I spoke with while out campaigning did not know what it actually means. It simply means moving from one industry to another without leaving workers and their communities behind to deal with devastating economic and social consequences. Historically, many workers in Alloa and Grangemouth have been victims of deindustrialisation and so-called market forces in a system that has valued profits over people and created a society of gross inequality.
We are at a crossroads. We know what will happen if Grangemouth stops refining before a new industrial cluster is ready. It would mean that hundreds of workers lose their jobs, workers and families have to leave their communities in search of work, and the pubs, cafés and shops of Grangemouth all lose custom. Allowing a gap between ceasing refining and the new greener energies being operational is as unfair as it is unpalatable. Grangemouth cannot go from being boom town to ghost town. In the past few weeks, my Government colleagues have engaged with the union, the companies involved with the refinery and the Scottish Government, and we are committed to exhausting all possibilities of making Grangemouth the site that we all need it to be.
My constituency is called Alloa and Grangemouth, but it is also my honour to represent Larbert, Stenhousemuir and many surrounding villages across both the Falkirk and Clackmannanshire council areas. As a football fan, it would be remiss of me not to mention one of Sauchie’s favourite sons: multiple European cup winner, Scottish internationalist and respected pundit Alan Hansen. I know that the House will join me in expressing relief at his recovery from a recent health scare. It would also be remiss of me not to congratulate Stenhousemuir football club—the Warriors—on their league championship win last season. I am very much looking forward to the Alloa and Grangemouth constituency derby between Alloa Athletic and Stenhousemuir FC in league one next year.
On the subject of sport, before coming to this place I was a golf professional. It might not seem it at first, but being a golf professional has transferable skills for being an MP. The building of relationships, the creation of rapport, serving people and trying to improve things for them are skills that will stand me in good stead in this place—also, working in golf for 23 years has got me used to dealing with Tories. Working in golf was fantastic: it took me to places that I would never have been and allowed me to speak with people I would never have met. We truly are richer when we encounter people from other parts of the world and learn about their culture and customs. That applies not just when we go to different places; it also benefits us here in Britain when we welcome people into our communities.
Our communities need action that improves people’s lives and gives them not just hope but the route out of struggle. Rest assured, I will work with local businesses, charities and third-sector organisations in my constituency, and with UK Government colleagues and counterparts from the Scottish Government, to deliver the change that people need. I know that my voice carries the necessary weight to bring about that change—not because of who I am, but because of the position I hold. The people of Alloa and Grangemouth have given me the responsibility to use my voice, and I intend to do so for the benefit of everyone from every community across the constituency that I am so proud to represent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
I call Max Wilkinson to make his maiden speech.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is my honour to stand in this Chamber as the Member of Parliament for the beautiful town of Cheltenham, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). I heartily commend what he said about Alan Hansen, who I watched on television on many occasions as a young football fan.
Since last summer, when my wife returned to work after maternity leave, I have been enjoying the unusual combined roles of wannabe Member of Parliament and stay-at-home dad. They tell me it is a job requiring endless patience, a great deal of tolerance, the ability to understand almost inhuman forms of communication and boundless enthusiasm for clearing up a never-ending supply of mess—and I hear a toddler can be tough, too.
I want to start by giving thanks to some of the people and groups that have made the past year so joyful for me: Baby Bounce and Rhyme at Cheltenham library, and in particular Heather, who leads the singing; Andrea and Mary at Highbury church playgroup; and Sophie at Little Notes. My experiences over the past year have reinforced my views about the challenges I already knew so many parents face, and I have met many new parents in the corridors over the past couple of weeks. I will always speak up in this place for children, including my own offspring—so, Elodie, if you are at home watching me droning on, please tell Granny to put “The Wiggles” on instead.
I offer my sincere thanks to the former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, the first Member of Parliament for Cheltenham to serve in Cabinet. Conservative Members should note his wise words on the prison population: that we should follow the evidence, not the dogma. But such praise for my predecessor is perhaps best communicated through the words of one member of House staff, who upon being introduced to me as Alex’s replacement, responded with a line that really hit home and will last with me forever: “Oh, that’s a shame. He was nice.” Luckily, I am not easily offended, and I will try to be nice too. I also thank two of my political mentors, Martin Horwood and Nigel Jones. Both are past MPs for Cheltenham who made an indelible impact on me and on our town.
My predecessors knew what I know: that Cheltenham is full of big-hearted people whose community spirit and love of hospitality, the arts and culture make it a special place to be. We have so many festivals, including literature, horse racing, poetry, music, jazz, food, cricket and science—I could go on—that we are known as the festival town. We live in a food and drink paradise: we have excellent pubs, bars, cafes and restaurants, as well as the DEYA brewery and Dunkertons cider. We are the home of Holst, of Superdry and of the polar explorer Edward Wilson, but there is more. Local historians record that Cheltenham was the site of the first parachute descent. In 1838, John Hampton jumped out of a hot air balloon 9,000 feet above the town and glided to earth under an umbrella-like contraption. At this point, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) might be getting too excited, so I will leave it there. Cheltenham’s rich cultural tapestry is interwoven with generously proportioned parks and gardens, and is surrounded by beautiful Regency architecture and rolling hills. It truly is a feast for all the senses, and our schools are first-rate, too. Education is at the heart of our town’s values—it is on the town crest.
I am so proud to have been elected for the town I love at the second attempt. That second-time success follows a trend in my relationship with Cheltenham. First impressions are clearly not my thing, and they could have led to a very different path in my life. In fact, my first job interview in Cheltenham—many years ago, when I had a full head of hair—was so bad that not only was I not offered the job, but when the boss called back weeks later, having apparently been turned down by all the other candidates, the starting salary had suffered a rapid cut of around 10%. Members will know that that is a spending power reduction that even the former Member for South West Norfolk would struggle to match in her most strident moments. I took the job anyway, of course, because you do not turn down the chance to move to Cheltenham.
I am proud to have already kept my first promise as a Member of Parliament. I have joined the Robins Trust, which supports Cheltenham Town FC. They remain a division ahead of Forest Green Rovers, despite being relegated last season—with my apologies to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher). I have led campaigns already to invest in affordable housing in Cheltenham, to fight climate change and to support food banks, because we have them. It is a disgrace that a town as wealthy as Cheltenham has more than 700 people using food banks regularly. We have a unique scheme in Cheltenham where food bank users also get free access to the leisure centre. I would recommend that all Members try to roll that out in their area. However, if there is one priority I will pursue relentlessly, it will be undoing the harm caused to our local health services these past few years. Alongside the word “education”, our town crest also features the world “health”. I will defend our local hospital, and I will campaign on primary care, too.
One matter of vital importance linking this place and Cheltenham is GCHQ. Their work is secret and they never ask for our thanks, but thousands of people in Cheltenham work hard for us every single day. If I may veer dangerously close to policy for a maiden speech, I was pleased to see that the cyber security and resilience Bill will be coming before Parliament. This is a huge opportunity to update the UK’s cyber laws by reforming the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and that will help better defend our cyber-defenders who work so hard for us in Cheltenham.
It was with those issues and more in mind that I was accosted at Paddington station the night before my first day here. I was lost in thought, and a tourist approached me and said, “Excuse me, Sir. How do you get to Westminster?” I was of course delighted to be recognised by a member of the public so early in my political career, so I decided to give him the full benefit of my political story. After about 15 minutes, I had been through all my best campaigns, my door-knocking technique, the best leaflets I have ever delivered, and I was just telling him about doing aqua aerobics with our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, in our iconic Sandford Park lido. Sadly, I had got it wrong. He interjected, “Sorry, friend; I just wanted to know which tube line to take.” That is a cautionary tale for all new Members: let us not get ahead of ourselves. We are here for our constituency first and foremost, and for me it will be Cheltenham first every time.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), and I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I also acknowledge my colleagues in Government, who I have to say have literally been hitting the ground running and getting on with rebuilding our country. I would like to begin by placing on record my thanks to the constituents in Battersea for electing me a third time. It remains an honour and a privilege to serve as their MP.
The King’s Speech will deliver a truly transformative programme of change and national renewal, and turn a page on 14 years of Conservative chaos, decline and division. The Conservatives crashed our economy, imposed Brexit, presided over austerity, presided over the biggest fall in living standards on record, broke our public services, including the NHS and the criminal justice system, and failed to prepare adequately for the covid pandemic. I could say that the list goes on.
In contrast, Labour in government has already set out the first steps of how it will create sustainable growth that works for everybody, restore economic credibility and deliver more safe, secure and affordable homes, as well as deliver a new deal for workers, rebuild the NHS and make Britain a clean energy superpower, while also tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. More importantly, Labour will break down the barriers to opportunity for children and young people, so that we can finally give them a future and hope.
On the Conservatives’ watch, the Government did nothing to tackle the housing crisis, mortgage bills and rents soared, leaseholders were trapped in unsafe homes, and renters faced insecurity and injustice. Thousands of my constituents who are leaseholders will welcome plans to make commonhold the default type of tenure, ending the outdated leasehold system, and tackling unregulated and unaffordable ground rents.
Battersea has a higher number of private and social renters than the national average, so it will be a relief to many that the renters rights Bill will abolish section 21 no-fault evictions and provide greater stability and security. Our plans will strengthen tenants’ rights and protections, apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector, and ensure that tenants can request a pet, an issue I have worked on alongside Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.
Reforms to the planning system will deliver the housing that both Battersea and the country so desperately need, and the introduction of mandatory house building targets will finally get our country building again. However, it is vital that decisive action is taken on the shortage of accessible homes. Inaccessible homes not only impact on one’s physical and mental health, but limit disabled people’s ability to live, study and work, so we must make it our priority to ensure that homes are accessible for all.
Our new deal will transform the lives of workers not only in Battersea but across the country. The employment rights Bill will ban exploitative zero-hours contracts, end fire and rehire, provide rights from day one and update trade union legislation. Alongside it, the draft equality Bill will not only root out structural inequalities by setting out equal pay rights for black, Asian and ethnic minority and disabled people, but introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for larger employers. We can and must go further in this space and ensure that we change course by ending the shameful Tory record on disability employment, where the gap is wider than it has been and the pay gap is at 14.6%. But I have every faith in my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, who I will work alongside to deliver this.
This King’s Speech sets out an ambitious and progressive path to deliver the programme of change that the people of Battersea and across our country so desperately need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
I call Sir Ashley Fox to make his maiden speech.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on his excellent maiden speech, and I am pleased to follow him.
It is a great honour to be elected to this House to serve the people of Bridgwater. I thank them for putting their trust in me. Bridgwater is a most diverse constituency. It combines the three historic towns of North Petherton, Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, and Bridgwater itself. The constituency runs from the coastal villages of Berrow and Brean in the north to the villages of Nether Stowey and Enmore in the foothills of the Quantocks in the west and Middlezoy and Othery on the Somerset levels in the east.
The battle of Sedgemoor was fought near Westonzoyland in 1685. It was the end of Monmouth’s rebellion and we should all be grateful that it was the last battle fought on English soil.
Bridgwater was one of the original boroughs to send elected Members to this House in 1295, although it is not an unbroken record. In the 1868 general election the two Liberal candidates defeated the two Conservative candidates by just 44 votes. Such was the evidence of bribery and corruption—on both sides, I must add—that the two MPs were unseated and the borough disenfranchised. A royal commission later found that over £1,500, more than £200,000 in today’s money, had been spent on bribes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that I have paid particular care to my election expenses.
Bridgwater has a radical tradition. One of our most famous sons is Admiral Robert Blake, regarded by many as the father of the Royal Navy. He represented both Bridgwater and Taunton in this House in the 17th century and fought on the side of Parliament in the civil war. Another of my radical predecessors is Vernon Bartlett, who won the seat in the 1938 by-election in what at the time was a remarkable defeat of the Conservative Government. He stood as an independent progressive, endorsed by both the Labour and Liberal parties, opposed to the Munich agreement. In this country, we often credit Winston Churchill for his opposition to the policy of appeasement of Nazi Germany, but it is less remembered that the Labour party under Attlee, Bevin and Dalton was the strongest opponent of that disastrous policy. I am sure that all Members, but especially Labour Members, will be mindful of their party’s proud history of opposing appeasement as this Government decide how to support Ukraine and how best to deter future Russian aggression in Europe.
I pay tribute to my predecessors from the two former constituencies that make up the new seat of Bridgwater. James Heappey is the former Member for Wells. He stood down at the last election, and he is well liked and respected in Burnham and Highbridge. He served with distinction at the Ministry of Defence. He was also a kind and helpful colleague when I was selected as a candidate, and I thank him for his service.
Ian Liddell-Grainger represented Bridgwater and West Somerset for 23 years and is remembered for the support he gave our rural communities following the terrible flooding in Somerset during the winter of 2013-14. Ian visited the affected areas every week and persuaded David Cameron to visit Somerset to witness the devastation for himself. It has not been forgotten that the former Prime Minister turned up without wellington boots. Ian led the campaign for a barrage over the River Parrett, which is now in the early stages of construction. I will continue his work to ensure we dredge our rivers and maintain our defences, so that we minimise the threat of flooding.
I also want to mention Tom King, now Lord King, who represented Bridgwater for 31 years, until 2001. It is a mark of the respect and affection in which he is held that his name was mentioned so many times on the doorstep during my campaign. Tom also wrote a helpful endorsement saying why people should vote for me, which only goes to show how wise he is.
Bridgwater is an industrial town. It has many small businesses, and I will do all I can to support them. We need to encourage entrepreneurial spirit, because that is how we create prosperity for all our citizens. We welcome thousands of tourists every year to enjoy our beautiful Somerset coastline. I want to encourage those tourists to spend longer in Somerset, to visit more of our beautiful countryside and to consume more of the excellent produce from our farmers and growers. Bridgwater is also the home of the Guy Fawkes carnival, the UK’s oldest carnival, and one of the largest illuminated carnival processions in Europe. Hundreds of volunteers work tirelessly to create this fantastic spectacle and to raise thousands of pounds for charity.
Much has been achieved for Bridgwater and for Somerset over the past 14 years. Hinkley Point C is being constructed and will provide secure and low-carbon energy to the whole region for generations. The electricity it produces will power Gravity, the smart campus where Agratas will build one of Europe’s largest gigafactories. These two projects will provide jobs and opportunities for years to come. The town of Bridgwater was awarded £23 million under the previous Government’s town deal initiative. That will fund many important local projects, including restoring our historic docks and refurbishing the arts centre and the town hall theatre, but there is more to do.
I will work with our new police and crime commissioner to tackle the antisocial behaviour that affects our towns. I will campaign to protect Pawlett Hams and stop it being turned into an unwanted salt marsh by the Environment Agency. I will keep the promise I made during the campaign to Aaron Reid, the headteacher of Haygrove school It is one of the top-performing schools in Somerset, but also one of three schools in England built by Caledonian Modular and now condemned as unsafe. The last Government promised to rebuild Haygrove, and I trust that the new Government will honour that promise. I will support the school as we work with the council and the new Government to find a solution that benefits the pupils and staff of Haygrove.
I am proud to have been elected by the people of Bridgwater. I will serve them faithfully and to the best of my ability.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)
To make his maiden speech, I call Richard Baker.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to give my maiden speech. It is a privilege to follow so many excellent maiden speeches in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on his powerful and witty speech. I must also congratulate in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on his excellent speech, too. As a former professional golfer, it is fitting that he won his seat on such a huge swing, and his brilliant speech showed us why. The bar has been set intimidatingly high in this debate.
I feel all the more honoured to be elected by the people of Glenrothes and Mid Fife to be their representative in the House and follow in the footsteps of predecessors who served the constituency with such distinction. I pay tribute to the outgoing MP, Peter Grant, who served with such commitment and so diligently on behalf of his constituents. He will rightly be proud in particular of his contribution to the successful campaign for the reintroduction of the Levenmouth rail link both as Fife council leader and as an MP, for his service on the Public Accounts Committee and for campaigning for the rights of victims of financial scandals through his role on the all-party parliamentary group on personal banking and fairer financial services.
I also pay tribute to Peter’s predecessor, Lindsay Roy, who was such a brilliant MP for the constituency. Today, Lindsay is a tireless advocate for Parkinson’s UK, making the case with passion and eloquence for improved support for people with Parkinson’s and for investment in medical research. His example should not only give hope to people with Parkinson’s; he is an inspiration to us all.
I am a new Member in this Parliament, but I was privileged to serve in the Scottish Parliament for 12 years. I have already observed some of the differences between Holyrood and here. This institution is older and often more complex—as indeed are many of its Members—and there are many procedures and protocols to learn, but while there are differences between the Parliaments, the purpose we have is a common one: to serve our constituents. We have heard over the past weeks how it is vital to have strong relationships between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. That is of course true. However, I believe that there are still too few opportunities for Members of each of our UK Parliaments to work together on many matters of shared responsibility and interest. I hope that there can be greater collaboration between all our parliamentarians in the course of the next five years.
On a personal note, may I say that I am proud that my wife Claire Baker continues to serve the people of Mid Scotland and Fife in the Scottish Parliament with such skill and dedication? I was delighted that Claire and our daughter Catherine could be in the Gallery when I was sworn in.
I have also been greatly privileged to work for disability charities in my time away from elected politics. For the past two years, I have worked with the charity Enable in a role supporting people with learning disabilities on campaigns for their rights, not to speak on their behalf but to support them to be their own advocates for change as experts by experience. In the media, in public forums and in Parliaments, Enable member ambassadors have told their own stories and powerfully argued the case for a more equal society. The need to tackle these inequalities is clear when people with learning disabilities have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the rest of the population, only about 7% are in paid employment, they have fewer opportunities in education and they are twice as likely to experience bullying. I will miss working with them, but I will not miss the opportunity in this Parliament to make our country a fairer and a more equal place for disabled people.
I will also not miss the opportunity to be a champion in the Chamber for the people of Glenrothes and Mid Fife. The constituency stretches across Fife, from Methil, Buckhaven and the Wemyss villages on the coast to ancient Markinch and the new town of Glenrothes, and from Kinglassie and Cardenden and the villages of Benarty to Lochgelly and Kelty. Those and other communities in the constituency have their own histories and priorities, but so many are linked by their proud connections to the mining industry. That is why the decision by this Government to end the injustice of the miners’ pension scheme, so that funds in the scheme are kept for its beneficiaries, will be so important for so many of my constituents.
The communities of my constituency can look back on a proud industrial heritage, but it is vital that they can also look forward to their future as a hub for innovation, technology and our growing renewable sector. The biomass plant at Markinch, the hydrogen for domestic energy pilot at Buckhaven, and the Fife energy park at Methil are all examples of how our contingency can benefit from the exciting plans for GB Energy and our goal for Scotland to play a leading role in making Britain a green energy powerhouse.
We have to seize this opportunity. Buckhaven and Methil have the highest number of deprived communities in Fife, which is why we have to realise the ambition for the area and increase employment through expansion in renewables. It is vital that UK Ministers work collaboratively with management, unions, the Scottish Government and Fife council to ensure that despite the financial difficulties of Harland & Wolff, which operates the fabrication yard at Methil, the 200 skilled jobs and apprenticeships at the yard are secured, along with its infrastructure and facilities. That skilled workforce and the facilities at the yard will be instrumental in realising Fife’s ambition to be a thriving hub for the renewables sector in Scotland.
It means so much to me to be given the chance to be a champion for our part of Scotland. My mother was a teacher at Beath High, the school attended by one of our most celebrated novelists Sir Ian Rankin, who grew up in Cardenden in the constituency. In Sir Ian’s book “Set in Darkness”, Inspector Rebas carries out criminal investigations at the Scottish Parliament. We can only wonder where he finds inspiration for the plots of his novels, but I am sure we can all agree that Fife can be proud to call one of our finest writers one of our own.
I also know how resilient our communities can be, and how we can look to better days even after the toughest of times. When I was growing up in Fife, my father was a vicar in Lochgelly during the miners’ strike. My father-in-law Jim was a proud member of the National Union of Mineworkers. When I stood for election to this place in 2015, he gave me a miner’s lamp to bring with me to Westminster if I won, to remind me what I was here to do. I was not elected in 2015, and after that election nearly 10 years ago, many would have thought that the flame of the Labour and trade union movement was fragile and flickering, but today in this Parliament it burns brighter than ever. Ten years later, the lamp will be with me here in Westminster, and it will remind me why I am here: to deliver the change that our country needs and to show that, through political action, we can deliver the stronger, fairer society that so many people in my constituency gave so much to achieve.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
It is a pleasure to participate in today’s debate on the King’s Speech and to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), who is one of many on both sides of the House who gave a warm and positive speech. We welcome that context because, although cross-party there will be much political debate about the contents of the King’s Speech, we all recognise that it is a privilege and an honour to be in this House and to participate in that debate on behalf of our constituents.
I thank my constituents in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for returning me for my second term as a Member of Parliament. There were a number of things in the King’s Speech that they would wish me to draw attention to, such as the damaging impact of VAT on schools—the taxing of education is of huge concern in my constituency, which has many mainstream and special educational needs independent schools. They would also wish me to mention the loss of green-belt protection and the decision of an incoming Government to prioritise the deregulation of the green belt rather than building the 1.4 million homes that already have planning permission in our country.
On the decision to press ahead with GB Energy, those of us with a background in local government know that it is a policy model that brought the cities of Nottingham and Bristol to the very edge of bankruptcy. We will hold the Government to account to ensure that GB Energy does not do to the United Kingdom what the decisions of those Labour councils to press ahead with those projects did to the capacity of local authorities to deliver vital public services, as well as increasing bills for vulnerable households.
The main theme of today’s debate is immigration and home affairs. Having served briefly as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Justice in the previous Parliament, I welcome the tone of many things that have been said about criminal justice. In particular, I hope to see the new Government continue the commitment, as previously set out, to sentencing reform. All of us, in all parties, wish to see fewer victims of crime. The previous Member for Cheltenham, who received a very warm tribute from his successor the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), set out measures on the use of modern technology and tagging that aimed to ensure that we bring down the rate of reoffending which has long dogged the criminal justice system here in the UK.
As a Member of Parliament who proudly represents a suburban constituency in London, I recognise that following the 2014 reforms on shoplifting, which were agreed in partnership with the retail sector, the police and the security industry, it is time to look again at how they work. We welcome the fact that, overall, there was a major reduction in serious crime in particular under the previous Government, but we will be holding the Government to account and Mayor Khan to account for the fact that his neglect of the suburbs has left many of our constituents concerned about the availability of police teams which in theory should be there but all too often seem to be abstracted for other duties. The measures to protect shopworkers need to be part of that context of the reform of how we deal with shoplifting to ensure that anyone who works in retail or owns a business in retail enjoys the protection from our police forces and our criminal law that they rightly deserve.
On illegal migration, there is a lot of noise and fuss, but I hope the Government will continue patiently with the work done previously, in particular with the authorities in France. I have met the people doing that work, both here in the UK and on the French side, to bring to justice criminal gangs—the successful prosecutions achieved of those involved in setting up smuggling. I pay tribute to the work of the BBC in shedding light on the complexity of the international gangs, highlighting how often the kingpins seek to find refuge in places such as Iraq, where they are beyond the reach not just of the criminal law in the United Kingdom but in that of Europe too. I hope that when the Government set out that commitment we will see effective measures put in place.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is no longer in his place, that we know from the extensive debates around the ECHR that it stands as no barrier whatever to the deportation of criminals and those who should not be here. We have successfully achieved that in respect of many, many countries. What we need to ensure is that people are no longer putting their lives at risk in the channel.
I will finish with a brief word about the NHS. Those who visit Hillingdon hospital and Northwood and Pinner cottage hospital in my constituency will see that work is under way to deliver those projects. I can promise the Government that I will be holding them to account to ensure that those projects are completed.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
As this is my first time being returned to Parliament, I would like sincerely to thank all the House staff for making the process so smooth for me and all our new colleagues.
I am delighted to say that this King’s Speech has filled me with hope. We have suffered over a decade of Tory neglect, mismanagement and chaos. We have endured five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, 10 Education Secretaries, 12 Culture Secretaries and 16 Housing Ministers. Finally, we have a Labour Government with a plan to put politics back into the service of working people. We have a plan to save the NHS; nationalise the railways; reform benefits; recruit more teachers; properly fund councils; invest in green energy; clean up our rivers; provide children with breakfast in school every day; prioritise women’s health; reduce the gender pay gap; create a national care service; and bring transparency and accountability back to public office. It finally feels like the adults have entered the room, but I am under no illusion: the hard work is just beginning.
Nine months ago, I stood in this Chamber, albeit on the Opposition Benches, to respond to the King’s Speech in despair at the levels of crime and antisocial behaviour impacting our communities in the Erdington constituency. My constituency has the highest rate of knife crime in the west midlands. People contact me almost daily about Erdington high street. Residents have made it very clear that they are frightened to go into the high street. I hear the same story time and again: our high street has become unrecognisable. Where we used to have thriving small businesses we now have empty shop fronts, drug dealing and violence, so we have our work cut out. Labour has inherited chaos in community policing. Huge issues in our criminal justice system mean that not only is crime not being prevented, but it is not being punished either. That is why I welcome the new neighbourhood police guarantee.
When we speak about crime and antisocial behaviour, we must also talk about community mental health. As a district nurse and an independent lay manager—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I know how mental health services have been decimated, and how badly our communities are suffering in silence when it comes to their mental health. We cannot prevent crime without talking about mental health and improving community services, and I was glad to see provisions to modernise the Mental Health Act and make it fit for the future.
This King’s Speech shows Labour’s commitment to change: a commitment to higher growth and cheaper bills, a commitment to put the NHS back on its feet, and, crucially for my constituency, a commitment to create safer streets. It is vital that we crack down on antisocial behaviour and violent crime in our communities so that everyone can feel safe, and I am delighted that the King’s Speech pledges to create new respect orders, to halve serious violence in the next decade, and to take strong action to tackle violence against women and girls and knife crime.
When I stood here nine months ago, I said:
“We need to stop the decline and start fighting for a better future.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 742
Well, that fight starts now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)
I call Paul Kohler to make his maiden speech.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech—although I must admit to a degree of trepidation following the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker). It was a compelling, poignant and witty speech, as were so many of those that went before.
It is a huge and humbling honour to be elected to represent and serve the people of Wimbledon, a name that is synonymous with strawberries and cream, grass courts and tennis, but a constituency that includes so much more, extending from Morden underground station in the south—where you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have your constituency office—to Old Malden in the west, where the Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece “Ophelia” was painted by Sir John Everett Millais on, or more accurately in, the Hogsmill river.
Wimbledon is a suburb of London, but has two farms, a village, a wonderful common, the occasional Womble, three professional and many amateur theatres, two cinemas, the Wimbledon College of Arts—part of the University of the Arts London—and vibrant small businesses, many of them in the arts and hospitality. It has a park designed by Capability Brown, although that is currently under threat from the All England Club—Members should see my early-day motion for further details—and the beautiful River Wandle, when it is not blighted by that running motif in so many Liberal Democrat speeches, sewage. Its housing stock ranges from grand mansions to crumbling social housing. It has one of the most affluent and well-educated electorates in the country, but also a 38% deprivation rate, despite the best efforts of excellent local charities including Dons Local Action Group, Wimbledon Guild and Faith in Action. It is also a diverse and harmonious constituency, boasting one of the largest mosques in Europe, a beautiful Buddhist temple, a Reform synagogue, Europe’s first fully consecrated Hindu temple, the Papal Nuncio, and Christian churches and places of worship of almost every denomination.
As well as hosting the world’s premier tennis tournament, we are home to England’s most progressive football club, AFC Wimbledon—a club which knows that fans, not the money men, are the beating heart of any team, and a club which embodies the values at the heart of the Government’s eagerly awaited and much anticipated football governance Bill. That is unlike, it pains me to say, my own team, Crystal Palace, which has previously argued against the reforms heralded in the Bill, much to my shame. That is not to mention the shame of my constituents, who have just learned that their MP is a Crystal Palace fan.
I am playing a dangerous game here, because, as our defeated opponents now know and we will no doubt know some day, constituents are not slow to show their displeasure. A few weeks ago, I knocked on one door and asked the gentleman who answered if he had decided for whom he was going to vote. “I like her,” he said. “Her—the Conservative?” I replied. “No, her,” he responded. “What, the Labour candidate?” “Yeah, I like her. I don’t like him much.” “Who?” “Him. I don’t like him.” “What, the Lib Dem?” “Yeah, I don’t like him.” “You mean me?” “I don’t like him.” “That’s me.” “I really don’t like him.” “That’s me!” “What, you?” “Yes.” “Oh. Nothing personal, mate.”
But politics is personal, of course. Not infrequently, it is much too personal, although my Conservative predecessor, Stephen Hammond, and I stayed the right side of the line most of the time. We saw each other as opponents, rather than enemies. At this point, I must pay tribute to Stephen, who was a hard-working and committed constituency MP—due in no small part to the prodigious efforts of his office manager, his wife Sally, who ran a tight ship and a very efficient operation. Quite bizarrely, while Stephen and Sally are now tasked with letting staff go and dismantling that very office, I am kept busy trying to replicate their exact set-up. How is that sensible, efficient or cost effective? Surely it would make more sense for every constituency to have a permanent MP’s office that is staffed by caseworkers who, as in a department of state, move seamlessly, along with the ongoing casework, from the outgoing MP to the incoming MP. But it is what it is.
As liberal Wimbledon’s first ever Liberal MP, I will, despite the distractions, work tirelessly to represent my constituents and their values. As an academic lawyer, I will do all I can to defend the rule of law, which is under threat from our badly neglected and crumbling civil and criminal justice system. In particular, our prisons and probation service are in crisis. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister on the inspired appointment of James Timpson as Prisons Minister? There can be no one better than the chair of the Prison Reform Trust, who has walked the talk throughout his professional life, to lead a national debate on the role of prisons and imprisonment. We need to explore more effective alternatives to prison, including house arrests and curfews, while putting the victim at the heart of the criminal justice system by fully embracing restorative justice—something that I know from personal experience can have a transformative effect on victims, as it did on my family, with the added bonus of dramatically curtailing rates of recidivism.
There is much more I would like to say—for example, about the need to restore neighbourhood policing, which, as the Home Secretary said earlier, was decimated under the previous Government. Somewhat more parochially, there is an urgent need to guarantee the long-term future of Wimbledon police station, which, six years after my judicial review quashed the Mayor of London’s decision to close it, remains under threat, despite the Casey report making it clear that local police stations are critical to the success of neighbourhood policing. But those discussions will have to wait for another day.
To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I just say that I look forward to working constructively with Members on all sides of the House on these and the many other pressing issues that face us, both now and in the years to come?
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), who spoke with passion about the NHS and her great expertise in this area, and to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who talked about the joys of canvassing, which I found interesting. It has been really lovely to hear so many other fantastic maiden speeches from my hon. Friends.
I am incredibly proud to be standing here as the first ever Labour Member of Parliament for Chelsea and Fulham, and I thank all those voters who put their trust in me.
I realise, with a majority of 152, that that was not everyone, but I also realise that many people there will have voted Labour for the first time and I promise to be on the side of all my constituents.
Boundary changes mean that I follow in the illustrious steps of two people. My Conservative predecessor Greg Hands served 19 years in this House, and for 11 of them he was a Minister. He held senior roles in the Treasury, in Trade and in Business, and he was twice Minister for London. He was also the chair of the Conservative party at one point. He approached his job, as he approached all his jobs, with impressive energy, determination and loyalty to his party, and I know he will be missed by many of his constituents.
I am also delighted to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for the new constituency of Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), two of whose former wards I now have. I am extremely grateful for his generosity to me, both during the campaign and since. He is an absolute local legend with voters. Plenty of people said, “Well, I’m going to vote Labour, but it has to be Andy, not you.” I am going to try very hard—maybe I will fail—to live up to that local legend, and the challenge and high standards that he has set.
Chelsea and Fulham really is a wonderful place to represent. It runs along the River Thames from just by Charing Cross hospital down to Chelsea bridge. That is three bridges away from this House, if any of you want to go and visit it. A walk of less than an hour takes you from the 150-year-old market in Fulham’s North End Road to the world-famous King’s Road in Chelsea, with its iconic role in pop, art and fashion culture in the swinging ’60s and the punks and the new romantics of the ’70s and ’80s.
There are also four world-class hospitals. We are incredibly lucky to have the Royal Brompton, the Royal Marsden, the Charing Cross hospital and the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. There are too many outstanding schools across the primary and secondary sectors to name. We are also blessed with two premier league teams: Chelsea football club and Fulham, and both of them are steeped in sporting history.
Like so much of London, Chelsea and Fulham is enriched by a diverse community. We have people from African-Caribbean, Somali, Arab and European backgrounds. Indeed, the French MP for Northern Europe—yes, there is a French MP for Northern Europe—told me that two thirds of all the French in this country live in my area and the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), so it is quite a French area as well.
Chelsea and Fulham is also home to hundreds of Army veterans who have sacrificed for their country, from the residents of Stoll Mansions in Fulham to the Chelsea pensioners at the Royal Hospital. I have to say that championing the Stoll military veterans as they faced losing their community recently was one of my greatest privileges, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence for visiting them with me and lending his support to the campaign. I know that many of the veterans will be delighted that he now represents veterans in Cabinet, and I hope he will visit them again when they move to their new home in Fulham.
Fulham, together with Hammersmith, has the distinction of being the only place in England where the council—a Labour council—provides social care at home for free. I was responsible for overseeing that as the council’s former cabinet member for health and adult social care, and I very much look forward to joining the debate about the funding of social care across our country.
But against all this, I am afraid there is trouble in paradise. Alongside the great wealth in Chelsea and Fulham, there is also painful poverty. I cannot tell you how grateful I am to all the local charities who provide essential support to the many people in need. Food banks have been mentioned by several hon. Members on both sides of the House during today’s debate. For me, if anything is an indictment of the past 14 years, it is that food banks have become part of the British way of life.
The food bank that serves Fulham today feeds more people in one month than it did in the whole of 2012, when it started. At the food bank that serves Chelsea, demand has gone up by 800% since it opened its doors in 2018. People who are in work are using food banks, as well as children and pensioners. The demand for them is growing, and poverty, locally and nationally, is made much worse by the persistent inequalities, both in Chelsea and Fulham and across our country, not least of race and disability. These are also issues that I feel passionate about and will be pursuing in my time here in this House.
And then we have Charing Cross hospital. I am proud that I helped to save this wonderful hospital when the previous Government tried to sell most of it off. At the time, they promised to give the hospital a floor-by-floor refurbishment. It desperately needs modernisation and rebuilding, and they promised to do so by 2030, but then they broke their promise.
Another problem facing my constituents is that Thames Water constantly dumps sewage into the Thames by Chelsea and Fulham. Last week alone, it just chucked the stuff in for nearly 24 hours. There has been no regulation and no proper controls over the last 14 years.
The wonderful houseboat community down by the river in Chelsea faces an existential threat from a predatory, secretive landlord, and I will be doing more to stick up for that community, too.
I have mentioned the King’s Road, and its residents are very worried about the huge office blocks spoiling the area. Marks & Spencer seems to have become a property developer, not just a purveyor of sausages, sandwiches and underwear.
My constituents are also worried about crime and the lack of neighbourhood policing. High prices and rents are pushing families and young people out of the area and, as it has been so incredibly difficult to build social housing over the past 14 years, thousands of my constituents are living in overcrowded conditions or are waiting years to be offered a secure, genuinely affordable home. This is all in Chelsea and Fulham.
Against that backdrop, the good news for my constituents is that we now have a Labour Government who are determined to renew the country. We have a new approach, we are focusing on growing our economy and we are, thank goodness, resetting our European relationships, which is very much welcomed by my constituents—Chelsea and Fulham is one of the most pro-European constituencies in the country.
The other good news is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has already pledged to rebuild and modernise Charing Cross hospital, and the Government have already started cracking down on the water companies. They have started to develop a new child poverty strategy, and they are starting to take back our streets, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington mentioned—earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out so well the steps we are taking. People who rent privately will get new rights and protections from this Government, and we will build 1.5 million decent homes in which people can actually afford to live.
As the Government begin their journey of repairing and rebuilding our country, I come back to the words of a good friend of mine, Phil Storey, who runs the food bank that serves Fulham. He said to me the other day, “We want to stop people ever needing food banks. The day we can close our doors because we are no longer needed is the day I dream of.”
I make this pledge to my constituents. As the Member of Parliament for Chelsea and Fulham, working with the Labour Government, I will do all I can to strengthen our economy, to build a fairer, safer and kinder society, and to bring Phil’s dream closer to reality.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) on his maiden speech. It is a great privilege to serve in this place, and I welcome him. I also congratulate the Government Front Benchers as they take on their ministerial responsibilities.
I will focus on three bits of legislation mentioned in the King’s Speech that have generated interest among my constituents in Chesham and Amersham. The first is the water special measures Bill, because the Liberal Democrats have led the charge on calling for tougher penalties for water companies that dump sewage in our rivers and fail their customers. I am therefore keen to learn more about the Bill and the powers it will give to ban bonuses and introduce new fines.
Residents and businesses in Chalfont St Peter spent the first half of this year struggling to cope with sewage-filled floodwaters. Some had the horrible experience of their bathroom and kitchen plug holes burping sewage into their home. Thames Water later admitted to me that the cause of at least some of this sewage being brought into homes was that the company’s tankers had released floodwater, which they had pumped out of another area, into the wrong location, overloading the drains. Thames Water’s response to this year’s various problems in different parts of my constituency has been disgraceful, so I look forward to hearing how the Government will ensure that Ofwat finally uses its teeth and starts holding the likes of Thames Water to account.
The second Bill in the King’s Speech that I would like to touch on is the planning and infrastructure Bill. I represent a constituency where a significant amount of land is classified as green belt. My constituents are keen to get a definition of what “grey belt” means. Other than poor quality and ugly, there has been little detail about exactly what land would fall into that category. I also look forward to hearing what steps the Government will take to ensure that any new developments include the GP practices, other vital services and infrastructure to support them.
The third announcement in the King’s Speech that I would like to talk about is the Government plan to end VAT exemption for independent schools. The issue has been raised with me by several parents who send their children to independent schools in order to receive additional support for special educational needs and disabilities. I welcome the confirmation I have received that pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain exempt from VAT. There are, however, children receiving support for SEND in the independent sector who do not have EHCPs. I hope that the Government can offer assurances that such children will be taken into account as they pursue this policy.
I will end by mentioning healthcare. While I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing waiting times, I was disappointed not to see specific mention of improving access to GP appointments, because that is raised with me week in, week out. Just this weekend it was raised by residents in Gerrards Cross, where there is no GP practice. I hope that, with their significant mandate, the Government will give access to GP appointments the attention it desperately needs.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Rail in public ownership, stronger workers’ rights, a publicly owned energy supplier, a ban on no-fault evictions and an end to the non-dom tax status—these are some of the key foundations to recovery that we can celebrate in this King’s Speech, after 14 years of austerity, privatisation and squeezed living standards, but I want to touch on a few things that were not included.
I was pleased to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Removing the two-child benefit cap is the most cost-effective and immediate way for our Government to lift 300,000 children out of poverty. The notion that in the sixth-largest economy in the world we cannot find the money has to be wrong. While the taskforce is good, we must make moves as soon as possible to make this is a reality. If there were a national emergency, we would find the money. If the levels of child poverty at the moment are not a national emergency, I do not know what is.
I was also pleased to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) to end the supply of arms to Israel and uphold international law. The Government have called for a ceasefire and we need to back that up with action.
I will focus the majority of my remarks on the dreadful legislative legacy on civil liberties left behind by the previous Government. If we take simply the broad heading of our liberties, the previous Government curbed the right to protest, to free assembly, to freedom of speech, to organise in trade unions and to freedom from covert operations by the state. The right to vote has been supressed. Religious freedom was attacked through the demonisation of Muslims and Muslim communities. We cannot possibly pose as champions of freedom and democracy while these stains remain on our statute book.
In addition, we should note that the previous Government did nothing to correct the gross imbalance that now exists between employers and trade unions with regard to workers’ rights. They promised to block the gross abuse that led to the scandal at P&O but did absolutely nothing. They also toyed with the idea of regularising the legislative mess around a woman’s right to choose, and so address issues of women’s sexual and reproductive health, and expanding access to safe and legal abortions throughout the country. We cannot repeat these serial failures to act. This is about what it means to live in a free society.
Furthermore, there is a slew of secondary legislation, rules and guidance that infringe or suppress the rights of citizens. There are too many to mention, but I am thinking about the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021, the Overseas Operations Act 2021, the Elections Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023. A running theme throughout those Acts is, in effect, to place officers of the state above the law—whether they be police officers, members of the armed services, members of the security services or others—as long as they were acting under the direction of a more senior officer.
These laws severely curtail the fundamental rights of citizens. Under these Acts, it is officers of the state who decide what is lawful, not the courts. I remind hon. and right hon. Members that placing agents of the state above the law is almost the very definition of a police state. It is authoritarian and anti-democratic. It is not the legal basis of a free and democratic society. The same is true of any claim that is made that officers of the state determine the law. They do not; their duty is to uphold it. Over time, I would confidently expect each and every one of these pieces of legislation to face legal challenges, including, if necessary, in the European Court, because they are so flawed and draconian.
If our democracy is going to work for everyone, it has to include everyone. Our party has already made important commitments to extend the franchise to young people by bringing in automatic voter registration. Scrapping the exclusory voter ID laws that the Tories introduced is another urgent priority to strengthen engagement in the democratic process. A survey by More in Common estimates that more than 400,000 people were prevented from voting in the general election due to these undemocratic rules. The same research shows that people of colour were 2.5 times more likely to be turned away. Let us be clear about this: any law that disproportionately stops black and brown people from participating in our democracy is racist. The voter ID laws were introduced on the pretence of tackling voter fraud, yet between 2017 and 2022 there were just 18 convictions. Compare that with the 400,000 people blocked from voting at the ballot box.
There are so many things that we want to see. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on his announcement that there will be an early repeal of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. This, too, is an anti-democratic, authoritarian measure that places members of the armed forces above the law. The Prime Minister’s announcement on this should be a model for the rest of the legislation that I have mentioned.
It is also very important to look at some of the actions that the previous Government took. They rushed legislation through in a very hurried way. In fact, they gave us a model for doing things in the future. I wish to point out that the people of this country voted against that Government, so let us repeal all of their awful legislation both quickly and decisively.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)
I call Frank McNally to make his maiden speech.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
I come to this House as the new Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill. To have been elected to represent the communities that I have always called home is humbling, and it is a responsibility that I do not take lightly. I wish to start by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the House staff for what has been an incredible welcome here at the Palace of Westminster. It cannot be easy herding 300-plus new and excitable MPs around, but you have done so diligently and I commend all the staff of the House.
I also wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Steven Bonnar, who served as the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill in the previous Parliament. We live in volatile political times, and it is important to remember that there is often more that unites us than divides us. That was the case with Steven and me, and I wish him, his family and his staff all the very best for the future.
My seat has been well represented over many years, but, perhaps alarmingly for me, it has had five different MPs in recent times. In fact, there has been a new MP elected at every election since 2015. I fervently hope that that tradition will come to an end at the next election.
I also wish to pay tribute to my other predecessors and friends, including Hugh Gaffney and, of course, Sir Tom Clarke, who served this place with great distinction for 33 years. He was a man knighted by both His Majesty the King and His Holiness the Pope for his service to those in the most need, particularly the disabled. Sir Tom’s predecessor was the late Jimmy Dempsey, a legend across Coatbridge and Bellshill. Jimmy’s first speech in the House, in 1959, was on unemployment and workers’ rights. His final speech, just before his death 23 years later, was on the exact same subject. I am confident that he would be incredibly proud of Labour’s new deal for working people, the employment rights Bill so ably championed by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
My constituency is rooted in Lanarkshire, made up of the towns and villages of Coatbridge and Bellshill, of Mossend, Gartcosh, Glenboig, Moodiesburn, Bargeddie, Viewpark, Fallside, Birkenshaw and Tannochside—I am sure that if I have missed one, my constituents will be chapping my door or sending me messages as I speak.
My constituency was once known as the “iron burgh”, the beating heart of Scotland’s industrial heritage, from the mining villages to the steel towns—sadly consigned, for the most part, to history. That history includes the fire at the Auchengeich colliery on 18 September 1959, resulting in Scotland’s worst mining disaster of the 20th century: 47 miners lost their lives, 41 women were widowed and 76 children lost their fathers. The 65th anniversary is later this year, when we will gather to remember those lost, but also to redouble our efforts to ensure that workplace protections, safe conditions and workers’ rights exist to serve all people, no matter the job or the industry, or the age. I know that the retired miners will be absolutely delighted that it was announced in the King’s Speech that those on the Treasury Bench would be ending the injustice of the mineworkers pension scheme.
Out of the post-industrial landscape a new mosaic continues to form in my area—one of manufacturing, of distribution, of new technologies, and of local businesses that have generated international reach, including at Strathclyde business park in Bellshill, which continues to attract local and global companies.
Bellshill is also famous for its former maternity hospital, which operated for over 120 years. It is the birthplace of many big names. One national newspaper a few years ago ran the headline, “The Town That Gave Birth to Legends”. Included within that legend category are my noble Friends Lord Reid of Cardowan and Baroness Hazarika of Coatbridge, both of whom moved and seconded the Gracious Speech in the other place last week. They were born in the same place just a few years apart—as were the late former right hon. Member for Livingston, Robin Cook; Texas superstar Sharlene Spiteri; and even one Sheena Easton. The hospital’s final incarnation was opened by her late Majesty the Queen in 1962, which was quite a moment for Bellshill. Sadly, I will be unlikely to acquire legend status as I was born in Greenock.
I think it is appropriate at this point to thank my parents, Danny and Edwina, and my wife Steph, who have been a tremendous source of strength. Without their steadfast encouragement, I would never have sought to stand for election to this place. So if it all goes wrong, if I am ever disorderly or I ever rebel, Mr Speaker and the Whips will know who to blame.
When reflecting on today’s debate, when we move beyond some of the rhetoric that we hear around immigration, it is important to recognise the tremendous contribution that immigrants make to our society, and have done over many generations—my own family included—from Irish immigrants settling in Coatbridge in the 19th century to the Lithuanian community that thrived in Mossend, and now Ukrainian refugees, hundreds of whom have settled in my constituency following Putin’s barbaric invasion of their homeland; forced from their families, their homes, their jobs and their way of life. I am proud of the welcome that they have received from my constituents and key agencies across Coatbridge and Bellshill. The contributions that immigrants have made, and continue to make, to our economy, our public services and our communities more broadly, are immense. Sadly, not all of that history is good. It is a tale often blighted by racism, sectarianism and hatred, which we should fight every day to root out—and keep out—of our society.
On my first visit back to my constituency after my first week here in Parliament, I had the opportunity to visit Coatbridge community food bank. The team there do exceptional work in incredibly challenging circumstances. As many right hon. and hon. Members have cited today, every day we see people being pushed to the brink and hear stories of those who are enduring enviable hardship and have understandably lost hope. Making their lives better is my mission and my purpose in this place.
I welcome the provisions outlined in the Gracious Speech, from a serious plan to grow the economy to supporting businesses and improving public services; from GB Energy—which, in case anyone happened to miss the memo, will be headquartered in Scotland—to a new deal for working people that addresses the scourge of low pay and tackles exploitative practices, and a real strategy to end the scourge of poverty. I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members across the House. As I begin my journey here, our Government have also begun their journey to make our country fairer and better, and to stand up and fight for those in the most need, rooted in the values and history of the Labour movement. I wish them all the best of luck in their endeavours.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the new Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) on a fantastic speech, and congratulate all those we have heard from today across the House. It is evident that this Parliament is going to be a vital and vibrant forum for debate, and it is refreshing to have not only so many new faces, but clearly so much ability here.
They say that a week is a long time in politics, and perhaps the last fortnight feels like a lifetime. We have seen optimism surge across the country, palpably improved, because the public see a Government with purpose and acting at pace. We have seen 40 new Bills introduced through the King’s Gracious Speech. An electrifying pace has been adopted, and I commend both the Prime Minister and the whole Front-Bench team for the work they are doing. From halving violence against women and girls to the scrapping of the Rwanda proposals, from putting in place special measures against water companies to the football governance Bill, the list goes on.
However, it is the legislation aimed at addressing the instability and insecurity in our country, while delivering prosperity, that I think is so important. That instability is felt by people, businesses and public authorities and is perhaps seen by other national Governments, and our economy experienced catastrophic consequences from the kamikaze Budget 18 months ago. I welcome the legislation that has been put forward to achieve that goal.
That insecurity manifests itself in many different ways. We see 14 million people living in poverty, 4.3 million of them children, and 1 million, incredibly, living in destitution. We see insecurity of tenure and the rise of no-fault evictions, which is why legislation for renters’ rights is so important, and the insecurity of leasehold, hence the importance of the legislation on leasehold and commonhold. We see the insecurity of work, the zero-hours contracts and the loss of rights in the workplace that people suffer. That is why the employment rights Bill will be so important.
It is all down to the economy. What we can do with the economy, in addressing and repairing the corrosion wrought by austerity, is so important. I believe the means will now be at our disposal, through the establishing of a national wealth fund. We have seen sovereign wealth funds in many other countries and what they have done to transform those countries. I believe the legislation addressing pension schemes, unlocking the wealth that we have here, will be an important contribution to that. Something like less than 2% of the £2.5 trillion of pension fund assets run by 30,000 often very small schemes is invested in UK. That is such a small proportion. There will be benefits for the UK, but also for our wider economy.
Above all, we will address and reform planning legislation and infrastructure, bringing more affordable housing to our towns and cities—particularly towns such as Warwick and Leamington, where we have relatively high property costs. The King’s high school site, right in the heart of Warwick, has lain dormant for five years because the developer has not got around to developing it.
The legislation to deliver GB Energy will be so important for transforming the energy mix in this country, doubling our onshore wind, trebling our solar energy production and quadrupling our offshore wind. The great grid upgrade, for which National Grid has been pushing for so long, will be so important. Critically, it will bring down bills by an average of £300 per household while addressing climate change at the same time.
I believe that education is at the core of what we can bring, along with a modern industrial strategy. The work being done by the Education team is so important. What can our universities bring to this equation? Higher education is so important, and universities are real dynamos—generators of wealth and prosperity—in our region through their scientific research, the development of new materials and research projects, and the new energy clusters. This is a new Government of energy, ambition and public service who will put country first, party second.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)
I call Helena Dollimore to make her maiden speech.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech during this important debate on the King’s Speech, which set out the agenda of change that the country voted for and which this Labour Government will deliver. I congratulate all new Members who have made maiden speeches today.
It is the honour of my life to represent my home of Hastings and Rye. I know that you are very familiar, Madam Deputy Speaker, with all that we in Hastings and Rye have to offer visitors—especially our famous fish and chips. In recent years, our fisherman have worked hard to keep our local fishing industry going in the most difficult of circumstances, and they will always have my full support. Hastings and Rye hosts the world crazy golf championship every year, and we also hold the world record for the biggest gathering of pirates in any one place—a record that we try to beat every year on pirate day. Although one of my predecessors in representing Rye was himself a real pirate, I am relieved to say that that cannot be said for many of them.
Sally-Ann Hart worked extremely hard for our constituency, and I thank her in particular for her work in support of women and children feeling domestic abuse—a legacy that I hope to build on. Another thing that we wholeheartedly agree on is speaking out about the unacceptable levels of abuse and intimidation that too many Members of this House have faced, particularly women. The plaque of the late Jo Cox is facing us, and that of Sir David Amess is behind me. They are a constant and tragic reminder of where that can end. I also pay tribute to my Labour predecessor, Michael Foster. He is well known in our area for helping so many residents and for having been a passionate champion for Hastings and Rye during his time in this House.
Many Members will know our area for a very famous battle that took place in 1066. Historians may still be arguing about where exactly it took place, but it is safe to say that it has cemented our place in the history books. Since then, we have continued to play our part in British history—from being immortalised in the novel “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists” to being the birthplace of television. Perhaps what defines us most, though, is our community spirit, underpinned by our volunteers and charities, who do so much. Our calendar is full of carnivals and festivals, from Jack in the Green to bonfire night. Those events are made possible only by volunteers who give up their time to give back to the community and raise money for our local charities. Volunteers also maintain and protect so many of our amazing public spaces, from Hastings country park to Rye harbour nature reserve and Camber Sands.
There are also some points of our history that we would rather forget, such as the unveiling of a certain stone tablet in Hastings during the 2015 general election campaign by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). That stone may have been consigned to history, but I know that my right hon. Friend will be back very soon to unveil some new green energy infrastructure, and that it will be longer-lasting than the stone.
Although we have often found ourselves at the centre of historical events, we have not always felt all of the benefits. Our road and rail infrastructure is stuck in the past: we may be a similar distance from London as Brighton is, but our train line takes twice as long. We lie at the end of the A21, a road that has been described as the least developed in the south-east of England. As any driver will tell you, we have the worst potholes in the country, and our water infrastructure is also failing us: Southern Water has a lot to answer for in my constituency, dumping record levels of sewage along our coastline from St Leonards through Hastings to Fairlight, Pett, Camber Sands and Winchelsea beach. Some sewage has even come into people’s homes and gardens in my constituency, and when the water pipes have failed, we have faced major flooding in homes and the town centre and been left without a water supply for days on end. I am pleased to see that the water special measures Bill, which will start to clean up our water industry, is part of this King’s Speech.
The cratered state of our roads and crumbling water infrastructure is symbolic of how we have too often been forgotten by Westminster. Life expectancy is lower than the national average, a trend that has got worse over the past 14 years. People wait longer for an ambulance in my constituency than anywhere else in the south-east of England, and the situation is particularly bad in our villages and rural areas such as Winchelsea, where people wait 45 minutes on average when having a stroke or heart attack. That is why this Government’s plans to cut NHS waiting times cannot come soon enough.
As a seaside destination, our area has benefited hugely from tourism, but we are also at the sharp end of the housing crisis, with spiralling rents and simply not enough homes being built. Too many of my constituents are left in poor-quality rental accommodation, whether by Southern Housing or private landlords. That is why I so welcome the measures in this King’s Speech to get Britain building again, building more homes and giving all renters more protections.
This Government have a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. That is sorely needed in my constituency, where almost 40% of children are growing up in poverty and over half our young people are leaving school without the essential qualification of a grade 4 in English and maths. How we treat our children says a lot about us as a society; before joining this House, I had the privilege of seeing that up close in many different countries as an aid worker with Save the Children. It is always children who suffer the most in war and conflict. I have sat with young mums in Yemen holding their starving babies, so hungry that they do not have the energy to cry, and have heard harrowing stories from Rohingya women who have fled ethnic cleansing and sexual violence at the hands of the Myanmar military. I always promised those women that I would share their stories with the world, and my time in this place will be no different.
We are at a time in history when more children are growing up in conflict than ever before. Rightly, much focus has been devoted recently to the appalling events in Israel and Palestine—there, too, it is children bearing the brunt of war. We must redouble our efforts to bring about peaceful solutions to all these conflicts, and must remember that all the global issues we face, from climate change to migration, can only be solved by working across borders with our international allies and through strong, multilateral institutions such as the United Nations.
Just as I have been so inspired by the women I have met living in some of the toughest places on Earth, I also wanted to acknowledge some of the women whose shoulders I stand on closer to home. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know I speak for many Labour Members when I say how much we miss your sister, the late, great Baroness Margaret McDonagh. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She always had such wise counsel to offer us, and that is the reason why many of us sit on these Benches today. I also thank my family and friends for all the support they have given me in getting me to this place.
This King’s Speech will begin to deliver the change and renewal that Hastings and Rye voted for. I look forward to working hard for all my constituents across Hastings and Rye and delivering that much-needed change.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is an absolute privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore). I watched earlier as she was polishing her “Edstone” joke outside the Chamber, and it was delivered with aplomb.
I am hoping, for colleagues’ sake, that I have to make this contribution to the King’s Speech debate only once; believe me, doing things twice is not what it is cracked up to be. Either way, it makes a wonderful change to be on the Government Benches to speak in a King’s Speech debate in which for once stability eclipses chaos, renewal surpasses decay and hope trumps despair. Let me tell my new colleagues that it is not usually like this, at least it has not been for the past nine or 10 years, maybe longer. Too often, we have been here making speeches that mourn the erosion of our democracy and our rights at work and that can only bemoan the continual and unceasing scapegoating of our communities, the destruction of our rivers, the undermining of our judicial system, the betrayal of international human rights and the deepening of a climate crisis. But not today, because this King’s Speech is a veritable cornucopia of progressive policies pregnant with the potential to unpick decades of drift and deterioration. I would not try to say that after a couple of pints.
There are of course caveats. Announcements on the two-child benefit cap and arms export licences to Israel are but two issues we await to hear more on in the near future. In the interim, however, I for one welcome the announcement of our anti-child poverty taskforce. If done properly, it has the potential to lift thousands of children from my constituency and millions beyond out of hunger and hardship, and to give all our children the start in life they deserve—a start denied them by the last Government.
However, we could go further. We could build new institutions and put power in the hands of those who need it most. One of the lessons I learned watching a Conservative Government close down Labour’s much-loved and beloved Sure Start centres was that, if we give communities the ability to wealth-build and thus help themselves, the institutions built cannot simply be switched off by an incoming Government hostile to poverty reduction. The late and great Robin Cook understood this. He lamented Labour Governments who
“never change the system because they think they don’t need to. And when they lose, they have no power to change it.”
The marginality of this Parliament and the rising spectre of right-wing authoritarianism demands that we legislate as if this were a one-term Government, and one that could easily be followed by a Government with little respect for democracy, tolerance, progressive values or even human rights. In this age of anger and perma-crisis, policy delivery is no longer enough. Transformative change, empowerment and new institutions to deliver are what is needed to future-proof society against the shocks to come. We do not have to look far for examples of what they could look like. The NHS is an institution that is the closest thing to socialism this country has ever attained, and it is the reason most Brits give as to why they are proud to be British.
Let us repower and rebuild our local authorities—democratic institutions that for too long have been undervalued, underfunded and stripped of responsibility. Let us redouble our efforts to strengthen trade unions—institutions that push power back to people in the workplace. Such institutions, both new and old, will help undo 60 years of democratic erosion and make people feel empowered over their own lives. If we do this right, it will pull the rug from under the feet of the hatemongers and authoritarians, because they thrive on anger born of powerlessness, a sense of betrayal and a vacuum of purpose. People-orientated, democratic, institutional power blows them away.
I want to conclude with this observation. The true risk to this country is not the rivers of blood, as some would have us believe, but rather rivers of excrement and rivers running dry. In only a few decades’ time, my constituency might not have drinking water, because of a combination of the climate crisis and corporate corruption in the form of price gouging and criminal levels of under-investment. Immigration and asylum did not lead us here any more than membership of the EU did. Failing institutions, the erosion of democracy and economic failure brought us here. It is that our Government must fix, so let us get to it.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Yesterday and today, I have witnessed a number of maiden speeches from both sides of the House. there have been some excellent contributions which I must say were absolutely wonderful to listen to. I would like to thank the residents of the newly drawn constituency of Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley who have put their trust in me. It is a privilege and a great honour to speak in the King’s Speech debate today. Like most of my constituents, I am excited by the legislative agenda it sets out. Labour has hit the ground running with a bold plan for the transformation of our country that I believe will get us back on track after 14 years of chaos. It is because of that promise that I want to speak to several areas covered in the King’s Speech.
First, I am proud of Labour’s commitment to the most ambitious house building programme in a generation, particularly in terms of social housing. This programme must be designed and implemented in a way that addresses the significant regional disparities in housing provision.
My constituents will be thankful for Labour’s approach to youth provision. From tougher measures to tackle antisocial behaviour and knife crime to educational reform through Skills England, I believe over the course of this Parliament our young people will receive the support and training they need to take advantage of every opportunity afforded to them.
The newly outlined children’s wellbeing Bill will undoubtedly make a huge impact on families in my constituency, where child poverty is at unprecedented levels. The provision of free breakfast clubs as well as the development of a new child poverty strategy are both welcome and necessary after 14 years of deprivation. This Bill will also provide extra support to children with special educational needs, who need the greatest support and have previously been denied it.
While there are arguments in favour of retaining the two-child benefit cap, it is also clear that we can go much further and lift hundreds and thousands of children out of poverty. The significance of lifting this cap for the most vulnerable in our society cannot be overstated and I hope there is movement on this in coming months.
I am particularly glad at the direction taken by this Government towards regional and local government. As we all know, Birmingham is facing an unprecedented financial crisis, putting at risk valued services such as libraries and support to children and families as well as infrastructure and investment. In the limited time available today, I will not be expanding on what can be done to save those services, but debates and discussions will take place through other means.
That brings me to amendment (c). I put my name forward to be added, but for whatever technical reasons, it was not added.
I want briefly to address some of the newly elected independents in this House. Throughout the election they denounced the Labour party with divisive and harmful rhetoric. Luckily, we are now able to measure their words against their actions, and unsurprisingly they are found lacking in signing a Labour amendment. “Labour, the party of genocide”; “Labour, the party of nastiness”—that was the rhetoric played out in the election campaign when many candidates, especially women, were harassed and intimidated. Today, those independents sit on the Opposition Benches, but they are willing to sign a Labour amendment. Please go back and explain to your constituents the rhetoric that was played out. Why have you now joined forces with Labour Members by signing amendment (c)? Are you now saying that Labour is the right party?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)
Order. I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the fact that when we use the word “you” in this House, we are referring to the Chair.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you.
I apologise to all hon. Members who have not been called to speak today, but we must now start the wind-ups. I call the shadow Minister.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
May I start by sending my congratulations and those of my party to the hon. and right hon. Members who have been elected today, the hon. Members for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)? I congratulate them all; I am sure they will fulfil their roles as Deputy Speakers with great integrity and honour.
I turn briefly to some of the maiden speeches, of which there have been the most extraordinary number. I am grateful to have sat through many of them, although perhaps not all. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) brings fantastic previous service to the House, although I hope he is not bitten by another dog. I must also pay tribute to his wife Caroline’s courage and his campaign. I also cite the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is not shy of a cake. Although that may not be the public service or public health message that she wishes to bring, it is one that I share. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) highlighted the Glasshouse, which is indeed at the cultural heart of our nation. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) gave a moving account of a tragic loss, and his campaign for recognising baby loss is one that will be backed across the whole House. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) surprised us all by actually discussing the subject of the debate.
The direct access of the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) to the Chancellor will no doubt raise huge hopes in her constituency. The addiction of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to ice cream suggests that he should team up with the hon. Member for Darlington. I suggest they might one day be friends.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) does belong here, no matter what she says and no matter what anybody else says. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) taught us the meaning of pier envy, which was a new one on me. The baby girl of the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) will no doubt bring enormous joy, but if my experience is anything to go by, enormous sleepless nights, too. No doubt she too will be voting in the Lobby very soon.
I must pay enormous tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) in healthcare. As a child I was a frequent flyer and user of the William Harvey hospital, so I am grateful that he continues to serve in that community. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) hid a king or found one—I am not sure quite which. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a passionate defence of the need for domestic energy production, and I share that view enormously. I am sorry he does not share it with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), but perhaps he will inform him better.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) had kind words to say about our friend Alex Chalk, who served the House and that constituency with great integrity and decency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) recalled the last battle on British soil and is now seeking to power our country with nuclear energy. As he will know well, this country only ever builds nuclear power stations under a Conservative Government.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) committed to work on disabilities, and that sentiment will be shared by many here. The campaigning technique of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) is undoubtedly original. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) can only hope to break the track record of getting a second term in that seat, and even those of us on the Opposition Benches might be supportive of that.
The history of piracy of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) will no doubt worry the Whips something rotten. I am sure she will fail to put them at their ease—certainly not so early in the Parliament. The fashion advice of the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) would be welcomed by those of us who missed the 1960s, but he no doubt will be contributing. I thank him for his kind words to our friend Greg Hands, who served the constituency so well.
I turn to the King’s Speech, rather than the maiden speeches—the King, after all, has given one himself. Sadly he did not choose his own words, and I am not sure they were the ones he would have chosen. It is, however, as ever a pleasure to be speaking across the Dispatch Box from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), and I wish her the very best of luck in her new role. Becoming a Labour Immigration Minister must be a strange experience. After all, Barbara Roche, one of her predecessors, wrote that she was “appalled” to be appointed Immigration Minister in the Blair Government. One of Barbara’s contemporaries, David Blunkett, famously said that there was “no obvious limit” to the number of migrants who could settle in the United Kingdom. I suspect we will not get such frank honesty from this Prime Minister or this Home Secretary. However, in their hearts I suspect that neither of them truly believes in controlling legal and illegal migration.
The hon. Member for Wallasey has my sympathy. It cannot be easy to defend a Government who have already scrapped the deterrents that worked, lost the commander of the border strategy unit and now all but offered an amnesty. Oh dear, these days are difficult, are they not? No doubt she has already read the advice of her frontline officers, because the National Crime Agency was extremely clear. It has been tasked by that Government to tackle criminal gangs, but it has already said that we need an effective deterrence agreement, and since it has publicly pointed out that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries without a deportation scheme, I am certain that it will not have minced its words in private.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady will get plenty of time in just a moment.
Despite that, the Home Secretary has promised the British people results and urged us to put faith in her plans. I have long heard and listened to the right hon. Lady, who has been a friend for many years, so let me ask the question put yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). If, God forbid, the Home Secretary is wrong and the numbers rise—I know; wonders will never happen—what will she do? Will she take responsibility and resign, or will she reach for the old Blair-Brown playbook that is the golden thread running through the King’s Speech and instead farm out the blame, set up a new quango, pretend it is not her problem and hope that it all goes away?
I am sorry to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that having listened to the debates over the last few days, it seems that Labour’s approach to illegal immigration is absolutely typical of how it plans to govern. This is a Government who will be overbearing when they should stand back and absent when they should stand tall. They will be too hesitant in defending our country from her enemies abroad, too controlling—or uncontrolling—of our borders, failing to protect decent people from criminals. But they will be all too willing to creep into every corner of our personal lives. This is a Government who seem determined to prioritise left-wing ideology over the interests of the British people; I am afraid that is what Labour does.
That is what is happening in education, where the Government are rolling back the quiet revolution that has made our schools some of the best in the western hemisphere; in energy, where they claim that they will reduce bills by creating an energy company that does not generate energy; and in skills, where the best they can offer a generation that aspires is another bloated regulator. Those are the policies of a Government who value jobs for bureaucrats over results and ideological purity over the wellbeing of the British people.
I am afraid that the economy cannot afford such ideology. We need honesty in the challenges that we face. Despite the Chancellor’s attempts to talk down the position that she has found herself in, that is indeed what she has inherited. Despite the selective memories on the Government Benches, we know the facts. We have the lowest inflation and the fastest-growing economy of any G7 country, the deficit is down, unemployment is down and the economy is growing, all despite a global pandemic and a war raging in Europe. That recovery is now at risk. Labour talks about growth, but businesses are already groaning at the proposed increase in regulation that the Government are proposing and are fearful of the tax rises that we are all expecting from the Chancellor and that she is effectively rolling the carpet for this autumn.
The changes in workplace regulations will not protect new employees; they will simply put businesses off hiring them. The trouble with Labour’s plans is that we know that however well-meaning they are, they always lead to the same outcome. While Conservatives see industry as the source of our prosperity, Labour just views it as something to be taxed. It thinks that entrepreneurs are not grafters but greedy, and it cannot see that drive and energy bring opportunity to a whole community, not just to an individual or a company.
To that, I say this. Just as our security should not be taken for granted, neither should our wealth or prosperity. No one owes us a living or a good life. If we punish those who create jobs and make it harder or more expensive to run a business, this country will get poorer. It will not happen overnight; it will creep up on us, with investments not made, business ideas not taken forward and entrepreneurs moved abroad. Little by little, those good intentions will lead to well-predicted consequences. Where we should be going for growth, Labour is designing a state of stagnation.
The direction that the Government have chosen to take is all too clear: a state that is weak on defence, weak on protecting our borders and weak on maintaining order, whether in schools or on the streets. Yet, that state presumes to tell us how to live our lives, offering us less choice about how we educate our children, run our businesses, rent our homes and do our jobs. In only a few weeks, the Government have already shown themselves unable to commit to the steps needed to keep us safe, unable to secure our borders and unwilling to let the British economy thrive.
The Labour party talks a good game, but actions speak louder than words, and its actions so far have been those of a party determined to put ideology over this country’s interests.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Dame Angela Eagle)
Hon. Members would not think that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) was in the Government that presided over a Parliament in which living standards were lower at the end than at the beginning. They would not think that this is a man who presided over a hash of a Government that had eight Home Secretaries, five Prime Ministers and 10 Education Secretaries all within a few years. To listen to him, hon. Members would think that he was still on the Government Benches, lecturing us about the fantastic record that his party has delivered for this country when, actually, he has just lost an election by a landslide.
It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate on the King’s Speech. We have had a fascinating debate, of the type that we can only really have at the beginning of a Parliament, particularly a landslide Parliament where the Government have changed. We have had 20 maiden speeches today, which means that we have had 68 over the past five days of the debate on the King’s Speech. From listening to the contributions from all sides of the House that we have been privileged to hear today, I know that in this Parliament the new Members on the Government Benches will drive the Government forwards, and those on the Opposition Benches will hold them to account. I certainly look forward to being a part of it.
I congratulate all those Members who have made their maiden speeches today, including the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who was the police and crime commissioner in his area. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) explained how beautiful her constituency is and how she was trying to make it even more sustainable. Her commitment to equity and public health shone through. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), an old mate of mine, made Gateshead sound as interesting as I knew it was. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) mentioned Janet Anderson, one of his predecessors, who came to the House when I first arrived. His comments on the Boundary Commission were heard with empathy across the entire House.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who came in and did his usual. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who paid tribute to her predecessor Peter Gibson, who is a particularly good friend and had many friends across the House, who were all sad to lose him. She gave us another gastronomic tour of her constituency. Not being able to eat at all while listening to the debate, and listening to 20 maiden speeches with massive amounts of information about the food offering in those constituencies, has been a bit of a torture for me.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who also did the food thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) told us she is proud of her parents, and her insights into working class aspirations and success will have struck many a chord on the Government Benches. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who I learned is one of seven Joshes who have flooded into the House of Commons after the election. He presented us with a particular nightmare of actually defeating the teacher who taught him when he was 15. That would be a nightmare for any of the teachers on the Labour Benches. Just be careful who you teach at school—you never know what might happen in future.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), who made a fitting tribute to her predecessor, the right hon. Margaret Hodge, who is a particular friend and inspiration for a lot of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) made a superb speech. We heard from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) was particularly fast in talking about his transferrable skills as a golf professional, and transferring them over to being an MP. We look forward to claret jugs arriving to ensure he can make friends of us all.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) was particularly thoughtful about Alex Chalk, whom he defeated and who, again, was well liked across the House. We also heard from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) talked about the differences between the Scottish Parliament and this Parliament. I am sure he will continue to see differences as they emerge, but he is right that this place is indeed older and more complex. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) made a very good maiden speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally). Last but my no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) had to wait over six hours to make her contribution and did not waste a word of it. They all showed that the House continues to go from strength to strength.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will have heard the concern across the House about the Conservatives’ two-child cap on benefits. Because it exists, in the past year alone 3,000 women have had to fill in a form to admit to the Department for Work and Pensions that they have been raped and had a child that was non-consensual. That is more than the number of rape convictions under the last Government. Can she assure us that that form and that approach has no future under this Labour Government?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend. The work of the taskforce on child poverty is beginning. All aspects of the mess the Conservatives left us with, including that disgraceful clause, will be looked at.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am very happy to give way, but could the right hon. Gentleman hurry up? I’m very close to the end of my speech.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the Minister for giving way. Can she perhaps clarify to the House why a taskforce is required to delete the appalling and abhorrent rape clause? Can she clarify that any Labour MP who votes for the SNP amendment tonight will not lose the Labour Whip?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am not a Whip, so I am not going to clarify what will happen. I am doing a difficult enough job as it is without trying to become the entire Labour Whips Office.
We have to turn the page and move on from the last period that we have all lived through. The Gracious Speech is the first Labour programme for government in 14 years and it is an exciting and ambitious programme. There are 40 Bills on topics ranging from clean energy through to economic stability and the Hillsborough law. It is a programme as ambitious for the country as the British people are, a programme that lays out a vision for a brighter, better future: to establish GB Energy to bring down energy bills; an employment rights Bill to end fire and rehire, and strengthen sick pay for workers; reforms to bus franchising to deliver local transport; regulation of water companies to clean up rivers, lakes and seas; and critical measures to strengthen Britain’s border security and improve policing across the country, two of this Government’s core missions. That is the change for which Britain voted on 4 July. It is a King’s Speech to be proud of, it is a King’s Speech to deliver, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Commercial Sexual Exploitation
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
There have been huge advances in the battle for women’s equality in recent decades, but on some issues, we have gone backwards. Chief among them is commercial sexual exploitation. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)
Order. I ask that Members leave the Chamber quietly, out of respect for the Adjournment debate.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Giving someone money, accommodation, food, a job or other services on the condition that they perform sex acts is sexual exploitation and abuse, yet the global trade in sexual exploitation—perpetrated primarily against women and girls—is bigger than ever before. Sex trafficking is the most profitable form of modern slavery in the world, while violent, misogynistic pornography is consumed on an unparalleled scale, mostly by men. This was not an accident, and it was not inevitable: we could and should have done so much more to protect women and girls. Instead, the past 14 years have been a veritable golden age for pimps and pornographers.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that under the United Nations protocol on trafficking, a victim does not need to have travelled in a vehicle in order for a trafficking offence to have been committed, yet under the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, they do? This means that exploiters who are not actually moving a victim in a vehicle from one place to another are not being prosecuted as traffickers. It would make a huge difference if there were parity between the two pieces of legislation, to make sure that trafficking is justly prosecuted.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that the Minister is listening and will likely agree with her, as I do.
Multimillion-pound pimping websites have been allowed to operate freely. Men who drive demand for sex trafficking by paying for sex have been left to abuse with impunity, while the most popular pornography websites in the country have been free to peddle videos of rape and sexual abuse.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. She was active on this subject when she was on the Opposition Benches, and I commend her for that. To be fair, so was the Minister in her place tonight, so I am quite sure that, whatever we ask for, the Minister will respond in a very positive fashion, and I am glad about that.
Does the hon. Lady not agree that we must be at pains to ensure that the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is not used as a trafficking channel? Would she join me in asking the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to meet the relevant Republic of Ireland Minister to discuss and agree how we can collectively ensure that this is not a back door to abuse and misuse?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, because, having been a shadow Minister for Northern Ireland and from working with Women’s Aid in Northern Ireland, I know that this is a real problem. I welcome his offer to join him in meeting the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister to discuss this further, and I thank him very much for his intervention.
The previous Government stood by and let this happen, which was a shocking abdication of duty. Women and girls deserve so much better from the Government. I am looking forward to seeing this new Government stepping up and protecting women and girls from commercial sexual exploitation, and in this debate I will set out how.
First of all, let us be clear: prostitution is violence against women. Men who pay for sex are not regular consumers harmlessly availing “workers” of their services. Healthy, non-abusive sexual relationships require both parties to mutually and freely want to have sex. Offering somebody money, or food or a place to stay, in return for their performing sex acts is sexual coercion. It is simply not possible to commodify sexual consent. As the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has stated,
“prostitution is intrinsically linked to different forms of violence against women and girls and constitutes a form of violence in and of itself.”
Most women exploited in prostitution were highly vulnerable before even entering the sex trade, and suffer severe consequences as a result. A Home Office report noted that approximately 50% of women in prostitution in the United Kingdom started being paid for sex acts before they were 18 years old, while up to 95% of women in street prostitution are believed to be problematic drug users. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) have met these women and seen the struggles that they have in Swansea city centre, and I know that they are there to fuel their drug use. They are pimped out, and it is heartbreaking.
This is how I use my politics: when I think about the most vulnerable people in society, I think about the women who were crying because they have had their children taken away from them permanently. They were not able to make ends meet, and they had to be taken out by their pimp to earn in order to feed themselves and to live their lives in a basic way. I really do believe that we should always think about those women when we talk about women in this House.
I want to read the words of Crystal, a survivor who has spoken out about her experience of prostitution. She said:
“I became involved in prostitution in my early twenties, courtesy of my then ‘boyfriend’; I now use the word pimp. My body always hurt from the constant rough sex. I’d get jaw ache from blow-job after blow-job. Group stuff was especially harrowing…I developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I got flashbacks and nightmares, when I could sleep. The addiction and the prostitution went together—I sold myself to fund my habit, and I couldn’t do it sober. It was a vicious cycle.”
Too often in discussions about prostitution and sex trafficking, there is silence when it comes to the people who perpetrate this kind of abuse: men who pay for sex. So it is only right that I also read their words today. Here is what one man wrote in a forum for sex buyers about a woman he paid £100 to perform sex acts on him:
“This is a classic case of ‘the pretty ones don’t have to work hard’...She’s Polish, and her English is not good...I was reminded of The Smiths’ song ‘Girlfriend in a Coma’...All the while she seemed completely disinterested and mechanical...I finally decided to fuck her, in mish...All the while, she kept her face turned to one side.”
I apologise for the language, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As one of her first acts in government, I urge the Minister to recognise the violence that women such as Crystal endure and the harmful actions of sex buyers by adding prostitution to the Government’s tackling violence against women and girls strategy, just as the Scottish Government have done.
So what do we know about sex buyers? We know that 3.6% of men in the UK report having paid for sex in the previous five years, and we know that the level of demand for prostitution varies over time and place. That is because men who pay to sexually exploit women are not helplessly reacting to uncontrollable sexual urges; they are making a choice, and that choice is influenced by a range of factors, including the risk of criminal sanction.
Importantly, we also know that the harm perpetrated when a man pays for sex is not restricted to the individual woman he exploits. As the Home Affairs Committee concluded last year, sex buyers “fuel demand for trafficking”. The cohort of men who create demand for the prostitution trade is the same cohort that creates the demand driving the trafficking of women into that trade. So we have a group of men perpetrating a type of violence against women that financially incentivises further violence against women. That should prompt a robust legal response from Government that holds sex buyers accountable for the severity of their actions.
But that is not the legal response we have. In England and Wales there is a loose patchwork of laws relating to prostitution, with no consistent objective underpinning them. Third-party facilitation of prostitution is illegal in some circumstances yet permitted in others. Victims of sexual exploitation face criminal sanction for soliciting in a public place, while individuals who pay for sex face criminal sanctions only if they kerb-crawl or pay for sex with an individual “subjected to force”. Even then, the law is very rarely enforced.
The consequences of this legal fudge are all around us, hidden in plain sight. Across the country, vulnerable women are being advertised online and moved around networks of so-called pop-up brothels. Organised crime groups dominate this ruthless trade, exploiting predominantly non UK-national women.
Let me give a snapshot of what is happening. Over a 12-month period, Leicestershire police visited 156 brothels, encountering 421 women, of whom 86% were Romanian. In Bristol, the Police Foundation identified 65 brothels over a two-year period. Over three quarters of the brothels displayed links to organised crime groups, and 83% of the women in them were non-British nationals. In city after city, women are being trafficked and exploited, and for one overriding reason: there are men willing and able to pay to abuse them. This has to stop. It is just unbearable.
Mia de Faoite, a survivor of prostitution who now trains the police on how to combat commercial sexual exploitation, points to how we should do this. She says:
“Prostitution is what most people imagine it to be: violent and dangerous. In the six years that I was involved, I endured a gang rape and three separate rapes…The only countries in Europe who are making a substantial impact in the fight against modern day slavery are the ones who have acknowledged and faced the cause: the demand.”
Mia is right, and I urge the Minister to listen to her.
A growing number of countries and states are waking up to the fact that without demand from sex buyers, there would be no supply of women into prostitution and sex trafficking. By criminalising paying for sex and decriminalising victims of sexual exploitation, the Governments of Ireland, France, Sweden, Norway and Canada have shifted the burden of criminality off victims and on to perpetrators. England and Wales must be the next countries added to that list.
Sweden was the first nation to adopt demand reduction legislation in 1999, affording us more than two decades of evidence. The results are stark: demand has dropped, public attitudes have transformed and traffickers are being deterred. The most recent research found that 7.5% of men in Sweden had paid for sex. Just 0.8% of them had paid for sex in the previous 12 months—the smallest proportion recorded in two decades and the lowest level in Europe.
I have seen at first hand how agencies collaborate to implement Sweden’s sex purchase Act, having met police and support workers there tasked with holding sex buyers accountable and assisting victims. Co-ordinated multi-agency working, backed up by strong political leadership, have been key to translating the legislation into real change on the ground.
Those who want to preserve the right of men to pay for sex have claimed that outlawing this abusive practice would simply drive the prostitution trade underground, making it harder to identify victims. However, as a study commissioned by the European Commission concluded, there is a logical fallacy at the heart of that argument. Sex buying is largely opportunistic and relies on advertising. Sex buyers have got to be able to find women to sexually exploit, and the police can look at exactly the same adverts that they do. If sex buyers can find women being exploited, so can the police.
Solely going after sex buyers is not sufficient to stop sex trafficking, however. We also have to crack down on the pimping websites that enable and profit from this abhorrent trade. Pimping websites are commercial online platforms dedicated solely or partly to advertising women for prostitution. They function like mass online brothels, making it as easy to order a woman to exploit as it is to order a takeaway. Despite it being illegal to place a prostitution advert in a phone box, the same advert can be legally published for profit on a website. Our laws have not kept pace with technological change, and pimps have got rich as a result. As the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation found in its inquiry into pimping websites, a small number of highly lucrative websites dominates the market, centralising and concentrating demand online. The sites make it simple and fast for traffickers to advertise their victims and connect with their so-called customer base in towns and cities across the UK.
Shamefully, the previous Government not only failed to stop pimping websites from operating, but collaborated with them. Since 2018, Home Office officials have met 20 times with Vivastreet, one of the biggest websites advertising prostitution. What has been the result of that collaboration with mass prostitution rings? The Home Affairs Committee’s conclusion was:
“The threat posed by websites advertising prostitution, the continuing failure of their owners to implement even the most basic safeguards against pimping and trafficking, and the sheer scale of trafficking for sexual exploitation they facilitate, is at total odds with the National Crime Agency and Home Office’s decision to collaborate with them. We found this public partnership working inexplicable, particularly given the total absence of evidence that it has led to a reduction in the scale of trafficking facilitated by these websites—and the flagrant facilitation of trafficking enabled by, for instance, single individuals being allowed to advertise multiple women for prostitution.”
The Home Affairs Committee, the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation and the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation have been united in their conclusion that in order to bust the business model of sex trafficking we have to drag our anti-pimping laws into the 21st century by making it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person, whether that takes place online or offline. Hand in hand with that anti-pimping law, we need a cross-Government strategy to help survivors exit sexual exploitation and rebuild their lives. That is because in order to stop sexual exploitation, we have to end impunity for pimps and punters, and provide support—not sanctions—for victims.
I turn to pornography and the action that we need to finally start tackling the rampant commercial sexual exploitation on pornography websites, as well as their wider harms. A groundbreaking inquiry into the pornography trade by the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation concluded that we cannot simply end the epidemic of male violence against women and girls without confronting the role that pornography plays in fuelling sexual objectification and sexual violence. The fact that Government have hitherto failed to tackle even the most egregious abuses perpetrated by this predatory industry is not because that has proved too difficult, but because there has not been sufficient political will. That has to change now.
The findings of the group’s inquiry were extensive and unequivocal. I urge the Minister to study them carefully. I will highlight just a few. First, pornography consumption fuels sexual violence. There is extensive evidence from experimental, non-experimental, longitudinal and cross-sectional studies of that. Research indicates that pornography influences viewers’ so-called sexual scripts, shaping their understanding, expectations and decisions in relation to sexual behaviour. Pornography also serves to dehumanise and sexually objectify women, fostering attitudes that underpin violence against women and girls.
Secondly, illegal content is freely accessible on mainstream pornography websites. Lawlessness characterises the online pornography trade, with films featuring child sexual abuse, rape and trafficking victims found on some of the UK’s most heavily visited sites. Thirdly, the inquiry concluded that sexual coercion is inherent in the commercial production of pornography. I will quote the words of Alia Dewees, a survivor of pornography and trafficking who now works to support other survivors. Alia was just 20 when she was first paid to perform in pornography. Giving evidence to the all-party group, she recalled,
“when I did not want to consent, when I was feeling uncomfortable, unsafe, or unwilling, I did not have the freedom to leave that shoot without repercussions. I didn’t have the freedom to leave and know that I wasn’t going to be sued for breach of contract.”
Alia experienced that immense pressure to participate in filmed sex acts because on a previous date she had signed a legal contract to do so. That is commercial sexual exploitation. Like too many other women, she was subjected to a horrifying level of sexual abuse in this so-called industry. She bravely spoke out.
There are simple, practical steps that Ministers can take now to rein in the lawless activities of pornography sites and implement basic safeguards. Such measures should include making the regulation of pornography consistent across the online and offline spheres, as recommended by the British Board of Film Classification, and requiring online platforms accessed from the UK to verify that every individual featured in pornographic content on their sites is an adult and gave permission for the content to be published there. Safeguards must include giving individuals who feature in pornographic material accessed from the UK the legal right to withdraw their consent to material in which they feature being published or distributed further. We have the power to make that burden a little lighter by giving individuals who feature on pornography websites the legal right to have that content taken down.
I would like to pay tribute to the Ministers on the Front Bench. Labour voted in support of the amendment tabled by the now Minister of State at the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), but it was blocked by the Conservative Government. Now that Labour is in power, I hope that we will see vital safeguards in a Government Bill soon. In opposition, Labour could only use words in the fight against commercial sexual exploitation. Now we can use deeds. This Government must shift power out of the hands of punters, pimps and pornographers, and place it into the hands of women and girls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate, which, as she pointed out, is my first as a Home Office Minister—although definitely not my first on this subject, by any stretch of the imagination. From the outset, let me say that it is a privilege to have been asked by the Prime Minister to serve, and to work on some of the issues to which I have devoted much of my life both inside and outside this building.
We have an enormous task on our hands. Debates such as this underline why it is so critical that we make real progress in protecting women—and in this instance, men as well, and all people—from harm. We know that sexual exploitation disproportionately affects women and girls. As I said, it affects men as well, although those who are buying sex tend always to come from the same group.
It is time that we treat tackling violence against women and girls as the national emergency that it is. New Government policies will be announced in due course, but I want to restate that I believe passionately that change in this area is needed and, until it is achieved, we must not rest. On hearing accounts such as those we have heard tonight from my hon. Friend, I am not sure how we could come to any other conclusion. I will continue to work closely with charities and non-governmental organisations—I have met almost all those mentioned by my hon. Friend—to support services in advancing their efforts to protect survivors and hold perpetrators to account.
Turning to the specific points of the debate, this Government will use every lever available to stop commercial sexual exploitation, and all kinds of sexual exploitation. We are committed to tackling the harms that it brings. The most vulnerable in our society deserve nothing less. When looking at commercial sexual exploitation, it is undeniable that we have to consider carefully those who are exploited under the guise of completely legitimate prostitution. That is often the argument that comes back, but not one that we should recognise.
We are only a couple of weeks into the new Government, so I hope that Members will understand that I am not in a position today to make commitments on specific policies. However, I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend and all Members that they will be coming, and she has my word that I expect change in this space. Currently, the acts of buying and selling sex are not in themselves illegal in England and Wales. However, some activities that can be associated with prostitution are offences, including activities linked to exploitation, which she talked about.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it illegal to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force, threats or any other form of coercion or deception. This is a strict liability offence, meaning that it is not a valid defence that the defendant did not know that the person was being exploited or had been subject to force or coercion. As my hon. Friend pointed out, I have very grave concerns about how well this works in practice—I am happy to say from here that it does not. Like so many convictions that we seek for crimes of violence against women and girls, the numbers are woeful.
We want to understand the scale of the issue and how best to respond to it. The Home Office is currently providing £1.36 million of funding to Changing Lives—I declare that I was the chair of the Changing Lives adult sexual exploitation partnership, though I am no longer—to address the current gaps in evidence of the levels and types of online abuse and exploitation, to help us better understand the pathways that are needed to improve support. This is important work and I thank the amazing Changing Lives for undertaking it. We are also providing £378,000 of funding over two years to Trevi Women, which provides trauma-informed support to women survivors wishing to exit on-street prostitution.
We are aware of the different legislative approaches to prostitution, such as those implemented in Northern Ireland and different parts of Europe. There is a wide range of potential legislative approaches. Further work is needed to understand the options we will have as a Government. I will work with the NGOs and charities to explore those options, ensuring that the protection of women and girls from exploitation is at the forefront of our approach.
The trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is a horrific crime, and we are determined to safeguard victims and to bring ruthless perpetrators of this crime to justice. That means ensuring that the police relentlessly pursue perpetrators who pose the greatest risk to women and girls, using all the tools at our disposal to protect victims and get dangerous perpetrators off our streets.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, sexual exploitation is a significant part of the trafficking space in this country. We will build on the Online Safety Act 2023 to ensure that online companies fulfil their duty to eradicate this exploitation from their sites. There is much work to do in this particular space, as has been highlighted by my hon. Friend. I have had many cases where this has not been handled well at all. Indeed, there are images of me on pornographic websites that I cannot get taken down.
We will use every lever to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade in the Home Office and across the whole of Government, with policing and other experts. The demand for commercial sexual services fuels the exploitation of women who are forced or coerced into prostitution. The use of commercial sexual services should not be normalised. We will look across Government to use all the levers available to change attitudes in the longer term, reducing demand for commercial sexual services and protecting women from exploitation.
We hope to see huge advances on the issue of sex for rent. I tip my hat to the now Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle)—
Written Statements
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Assimilated Law Report
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Today I have laid a report regarding the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 before Parliament and published it on gov.uk. This report updates the House in line with the obligations under section 17 of the REUL Act, which requires a report to be published and laid before Parliament every six months detailing all revocations and reforms of assimilated law.
This is the second report to be laid before the House. While it is very early in my tenure as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and this report outlines the activities of the previous Government, it is right that this obligation is fulfilled and this update is given to the House.
The report today summarises the data on the assimilated law dashboard, providing the public with information about the amount of assimilated law there is and where it sits across the various Departments. The dashboard reflects the position as of 23 June, showing that a total of 6,735 instruments of REUL/assimilated law concentrated over approximately 400 unique policy areas have been identified.
The amount of REUL/assimilated law has decreased slightly since the last Government’s update to the dashboard in January 2024. This is due to Departments undertaking further analysis on the REUL/assimilated law they own between January and June and identifying some errors and duplications.
Since the previous update to the dashboard the previous Government revoked or reformed 132 assimilated law instruments. As such, the previous Government revoked or reformed 2,361 instruments of REUL and assimilated law in total.
The report gives details of a further 24 statutory instruments using powers under the REUL Act and other domestic legislation which the previous Government laid since the previous report, including on rail, aviation, health, product safety, merchant shipping, and weights and measures.
The timing of this report only gives me the opportunity to set out this Government’s high-level intentions for the future reform of assimilated law. This Government are committed to creating a pro-business environment with a regulatory framework that supports innovation, investment and high-quality jobs. This will be key to realising our national mission to deliver economic growth, on which so much depends. We will ensure regulation supports the building of new roads, railways, reservoirs and other nationally significant infrastructure. We will also make changes to national planning policy to make it easier to build laboratories, digital infrastructure and gigafactories, while also simplifying the procurement process to support innovation and reduce micro-management.
[HCWS17]
Labour Market
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Today I am announcing plans to get Britain working as part of the Government’s No. 1 mission: growing the economy.
We have seen record numbers—2.8 million—excluded from the workforce due to long-term sickness and nearly 1 million young people—one in eight—are not in education, employment, or training.
The plans we are setting out will deliver an employment support system that addresses the labour market challenges of today and tomorrow.
We will set a long-term ambition to get to an 80% employment rate, alongside helping more people out of low paid and poor-quality work. To support this, I will work across Government to deliver fundamental reform in three areas:
Undertaking a major overhaul of jobcentres—bringing together Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service to create a new national jobs and careers service focused on helping people get into work and get on at work, not only on monitoring and managing benefit claims.
Establishing a youth guarantee—offering training, an apprenticeship, or help to find work for all young people aged 18 to 21.
Empowering local leaders and local areas to tackle economic inactivity—we will give local places the responsibility and resources to design a joined-up work, health and skills offer that is right for local people, as a key part of their local growth plans. The Department will support local areas to make a success of this new approach, including through devolving new powers over employment support to catalyse local action and change.
To drive these changes forward, as part of our growth mission, the Government will publish a White Paper, to set out the policy framework for delivering on these manifesto commitments. To help inform and shape our new approach, I will also be establishing a labour market advisory board of leading experts, chaired by Professor Paul Gregg, who will provide my Department with insight, ideas, and challenge as we design and drive a fundamentally new approach.
[HCWS18]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Hanson of Flint
Oaths and Affirmations
Antimicrobial Resistance
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to secure multilateral consensus in advance of a political declaration at the United Nations General Assembly high-level meeting on antimicrobial resistance in September.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is actively engaged in the political declaration on antimicrobial resistance. We recognise that we must tackle the human and animal environment aspects of AMR to be successful, embodying a One Health approach, and recognising the needs of developing countries, including supporting them to have access to the essential drugs they need to treat infections. Of course, finally, we want to see the establishment of a new independent science panel to provide evidence-based guidance to national Governments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and I look forward to working with him on these issues. As research that I shared with him indicates, elevated levels of AMR genes have been identified as a new stand-alone factor in global change. Can he tell me what resources the Government plan to devote to this meeting but also whether they have a long-term plan? The meeting is only one moment of what needs to be a long-term process to engage with this through both aid and diplomacy.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Our first step is to ensure that we give maximum publicity to this high-level meeting and engage all Governments in the declaration. We want a strong acknowledgement of the need to reduce the discharge of AMR, which drives chemicals into the environment. We also want proper surveillance and proper research. We are totally committed to a strong political declaration, and our hope is that we will be able to achieve that. We will follow through with much more effective support for research.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his role. He has been a great champion for development and nutrition in particular, and I look forward to that continuing. In response to the needs of low-income countries, the previous Foreign Secretary announced £85 million of funding to tackle AMR back in May. The UK’s work on AMR has strong cross-party support. I hope the current Foreign Secretary will continue to show political leadership and prioritise attendance at the high-level meeting. We must raise our ambition here, and more resource is needed. Can the Minister say what the Government will do to encourage international financial institutions and multilateral development banks to help low-income countries access more funding for tackling AMR?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we want to ensure that the political declaration is followed through in our work. Obviously, as we come through to the round of multilateral negotiations, we can ensure that that political declaration is taken into account when those multilateral funds start thinking about disbursement. The high-level panel meeting of the United Nations General Assembly is a very important event, but it is not the only one, so we will ensure the fullest attendance, to maximise the political implications and effect of our participation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to his brief; he brings a huge amount of experience to this, and I wish him well in his role going forward. He will be aware that the previous Government were rightly commended for their 20-year ambition on AMR, and also the five-year action plans, but there was concern that, given the fact that a lot of the UK research has been carried out through official development assistance, the considerable cuts to that—moving away from 0.7%—have had an impact on UK research. What reassurance can the Minister give that the new Government will set us back on the trend to having 0.7% of GNI for ODA, so we can return to being a global leader on AMR research?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not think the things are necessarily linked; the noble Lord knows our commitment to 0.7%, and we want to return to it as soon as the fiscal situation allows. In the meantime, we want to focus on the impact of our ODA, and that is why this political declaration is so important, because we can achieve a lot. One of the things we will be doing is looking at the plans and commitments that the previous Government made, and ensure that we work in partnership with African countries to deliver the biggest impact.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, while accepting that we need to do everything possible to control the increasing incidence of antibiotic resistance, would the Minister agree that we should also pursue research that would find other forms of treatment to control bacterial infections? For instance, there are new antibiotics such as the one developed in Harvard University that changes the way it works on bacterial infections or, secondly, the one developed in Imperial College London, which has been developed to disrupt the microbiology of bacteria. Thirdly and importantly is developing viruses that act as bacteriophages to destroy the bacterial infections, but that requires a manufacturing facility; in January, the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee recommended that we should develop one in the old Rosalind Franklin Laboratory in the north. Would the Minister comment?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I was extremely grateful for the noble Lord catching me in the corridor just before, warning me about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, emphasised the importance of research, and it is constantly developing. We must look at it not only in terms of the problems we face in this country but also the issues faced in low to middle-income countries. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and our first commitment out of the high-level panel meeting is to focus on the need for greater research. But I accept what the noble Lord says: we are a centre of excellent research in this country, and we need to make sure that the benefits of that research are reflected in our ability to turn research into those manufacturing capabilities. I am very pleased that my honourable friend in DSIT will be absolutely focused on ensuring that is the case.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment as a Minister and, indeed, the whole Labour Front Bench on their election victory and their appointments as Ministers. Following up on the last question, will the Minister tell the House which other government departments the FCDO is working with across government to ensure that there is a real joined-up government approach in tackling this issue?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord to his position on the Front Bench, and I am pleased to see him back—well, back in the Opposition. We made clear when we entered the election that we will be a mission-based Government, and that involves cross-departmental working. Let us not ignore the fact that this is a fundamental part of economic development, not only for this country but to ensure that we spread the mission to our partnerships in Africa. On the Fleming funding and the other issues that I have already addressed, we are working on a cross-departmental basis with Defra and are ensuring that the good practice we have in this country is replicated and followed through in other countries, so the noble Lord is right that we will be committing to that.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his position. It was wonderful to work with him when we were in opposition; it is his turn now, and we expect a lot from him. What percentage of ODA goes into research? It was vital in terms of support for, say, the Jenner Institute and the preparations that we made for the pandemic. Could he tell us what support for UK research is ODA money?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I may have to follow through in writing. By the way, when we first worked together the noble Baroness was in government and I was in opposition, but despite that we worked collaboratively then. ODA is spent on AMR. I mentioned the Fleming Fund, and I think the previous Government spent £400 million on that support. But broadening it out to other aspects of research—they are not exclusive, as other research can benefit the fight against AMR— I will write to the noble Baroness with more detailed information.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, one area where we should focus our research efforts is on veterinary practice, where much of the resistance arises. Can my noble friend give some indication of what efforts are being made in that regard?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
That is why I said at the beginning that we want to take a holistic approach to this issue, because it is not just medical overprescription; these chemicals are also able to get into the environment through animals, and we have been focused on ensuring that our strategy and the high-level panel meetings address that issue. It is not just veterinary and the issue is not just about our practices in this country; it is about spreading the word across the world, because it is amazing how these things can get into the food system far more widely spread than you could ever imagine, so it is a high priority.
HS2
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for reviewing the impact of the decision to abandon plans to build further stages of HS2.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
This Government are clear that transport is an essential part of our mission to rebuild Britain, and we are committed to delivering infrastructure that works for the whole country. We need a long-term approach to infrastructure and investment taking account of local transport priorities, which is what we will provide. We will review the position we have inherited thoroughly and at pace, and we will set out more detailed plans in due course.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but he will be aware that today’s National Audit Office report confirms the expensive and disastrous impact of the cancellation of HS2 north of Crewe, with a reduction in the number of seats available on trains as a result of a decision that cost half a billion pounds wasted on land that was not going to be used for development. Does the Minister agree that a full and proper review of this decision is needed by the Government so that this never happens again, and so that the opportunities for the north of England are maximised? Will the Government also review the decision of the previous Government to allocate to Wales only £1 billion of Barnett consequential funding when Wales should, by right and by fairness, have £3 billion?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We will review the National Audit Office’s report, which is a report on the status of the project as it was left under the previous Government. We will have to do that before setting out more detailed plans. Personally, I am aware of the disparity in seats created by the present planned service pattern on HS2 following the cancellation of phase 2a. We will have more to say about that in the future.
In respect of the Barnett formula, heavy rail is reserved in Wales, so any heavy rail scheme that the department delivers should always be classified as England and Wales when applying the Barnett formula. That includes HS2. It is a different situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive, under their devolved policy areas, do therefore receive Barnett-based funding. This is consistent with the funding arrangements for all other policy areas reserved in Wales but devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That said, due to use of departmental comparability factors in the Barnett formula at spending reviews, the Welsh Government have received a significant uplift in their Barnett-based funding due to the UK Government’s spending on HS2.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
The Government are committed to building HS2 up to Handsacre. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient capacity beyond Handsacre up to Crewe, given what the new line will deliver to the country, and will he bear this in mind in his review?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, for his knowledge of the geography of the national railway network; I am aware of it myself. We will certainly have to bear that in mind with the review of the project as it now stands.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, to what extent has the Minister discussed this matter with the Government of Wales—the Labour Government of Wales in Cardiff—who are totally convinced that Wales is entitled to a Barnett consequential in line with the consequential payments to Scotland? The arguments that he has used today are nothing but an excuse to avoid payment. Will he please link up with his Labour colleagues in the Welsh Government to sort this matter out so that Wales can get the resources it needs?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in Wales in my diary. I am sure that he will raise that matter.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, one of the mysteries of HS2 was that you could get to places like Leeds 16 minutes quicker, but you could not get anywhere else when you got there because of deficiencies in the northern network. What confidence can we have that any other plans that come forward will be realised and improve the situation in the north?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Reintroducing the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is the first step in doing so, by providing powers to develop, construct and operate railway infrastructure that is key to improving interregional and northern rail connectivity, which, of course, generates economic growth, jobs and housing.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
What are the Government going to do about the urgent situation between Manchester and Leeds, which has been made very apparent by the National Audit Office?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
A project is already in execution to improve railway connectivity between Manchester and Leeds, the trans-Pennine route upgrade. It is currently valued at some £11 billion and is in the course of delivery.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, when the last Government cancelled High Speed 2, they said that they would transfer the money into northern schemes but, as we know, a lot of it was spent in other areas. Can the Minister guarantee that when the review takes place, he will make sure that the north gets its fair share of transport infrastructure?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Reintroducing the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill will be great evidence that the Government are thinking of improving easy-west connectivity in northern England and continuing the work that the trans-Pennine upgrade is already starting for a modern, high-speed and high-capacity railway all the way across between Liverpool, Hull and other places on the east coast.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, when do the Government expect the fourth largest city in England, Sheffield, to have back its direct train to Manchester Airport, its main international airport?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid I cannot recall exactly what the position is, so I shall write to the noble Lord and tell him where we think we are with it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Does the Minister recall that the original plan was that HS2 should go all the way to Scotland?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
It was. Has the Minister tried recently to go up the west coast main line to Glasgow? If he did, he would realise that there are capacity problems. Something needs to be done to try to restore that awful decision, one of many made by that Government who used to be opposite.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am familiar with the west coast main line from my previous job. I have often travelled on it and am familiar with the limitations in how it performs and the number of trains that you can get on it. Incidentally, I was also the author of a review of the connectivity of the United Kingdom, and I made some recommendations about the connectivity of England and Scotland. This Government are very mindful of that, and it will be part of the review of the current state of HS2 as we have inherited it.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, there is still a lack of progress in agreeing outstanding compensation claims, especially in respect of injurious affection claims and the time it has taken to hand back land that was taken on a temporary basis. As time is of the essence, what further measures are being put in place to speed up the process and remove the outstanding backlog?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not familiar with the details, so I shall write to the noble Baroness and explain the position as we see it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, a number of questioners have asked about the new route across the north from Manchester to Leeds and Hull, but does my noble friend agree that, following the cancellation of HS2 north, the main capacity problem is between Handsacre and Crewe and on services to Manchester and Liverpool? How many of the properties that were bought by the previous Government have now been sold? Have any of them remained in the Department for Transport’s ownership? Is there any chance that that will enable and accelerate the possibility of some new route coming into place on the Handsacre to Crewe line and relieving overcrowding?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. My understanding is that the number of properties sold is none. The capacity of the west coast main line north of Handsacre Junction is one of the many issues that we have inherited resulting from the decisions of the previous Government. The prioritisation of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill is recognition that east-west connectivity is immediately necessary for growth, jobs and housing. We will of course bear in mind the case that my noble friend makes for better connectivity north of Handsacre as we do the review.
Water Companies: Financial Resilience
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the financial resilience of England’s water companies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, Ofwat monitors the financial position of water companies, taking action when companies need to strengthen financial resilience. Ofwat has strengthened its powers to improve financial resilience, including requiring water companies to stop paying dividends where that is compromised and preventing customers funding executive bonuses where companies do not meet performance expectations. Our water Bill will put water companies under tough special measures by strengthening regulation, as a first legislative step towards improving the sector.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her post but let me illustrate the problems by referring to Thames Water. Its shares are worthless and its bonds are close to junk status, while 38% of its revenues service £18 billion of its debt. Based on the debt to asset ratio, Thames Water has a gearing of 80.6%; Ofwat’s target is 55%. The debt to equity ratio used by credit rating agencies gives it a gearing ratio of 1,000%. No amount of regulatory tinkering can change the fundamentals here. The Government need to create some certainty by nationalising it, so can the Minister tell us when that will happen, please?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his very warm welcome. However, the Government have no plans to nationalise Thames Water. It would cost billions of pounds and take years to unpick the current ownership model, during which time underinvestment in infrastructure and sewage pollution would only get worse. We want to improve the situation in the water industry that we find ourselves in as quickly as possible.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to the Front Bench, but does she accept that simply fining the water companies for not meeting their obligations just adds to the costs of the consumer? Until we do as we have done with health and safety, which is to make the directors personally liable, we will make no progress. Have the Government any plans to do this?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The water special measures Bill that we will bring in front of your Lordships shortly is going to deliver on our manifesto commitment. As well as strengthening regulation, it is designed to make sure that the water industry will be fundamentally changed and transformed. It will ensure that water company bosses are not rewarded with bonuses if a serious environmental breach is committed. It will strengthen and enhance the ability of regulators to bring robust charges against water companies and executives when they have committed offences, including through automatic and severe fines. It will also require that water companies install real-time monitors, so that we can actually see what is going on. I also reassure the noble Lord that this is just a start.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Ofwat website refers to an £88 billion programme of investment that will go into the infrastructure, and describes this as
“initially … funded by shareholders or through borrowing, with these costs then recovered”
from consumers over five years “and beyond”. Does the Minister have any concern as to whether that money will actually be raised, and does she share my concern about the financial resilience of consumers to pay for it over time?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Lord quite rightly says, Ofwat has set out a record £88 billion upgrade so that we can deliver the cleaner rivers and seas, and better services for customers, that we need. It is absolutely not right that the public should pay the price for years of mismanagement in the water sector. Any water bill rises are the result of these years of failure, but it is important that we do not put too much on to vulnerable customers, so officials are exploring options for improving affordability measures in the sector.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
At the moment we are working closely with the regulators, including Ofwat, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and can deliver what is needed in the sector.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I speak as a former non-executive director of Ofwat for a few months, and as a former non-executive director of the Environment Agency for a few years. Ofwat was always feeble. The Environment Agency has been rendered feeble by a cut in resources and asking the companies to report on their own homework. What is needed is a new and powerful single regulator for the water sector. Do the Government have plans, at least in the medium term, to move to that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we are working with Ofwat and the water companies to deliver change as quickly as possible. As I mentioned, the first thing we are doing is bringing in the water special measures Bill to try to change the culture within the water companies. We will work on another water Bill that will come forward, and I look forward to working with all noble Lords, including my noble friends, on what that could contain in order to make the biggest difference to the current situation.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Thames Water is in a precarious state due not only to its financial position but to the poor quality of drinking water and sewage treatment facilities. Are the Government taking action to ensure that those living in the Thames Water area will have access to adequate and safe drinking water now and into the future while they sort out the financial issues?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There is no way we would allow there not to be safe drinking water during the current financial situation. The drinking water directive works extremely hard to ensure that we have safe water in this country. Although Thames Water clearly has financial issues, that should not be affected.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I too welcome the noble Baroness to her new post; I am sure she will be superb. How many water companies are currently financially resilient?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome. I am sure she has seen the environmental performance assessment that came out today. It reports that most companies continue to underperform and there continue to be a lot of concerns in this area. On the specific question she asked, I will write to her with the proper information so I know I am accurate.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Baroness to her place. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, she was very clear that the Government did not intend to nationalise Thames Water. However, can she clarify whether she is ruling out, or admitting the possibility of, special administration, which is contained in the current arrangements and is a means by which the shareholders and the debt holders who lost money would be cleared out and the company cleaned up, so to speak, for onward sale on a more robust financial basis? Is that contemplated by the Government as a possible route?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Currently, the regulator is working with the company to look at the best way forward, and the company is looking for further investment.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, speaking as a Thames Water customer who is not very confident or happy, I was pleased to hear that I might at least have drinking water going forward. All water companies are using financial engineering to overstate their investment and capacity to pay dividends. They all capitalise part of their interest payments, which is, frankly, a highly imprudent policy and was a major reason for the collapse of Carillion. Are the Government content with that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There are clearly serious problems in the water industry that have been building up for a number of years. We are looking at all options and ways forward to improve the situation, and, clearly, modelling of how companies operate will be part of those discussions.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I join in congratulating the noble Baroness on her appointment. Picking up on the previous question, which is very much the point, is it not true that the shareholders of Thames Water and others have made extraordinary returns by financial engineering, well in excess of what one would expect to make from a utility, which should be low risk and low reward? In looking at the future structure, will the Government put in place measures to prevent the over-return to shareholders by means of financial engineering, and limit the upside so that utilities are run basically for their customers and not simply for the short-term gain of those who have them?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is an extremely good point, and very well made. The problem is that we should have had firm action from government to ensure that action was taken much earlier so that money was spent properly on fixing the system, rather than paying dividends and bonuses to company shareholders and not looking at how the company was being financially operated in a way that worked for both customers and the environment.
Tempest Global Combat Air Programme
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Tempest Global Combat Air Programme will be halted until the Strategic Defence Review is completed and its future decided.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
No, GCAP will not be halted, in answer to my noble friend. Progress continues. I met partners yesterday at Farnborough, as did the Prime Minister, emphasising its importance. The Defence Secretary met Ministers from Italy and Japan today to discuss developments, including economic growth and skills, and business will be taken through by SI in the next few days, subject to Parliament’s agreement, to implement the GCAP convention.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. Of course, I understand that the mechanism of this programme has to move ahead, not least for diplomatic and political reasons, but would he assure me that, in the context of the strategic defence review, nothing is off the table, apart from the fact that we maintain a nuclear deterrent? That was what was said, effectively—so everything will be looked at. There must be serious concerns about the operational requirement for this system, which is not clearly articulated. How many platforms will be required, finally, and how many aircraft? That is not articulated. The costs are pretty open, I have to say, and it really does need to be looked at.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his important Question. The strategic defence review is a root-and-branch review to look at the capabilities that our Armed Forces will need as they meet the threats of a changing world. It will look at defence in the round—and, of course, it will look at programmes across the whole of defence. Can I just pick up on one point from my noble friend? As he says, in the review we do emphasise the importance of the deterrent as well as support for Ukraine and AUKUS.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
With the global combat air programme, will due weight be accorded to the importance of breaking into the Japanese defence programme for the first time in any substantial way, with the associated financial and technological benefits that will bring and the linkages it will create in a crucial strategic area?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question and thank him in anticipation of the sorts of thoughtful comments that he will make and the help that he will give to me and others as we seek to defend our country in the best possible way. He makes a really important point on the GCAP. It is an important alliance between Japan, Italy and ourselves that gives us the opportunity to work with Japan and others—but in particular Japan—to develop that technological progress and partnership, which will be so important as we take this programme forward.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I declare my interests as in the register. Would the Minister agree that, recently, Japanese industry and its economy and the British economy have been getting on extremely well, with increased co-operation—much better than way back before the Brexit interruption? Would he agree that the sources of our biggest productivity increases of the past 50 years were when we were getting massive Japanese investment in the 1970s and 1980s? In the light of both those thoughts, does he accept that we must be very careful in continuing this progress and doing nothing impetuous that undermines the close co-operation that the Japanese want to have with us and are seeking in many other areas as well?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said in answer to the question from the noble and gallant Lord—and the noble Lord makes the point for himself—the relationship between ourselves and Japan is extremely important. The technological advantage that both the UK and Japan get from our close partnership is extremely important. As I said in answer to the original Question, progress continues on the GCAP with the other partner, Italy. A strategic defence review will look at all the various programmes, but progress continues.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his place. When he and I sat on adjacent Benches, we tended to agree. I always had the benefit of being able to piggyback on his comments before I asked my questions, so I very much hope that we will continue to agree across the Chamber. The only slight problem this afternoon is that, in answering the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, he took away all the questions I was going to ask about diplomatic relations with Italy and Japan by giving an answer that I think is welcome. On the review, we clearly need to think about diplomatic questions and questions about our defence industrial base. While the defence review is going on, what security are His Majesty’s Government giving to defence contractors that the work being undertaken on various programmes will continue? Clearly, not just our international partners but defence contractors will be concerned.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I very much hope that the noble Baroness and I can carry on working together. Without being pompous about it, all of us across this Chamber share an interest in the defence of our country and in freedom and democracy across Europe and the world. Working together is extremely important. On her question about the defence industry, she may have seen that yesterday the Prime Minister announced Skills England, which will work with the defence industry and defence companies to overcome one of the biggest hurdles this country faces: the skills shortage, which we have been trying to overcome for a number of years. Redoubling our efforts on that will make a huge difference—but that is just one example of how we intend to work with the industry.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, is there not a great risk that the sixth-generation jet fighter will be yet another white elephant, with escalating costs that will completely distort the defence budget—very similar to the aircraft carriers ordered by the noble Lord, Lord West?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course, the defence review will look at defence in the round, but it is really important that this country looks at what the next generation fighter should be. That is an important step. Looking back in history, the Typhoon was at one time a project on a research board and, before that, it was the Tornado. If memory serves me correctly, the Phantom was the fighter programme before that. Our industry and research programmes are the envy of the world. Of course these programmes need to come in on budget, make sense and meet the threats of the future, but looking at what the global combat aircraft of the future should be is an important part of any defence review.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister must have selected his words extremely carefully when he spoke at Farnborough yesterday, but the press coverage in this country as a result of the interpretation of what he said has been depressing, to say the least. What reaction have the Government had from Japanese and Italian partners to what the Prime Minister said yesterday?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I certainly know that everyone has been reassured by the Prime Minister and others saying that progress on these programmes will continue. The Global Combat Air Programme continues as we speak. As I said to my noble friend Lord West, the defence review will look at defence in the round, but we will not allow it to paralyse any work that is going on with respect to defence. We are looking at it all in the round, as the noble and gallant Lord would expect, so that we get value for money, deal with some of the problems we have had and get the capabilities we need to tackle the threats that we are going to face in future.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
Would the Minister advise us on what discussions are taking place to find additional money for the Tempest programme, as even the partnership with Japan and Italy will not be sufficient to finance a project of this scale and further finance will be needed?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me just say to the noble Lord that congratulations are due, to an extent, on the work of the previous Government. So far, £1.8 billion has been spent on GCAP and £600 million of that has come from private industry. That is quite a successful way of ensuring that government and industry can work together in the furtherance of the defence of our nation.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we resume the debate on the gracious Speech, I thought it would be helpful for the House to remind all Back-Bench speakers that the advisory speaking time for today’s debate is five minutes. That means that when the clock has reached four minutes, noble Lords should start making their concluding remarks, and at five minutes their time is up.
At a convenient point at around 6.30 pm tonight, the gracious Speech will be adjourned and my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, the Leader of the House, will repeat a Statement given by the Prime Minister on the recent NATO summit in Washington DC and the European Political Community meeting at Blenheim Palace. After the conclusion of the repeat of the Statement and Questions, the debate on the gracious Speech will resume.
King’s Speech
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Reid of Cardowan
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 Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships’ House I thank His Majesty the King for delivering the gracious Speech, and I am grateful for the privilege of opening today’s debate on the Motion for an humble Address. This is my first time at the Dispatch Box, and it is a great privilege to have been appointed to this House and to the office of His Majesty’s Attorney-General.
As this is my maiden speech before your Lordships’ House, I hope I can be forgiven for a few personal remarks before I turn to the substance. I begin with a thank you. I thank Black Rod and the staff of this House for their kind assistance and reassurance in guiding me through the process leading to today. I also thank my introducers, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. Being introduced to this House was always going to be a very special occasion, but it was truly enhanced by being introduced by two people I have so long admired and whose friendship I treasure. Sometimes when lawyers refer to their learned friends, they actually mean it.
Noble Lords will all no doubt recall giving their maiden speeches and the range of emotions it evokes. I certainly share a genuine and profound sense of impostor syndrome. I speak as a lawyer who spent 30 years at the Bar, but I am acutely conscious that this House already benefits from the learnings and insights of some of our great former judges, and from a raft of eminent lawyers on all Benches. I had thought that when some noble and learned Lords retired from the judiciary, I would never have to face their difficult questions again. I fear I spoke too soon.
As in law, so is this House blessed by the presence of expertise in science, medicine, business, the military, the arts and so many other sectors; different skills and experiences brought together in your Lordships’ House in public service. It is a true privilege to be asked to join you.
The one other reflection which many of your Lordships may also have felt when delivering their maiden speeches is the thought of dear family members who are no longer here to savour the moment. For me, I think of my late father. I mention my father not least to emphasise a point I wish to make about how I hope to conduct myself, not only as Attorney-General but in my time in this House more generally.
I have been a passionate supporter of the Labour Party since I was a young teenager, but although I shared my father’s respect for the law, it is fair to say that our politics were very different indeed. My father was a proud Conservative, who for many years served his party as a city councillor in Cardiff and as a county councillor in South Glamorgan, where I was born and bred. It is fair to say that we disagreed across a wide array of political topics, topics on which we both had sincere and passionately held beliefs.
Not only did we never fall out over politics, and not only did our difference of opinion never lessen one iota how much I loved and admired him, but our political discussions around the family table were conducted always with respect and often with humour. What is more, as I matured, I developed an inkling that, if I talked a little less and listened a little more, I might actually learn something. So it is with that life experience that I come to your Lordships’ House: of course to represent this Government and assist in the delivery of their agenda, but also to embrace the guiding principle that this forum is for not only mature and respectful debate but active listening.
I turn to today’s debate, which focuses on the constitution and devolution. It will give an opportunity to consider some of the themes of the gracious Speech. I will take the subject matter in three parts: first, this Government’s dedication to the rule of law; secondly, their electoral reform programme; and, thirdly, their commitment to devolution to local communities and the home nations. My noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley will close the debate, and we both look forward to hearing contributions from all parts of the House.
I will start with the importance of the rule of law, a topic that I anticipate is as close to many of your Lordships’ hearts as it is to mine. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have both made it clear that the promotion and protection of the rule of law will underpin our approach to legislation and policy. As we face the profoundly difficult choices and decisions that every Government must make, it is the rule of law that will serve as our lodestar. In recent years, events at home and abroad have served to remind us that, once you start pulling on a single thread of the fabric of our rule-of-law system, and when democratic norms are whittled away through attrition, the risk of systemic unravelling is great, and the concomitant task of retrenching standards we all once took for granted becomes very difficult indeed.
In addressing the threats to the rule of law and the measures necessary to promote it, we recognise the imperative of seeking to ensure a cross-party consensus on our shared fundamental values and how we protect them for future generations. The values that we seek to protect are not the property of any political party. They are not Labour values or Conservative values; they are British values—indeed, many are universal values. I will work alongside the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General to uphold the rule of law; to protect the independence of the judiciary; to promote the rule of law among the public, not least among the young; and, crucially, to rebuild trust in our political system by explaining how the rule of law applies to and serves us all.
I will inform your Lordships’ House of one small, symbolic step taken last week, when I was sworn in as Attorney-General before the Lady Chief Justice and made an oath, the terms of which can be traced back to the 16th century. Combining tradition and reform in that distinctly British way, I am pleased to say that, for the first time, our oath as law officers included not only the traditional commitments to serve His Majesty the King but an explicit promise to respect the rule of law. Just as we will promote the rule of law domestically, this Government—with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the vanguard—will seek to promote international law and the rule of law in the international legal order, cognisant of its importance to the prosperity and security of all global citizens.
This Chamber has a special role in the scrutiny of legislation. We will seek to promote the highest standards in how we legislate, seeking to increase the accessibility and certainty of law, including by guarding against the abuse of the proper role of secondary legislation. I know that I will be supported by many of my noble and learned friends in this aim, and I very much look forward to drawing on their wisdom.
I turn next to electoral reform. Our democracy is something to cherish and protect in an increasingly uncertain world. This Government will, by clamping down on improper donations to political parties, robustly defend our electoral system against interference from bad actors who seek to undermine it.
The Prime Minister has made clear his expectations for high ministerial standards and integrity. This Government want to restore the public’s faith and confidence in government through establishing a new independent ethics and integrity commission, with its own independent chair. This extends to Members of the House of Commons, who are rightly expected to abide by the highest standards. The Government have committed to establishing a new modernisation committee, which will work to drive up standards, and reform procedures and working practices.
The rules prohibiting the provision of paid parliamentary advice will also be strengthened in the guide to the rules, setting out in more detail what is required of Members in order to abide by the code. The arrangements for that committee are being carefully considered and will be set out in due course.
I turn to the reform of your Lordships’ House. When the noble Baroness the Leader of the House informed me that I would be addressing this topic in my very first speech, I confess to some traumatic flashbacks to my early days at the Bar when I was sent off to advance a recusal application before a particularly ferocious judge. I recall his withering looks at my temerity. As noble Lords know, His Majesty’s gracious Speech set out plans to introduce a Bill that will remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. The Government of course recognise the contribution made by hereditary Peers, who have worked so hard to scrutinise the Governments of the day and support the improvement in quality of legislation. Our commitment to reform of your Lordships’ House should not therefore be taken as diminishing our respect for the contribution that hereditary peers have made to public life. It is, rather, a reflection of our commitment to maintaining the vitality of our democratic institutions.
It is a feature of our British constitution—indeed, it may be thought to be one of the explanations for its stability—that changes to it are incremental and not revolutionary, and that it morphs with careful regard to our traditions and history. But it has never been static, and nor should it be. For democratic institutions to flourish, they must be capable of change, and must reflect changes in society and evolving constitutional demands. In that same spirit, our manifesto also set out a number of other commitments, including changes to the appointments process, on which we will engage with your Lordships’ House. This includes the introduction of a participation requirement and a mandatory retirement age of 80, as well as a longer-term commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. As our manifesto set out, we will consult on proposals, seeking not least the input of the public on how politics can best serve them.
Finally, I turn to devolution. The Government are committed to delivering on their manifesto pledges to all parts of the United Kingdom. As a proud Welshman, I recognise the rich tapestry of diversity that makes the home nations of the United Kingdom, and the need to present the things we do in Westminster in ways that will not only benefit but be seen to benefit those in other parts of the country. To this end, we will reset relations with the devolved Governments and foster greater collaboration, built on mutual respect and trust.
The English devolution Bill will devolve powers to local leaders to empower them to boost economic growth and their communities. New powers for mayoral combined authorities will allow local leaders to take control over the public transport systems in their area, employment support and strategic planning. Integrated settlements with financial flexibilities will also be available for those mayoral combined authorities with capacity, strong accountability structures and an exemplary track record for financial management. Mayors are critical to delivering economic growth and will be vital partners. All this will enable strengthened partnerships and close working relationships between central and local government.
Another area in which this Government are seeking to drive closer collaboration in their relationships is with other Governments in the union. To ensure that we are indeed a United Kingdom, it is crucial to resettle relationships and give greater importance to respect and collaboration, working together in the service of people across this country.
This Government will establish a new council of the nations and regions, which will bring together the Prime Minister, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, and the mayors of combined authorities, to work together on our shared challenges and opportunities to address the concerns of the people who we serve.
This Government have committed to ensuring that all the nations of the UK are reflected in their missions. That is why the Government will deliver energy security through establishing Great British Energy in Scotland, and will continue to work closely on issues of shared interest, such as trade and investment, to promote Scotland internationally.
Wales, I am delighted to say, will also be at the forefront of the UK’s national renewal. Our manifesto committed to working in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Welsh fiscal framework delivers value for money. In line with this Government’s commitment to devolve employment support in England, we will also devolve employment support funding to the Welsh Government.
I take my responsibilities as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland seriously and recognise, of course, the need for security, stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland as much as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as do this Government, as a guarantor of the Good Friday agreement. The Government will work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to see public services transformed and an improvement to the sustainability of public finance.
Over the coming months, as Attorney-General for England and Wales, and as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, and working closely with the future Advocate-General for Scotland, I am looking forward to meeting the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the Counsel General for Wales—whoever said devolution was complicated? Once we put the tongue-twisting aside, I am confident that we will be able to work together effectively and build on our shared objective of upholding the rule of law.
The measures in this gracious Speech put into action the Government’s commitment to the rule of law and to empowering communities across the United Kingdom.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. I am quite sure that, in his role as Attorney-General, he will continue to display the same skill and outstanding judgment that he has exhibited in his distinguished practice at the Bar by holding the Government to their constitutional obligations, ensuring that they adhere to the rule of law and that they respect the rights of all. I also hope that his Welsh background and heritage may bring some further diversity to the proceedings of this House, and I express the hope that his regular attendance at the Millennium Stadium will eventually be rewarded, at least against four of the Six Nations. I am pleased to be able to extend my welcome to the noble and learned Lord.
I will speak only briefly about the rule of law, because I harbour no doubts about this Government’s commitment to the rule of law—as with all Governments of this United Kingdom. I will speak shortly of devolution, which is often the triumph of hope over experience, and something that will work only if we devolve not only power but the means of exercising it. As we approach further devolution, we should bear in mind that there are some aspects of government in this country that do not actually wish to be a part of the governance of the United Kingdom. That has to be taken into account.
What I want to address is the Government’s proposal for the reform of this House. Our most immediate constitutional issue is not, as it was in 1911, the balance of power between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is the imbalance of power between Parliament and a mighty Executive. The present House of Lords has a significant role to play in that context, particularly when the Executive is in a position to exercise powerful control over the House of Commons by virtue of their party’s large majority in that House. The adoption of alleged interim measures—such as the proposed removal of 92 Peers from this House—fails to take account of the functioning of our constitutional system as a whole. Such a step is driven by short-term political considerations rather than long-term constitutional imperatives.
There is a very real risk that if this measure is taken then nothing else will happen, with the Executive, in the form of the Prime Minister, falling back on the oft-repeated preference for an appointed House of Lords, as indicated by the then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2003. What is required in the matter of constitutional reform is fully considered and robust proposals and the proper development of a process to give effect to them. In 2012 the then Labour leader suggested that such a process was required and indicated that it might require a referendum. I pause—perhaps not a referendum, but clearly any material change to this House requires proper consultation.
When there were calls for the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers in 2003, the Labour Ministers responded in the following terms:
“We cannot accept the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers on its own, but only as part of much wider measures of reform to create a democratic and accountable Second Chamber”.
So why the reversion to piecemeal tinkering rather than robust constitutional reform? The answer may lie in the document that is the genesis of the Labour manifesto on the constitution: the report that the present Prime Minister commissioned just over a year ago from the previous Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Paragraph 36 demands a second Chamber
“to safeguard the … constitutional basis”
of what is explicitly described as “New Britain”. For the benefit of noble Lords from Northern Ireland, when they read the report I think they are supposed to infer that Northern Ireland is part of “New Britain”.
Paragraph 39 makes clear that such a second Chamber can be legitimate only if elected. At page 135, the report refers to the 92 hereditary Peers as “representing the landowning classes”. I happen to know a considerable number of hereditary Peers, many of whom would be delighted to discover that they are members of the landowning classes. Unfortunately for them, such a circumstance never arose, or circumstances conspired against them. It might have been the depredations of Great Uncle Rupert at Monte Carlo or, more seriously, the impact of death duties after two world wars, but what if this statement was accurate? Is there any reason why the so-called landowning class should not have had a role in the making of law for their land?
To be fair to the authors of the report, they go on to observe that the House of Lords discharges “an important constitutional function”. They observe that:
“The work of its committees is … of a very high quality … because of the experience and expertise of their members”.
I quote what follows:
“We wish to record our gratitude to the … Labour Peers who consistently work to improve legislation”.
For the benefit of the authors of the report, and for those newly arrived on the Government Benches, I point out that many Peers on the Liberal Democrat Benches consistently work to improve legislation, as do many Peers on the Cross Benches. There are even some Conservative Peers who consistently work to improve legislation. Among them all are many hereditary Peers.
The very term “hereditary Peers” is now quite misleading. As Lord Steel pointed out when he published his own Bill in 2007, they are now “de facto life Peers”. Why, when the expressed intention is supposed to be the fundamental reform of the upper House, are de facto life Peers to be treated as the exceptional Members of this House? Are they the exceptional Members of this House? What of the Lords spiritual, our Lords of Parliament, once some of the great landowners of England?
The Lords spiritual were removed from this House in 1642 but returned following the Restoration in 1660. Even then their place was precarious, as exemplified by the trial of the seven bishops before the King’s Bench Division in June 1688, on charges of seditious libel because of the petition they presented to the sovereign. Why are they now secure? Today the diocese of Durham is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Scotland is not, despite article 21 of the treaty of union purporting to guarantee Scotland 16 seats. Today the diocese of York is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Northern Ireland is not—not since the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1871. Today the diocese of Winchester is guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords but Wales is not—not since the independence of the Church in Wales in 1920. How does this come about?
Upon appointment to the see of Durham, the bishop inherits a seat in this House from his or her predecessor, without any further requirement. Upon retirement, the seat in this House is automatically passed on to his or her successor, without any further requirement. You might contrast that with the position of the 92 Peers referred to in the Government’s Bill as “hereditary Peers”. They cannot inherit a seat from a predecessor in title and, when they leave, ambulant or otherwise, their successor in title does not inherit their seat.
The situation for the Lords spiritual appears more anomalous, and perhaps more in need of reform, than the situation for de facto life Peers, many of whom have occupied the highest offices of state and served as Ministers of the Crown. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether that was approbation or otherwise, but many have occupied the highest offices of state, served as Ministers of the Crown and generally contributed mightily to the work of this House.
If we are to set out a meaningful constitutional reform of the upper House, so be it, but there is no logic in piecemeal change. To chop away at one small branch of the constitutional oak that is the House of Lords is little more than political vandalism, apparently fuelled by a totally misconceived perception of what the landowning class of this country is. Constitutional reform of any magnitude should be logical and consistent. Piecemeal reform is liable to encourage an overmighty Executive to stop short of major reform when it suits their interests. This has happened in the past and we should not allow it to happen again.
What is presently proposed by this Government is not an exercise in democratic reform, no matter how it may be dressed up. It is what some could regard as a simple interference with the composition of the upper Chamber of Parliament. The Government will seek to secure the removal of 92 Peers from Parliament, and then what will it do? Engage in some democratic process? Let us not be naive. The Prime Minister will send us his chosen appointments. Should we then tolerate a so-called constitutional change that involves the removal of one cohort from this House and simply replaces it with another cohort of the Executive’s choosing? That is not democracy in action. That is simply a further incursion by a powerful Executive on the balance of power with Parliament.
If this Government have a genuine desire to address major constitutional change then so be it, but if they intend to flirt with politically inspired meddling then we should challenge it. Of course we are expected to accept that the Labour Government have further major reforms of the House of Lords coming; Labour’s further major reforms of the House of Lords are always “just coming”.
When the Liberal Government introduced what became the 1911 Act, they did so as a prelude to real reform. The statement was that
“it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords”
an elected Second Chamber. The Bill proposed in the King’s Speech is not even a step in that direction. It is a political cul-de-sac.
I conclude by expressly adopting the statement made by Labour Ministers in 2003:
“We cannot accept the removal of the remaining hereditary peers on its own, but only as part of much wider measures of reform”.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his new post and to the House. I was cheered by his speech, and by the broader issues not just of the rule of law but of the need for continuing political and constitutional change and greater democratic participation of which he spoke. I am disappointed that in the list of Bills we have for this Session there is so little, so far, that takes us further in that direction. As the Sessions move on in this Parliament, I hope that those promises will be fulfilled.
I was puzzled, to say the least, by the speech given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—13 minutes on reform the House of Lords. From time to time, I have pondered with friends how long it would be before the Conservative preference in office for executive dominance as the principle of the British constitution would switch back to Lord Hailsham’s insistence that it was a threat of “elective dictatorship” as soon as they were out of office. I think I began to hear that switch much more quickly than I expected.
This Government came in promising change, and that change must include constitutional change more broadly—not just about the nature of this Chamber. The strongest argument for urgent political reform is that public trust in Westminster politics has now sunk lower than ever previously recorded. Some 45% of respondents to this year’s NCSR survey say that they would “almost never” trust Governments of any party. In a political system constructed to institutionalise two parties, over 40% of those who voted in the general election chose neither of them. Labour won nearly two-thirds of seats on one-third of the votes cast. Taking into account the four in 10 people on the electoral register who did not vote, only 20% of those on the electoral register voted Labour, and only about 10% voted Conservative. Do not forget that, in addition, nearly 6 million—perhaps even 8 million—of British citizens are not even on the electoral register. There are a whole set of issues about the quality of our current democracy.
The gracious Speech declares:
“My Ministers will strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process”,
but there is nothing in the list of Bills that follows that through. The Prime Minister, in his introduction to the King’s Speech memorandum, declares:
“The fight for trust is the battle that defines our political era”.
We on these Benches agree, but only the Hillsborough Bill, imposing a duty of candour on civil servants, begins to tackle the widespread public disillusion with Westminster and Whitehall politics.
The gracious Speech promises that:
“Measures to modernise the constitution will be introduced”.
Well, let us see them. The only measure listed is to remove the hereditary Peers from the House, which my party proposed for the first time 113 years ago. Where are the measures to entrench the position of the constitutional guardians, from the Lords Appointments Commission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? The Government, as the Minister confirmed, will propose a modernisation committee for the House of Commons, but we need to know how long that will take to set up and that it will report, we hope, before the next general election.
We on these Benches remain committed to major reform of the UK’s second Chamber—unlike the Conservative Party, I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie—as we proposed in the coalition Government 12 years ago. I painfully remember, as I trust the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will, the two-day debate we had in this Chamber in which some, including him, argued that there was no way we could improve the current House and that further reform was completely unnecessary. However, Gordon Brown’s recent commission came up with similar proposals to those which the Liberal Democrats put forward. Removal of our elected hereditaries represents a small further reform, although there is room for negotiation on transitional arrangements, since we all agree that many of our current hereditary Peers provide valuable service to the House.
For those opposed to major reform, the most urgent problem the House faces, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, did not mention, is the gross imbalance between Conservative Peers and other parties. Constructive negotiations should begin with a Conservative Party offer of voluntary retirement for a significant number of its own Peers. Liberal Democrats support the principle of a retirement age—I declare an interest: I am even older than President Biden—and would consider a minimum age for appointment, which several other second Chambers include.
As to the gracious Speech’s promise to
“encourage wide participation in the democratic process”,
there is very little here to see. We need to move towards automatic voter registration to make the register fully inclusive. We need to restore the independence of the Electoral Commission, which was undermined by a government Act two years ago, and we should widen the franchise to include all those past their 16th birthday, to inculcate the habit of democratic participation into the rising generation as early as we can. Of course, we must face up to the gross distortions of our current voting system.
We need to look at the English devolution Bill to promote some means to regain trust through a more active democracy. Local democracy, after all, provides the bedrock for public participation: local councillors dealing with local problems. Successive Governments have wrecked local government in England over the past 30 years, and the last Government did more damage than their predecessors. Britain has far fewer local councils and far fewer elected councillors than any other advanced democracy. Pursuit of unitary councils and, now, combined authorities and directly elected mayors has left abandoned town halls all across the country. The current patchwork across England is a mess. We have mayors for combined authorities who do not represent recognisable communities, two-tier local government in London, unitary authorities in most but not all of the rest of the country, and metropolitan mayors being the only elected representatives from outside London whom the Government listen to. If we are to rebuild public trust and widen participation in our democracy, as the gracious Speech stated, then we have to revive local democracy. The Liberal Democrats will approach that Bill from the perspective of how we widen democracy across England and the whole of the UK.
Others on our Benches will speak about relations with the UK’s devolved national Governments. We on these Benches will be happy to engage with the Government on more ambitious plans for constitutional change, as well as, of course, on the future of reform for this Chamber, which should all be approached as far as possible on a cross-party basis.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble and learned Lord our Attorney-General on his very thought-provoking maiden speech, and I welcome him to this House on behalf of these Benches. I am also very much looking forward to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, whose distinguished career has had so many facets; I am very fortunate to be speaking in the debate where he will be making that speech.
As noble Lords know, we had a debate in my name in this Chamber in January on intergovernmental relations within the UK, pretty well on the second anniversary of the surfacing of the new system that emerged from the lengthy review process. Among the points I made was that one could see from the quarterly activity reports produced by DLUHC, now MHCLG, that Whitehall ministries seem to vary widely in the amount of engagement they undertake. I was therefore delighted to hear in the gracious Speech of the Government’s commitment to strengthening their work with the devolved Governments. Indeed, the further words from the Attorney-General just now heartened me additionally.
As I said in January, the output of the review was good but we were not using the structures and forums well enough, as can be seen from the quarterly reports I just referred to. I also pointed to Canada, which, following its 1995 referendum, when Quebec nearly voted “out”, has put in place a robust system of meetings and communications with its many devolved entities. I hope the Government will take a careful look at the Canadian model, which would also reward the proposed English devolution. I also asked in January whether DLUHC was really the natural home for co-ordinating this; it would seem to me to be the Cabinet Office, which would have greater ability and authority to encourage back-marker ministries to engage. Will MHCLG continue in this role?
I turn to reform of our House. The British constitution is a three-legged stool, with its legs of the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. Major change by the Executive to the legs of the stool needs to be undertaken with great care, especially if the net effect is to accrue more power to one or other of the legs. Taken together, the proposals to remove hereditaries and restrict the age of Members of this House would see around half the peers present at the start of this Parliament depart by the end of it—by any measure, a major change. The figure for the Cross Benches, with our slightly older average age, is closer to 60%.
In giving evidence to the Commons PACAC committee in May, I commented that there were “three unfairnesses” in the make-up of the membership of our House: the hereditaries, the bishops, and the unlimited and unfettered power the Prime Minister has to make appointments to this House. I continue to feel that the greatest unfairness is this last one, which is both very powerful and vested in one person. The changes proposed in the Government’s manifesto would add power to the Prime Minister, so that an already very large power without precedent in any other liberal democracy would be increased. History shows that vesting great power in one person can cause problems, and however comfortable we might feel about our freshly elected Government today, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs going forward for a major liberal democracy.
In 2017, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee produced a very measured report about the size of the House and, by implication, some sort of conventional cap on the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. We in this Chamber unanimously agreed this outstanding contribution to the thinking about these difficult issues. Many of those who were a part of that unanimous agreement are on the Front Benches of the major groupings present today. I look forward to hearing later on from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who I am sure will pick up that theme.
As we seek to navigate the difficult waters and balance constitutional security, the proper relationship between Parliament and the Executive and the words of the Government’s manifesto, all these factors will need to play a part and be taken account of.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, it is an honour to respond to the gracious Speech. I, along with others on these Benches, welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, and thank him for a really moving maiden speech—not least his desire that we listen to and respect one another and work consensually.
Like others, I want to focus on one thing, which is rebuilding trust in democracy itself. The turnout on 4 July was shockingly low. Research also shows a 13% gap in turnout between constituencies with the highest and lowest proportions of home ownership. Furthermore, an estimated 400,000 people were turned away at the polling station because they did not have the right ID. These are alarming statistics, and I look forward to the changes outlined in the Government’s manifesto that could start to address them, including reducing the voting age to 16.
It is the link to poverty that causes me the gravest concern. It shows that a large proportion of our population do not feel they have a stake in our national life, nor much of a future to look forward to, and therefore for them, voting just is not worth it. There are measures on poverty in the King’s Speech that I welcome, particularly the children’s well-being Bill and the plans for free breakfast clubs, but I must take this opportunity to join others in calling for the removal of the two-child limit to universal credit, because it is the biggest driver of rising child poverty and has a big impact on trust in our democracy.
I have often spoken about the power of devolution, not just to shift power away from the centre. Devolution shifts perspective, enables consensual politics to thrive and enables us to take a longer view. The recently established York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, where I live and serve, is already starting to demonstrate the difference this can make for rural as well as urban communities. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the establishment of a council of the nations and regions. Moreover, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we on these Benches also welcome the extension of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015.
The tone of the Government’s manifesto and what we heard from the noble and learned Lord today speaks about governance as service. This is so important for building trust in our democracy. No one meant it to happen, but there has been an erosion of respect for the rule of law, convention and the weighty responsibility to tell the truth. However, the nature of our uncodified constitution is that it relies as much on conventions that are derived from tradition as anything else. Therefore, it is up to us to respect each other, listen to each other, build consensus and work together. I want to take a lead from the noble and learned Lord and say that we can be part of this in the way we conduct our business in this House.
Yes, there are legitimate questions about the House itself. First, we are a scrutinising Chamber, offering wisdom and a balance of power. It is for this incoming Government and the Ministers appointed to this House to ensure that this role is properly understood. Secondly, we ought better to represent the breadth of the nation we serve: 24% of our membership have links to London and 22% to the south-east, but only 3% to the north-east. Thirdly—I do not know what we do about this, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will tell us in a moment—there are just too many of us, and that is not good for us. Fourthly, while we on these Benches value our particular role as Lords Spiritual, we think that other faith communities could be better represented as well. We believe that there needs to be a wide debate about the reform of this House, and we are confident that when this happens, the place of faith in public life will be seen to matter. We look forward very much to working with other Members across this House in addressing these issues.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to something it would be so easy to take for granted and that shows the underlying strength of our democracy, which needs to be rebuilt and renewed: the respectful and peaceful transition of power from one Government to another that we witnessed a couple of weeks ago. For me, that is a great sign of hope for what we can be at our best, working together for the common good.
Lord Alli (Lab)
My Lords, I first welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to this place. I want to say how pleased I am that he has joined the Government and I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for 26 years; I know I do not look as if I have, but I have. Twelve of those years have been on the Government Benches and 14 on the Opposition Benches, and I can say without hesitation which I prefer. It is a privilege to return to this side of the House, and it would be remiss of me not to thank the party opposite for all its help in making that possible.
On a more serious note, I want to take a moment to reflect on the many colleagues who are not here today and who would have loved to have witnessed that journey. I am thinking of them all, in particular my noble friend Baroness McDonagh, who I know would have been by my side today.
I have chosen to speak in the constitutional debate because, over the last decade, we have seen an undermining of the fundamental principles that decency and fair play should underpin our elections. At the last election, voter turnout was low—low because voters were fatigued by politicians but also because you do not win elections by maximising voter turnout; you win elections by making sure your votes are distributed in the right seats.
However, in 2014 the Conservative Party started down a road that systematically disenfranchised many voters they believed would not support them. First, there were individual electoral registration forms, where each voter had to register individually rather than relying on the old household forms, thus disenfranchising many young people and ethnic minorities. Then came voter ID, again disproportionately affecting the poor, the disabled and the ethnic minorities. Then there was a type of voter ID that was acceptable—yes to blue badges and older persons’ bus passes but no to student ID cards—and, more recently, sabre-rattling around the widespread use of postal votes.
Democracy requires participation. Depressing participation should not be used as a political strategy. The only winners of that are extremists. So, I welcome the Government’s commitment to modernising the constitution, beyond the reform of this House, to strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process.
I ask my noble friends on the Front Bench in this place and my honourable friends on the Front Bench in the other place: in addition to extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, will they look at two other measures? The first, I suspect, given the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, would be easy, and that is automatic enrolment. There can be very few arguments against it. The second could perhaps be a bit more difficult, and that is mandatory voting. This is not a revolutionary idea. Indeed, some form of mandatory voting exists in over 22 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Singapore and Uruguay. What do we see in those countries? We see increased voter turnout and reduced influence of money in politics.
We do not have to sit back and watch extremism rise in our society—extremism built on the back of fewer people participating in our elections. We can do something about it. I am reminded of that quote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing”. We can do something. This is our opportunity to act, and I hope the Government will do so.
I wish the Government all the best on what is an ambitious King’s Speech. It has been far too long acoming for me, but it is here now. Let us not waste the opportunity to implement change.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I echo my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie in welcoming and congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on his excellent maiden speech. I know we will hear from him a great deal in future, and I for one look forward to that.
On 11 July, the Lord Speaker wrote to all of us and sent us an email in which he said:
“We will, as always, continue our detailed scrutiny of legislation and debate the key issues of the day, while maintaining the respectful and thoughtful tone that characterises the work of this House”.
Those were good and noble sentiments from the Lord Speaker, yet within days the Government were planning a consultation to remove Peers over 80 and fling out Peers such as the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull; the deputy Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Howe; several shadow Ministers; the Deputy Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Courtown; and many former Ministers who have served in Governments and served the nation over many years—I should perhaps declare an interest. A respectful and thoughtful tone? I think not, even though the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General did his best to sugarcoat the pill.
Why are the Government proposing this? Some say it is because the House is too big, and there was an echo of that from the most reverend Primate who just spoke, but a reduction from 800 Peers to 710 is hardly going to have them cheering in the streets of Islington. Furthermore, the numbers in the House are not an obvious problem. In the last Session of Parliament, over 450 Peers voted on 16 occasions, nearly all of which were on the Rwanda Bill. That does not sound to me like an overcrowded House.
There are also many better ways of reducing the numbers if you really want to: by age, by failure to attend or by electing those to remain in party groups. It is all quite simple, really, and it has been done before. History tells us that Labour Governments have managed to get their business through quite easily within the existing conventions and normal practices that have governed our House’s behaviour since 1945. Just look at Attlee’s radical agenda in the late 1940s, Wilson and Callaghan in the 1960s and 1970s and Blair and Brown this century.
I am told that, for Labour, this is all unfinished business. It is unfinished business, but not in the way that Labour now means. The Government’s predecessors struck an important and worthy agreement, negotiated by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to let the former hereditaries remain in the House until a proper stage two reform was enacted. So I ask: is this really it? It is thin gruel indeed and not much to show for 25 years of thought or, more properly, lack of ambition.
Labour’s manifesto is more ambitious—age limits, tougher scrutiny through the appointments process and attendance or participation hurdles—but, as soon as Labour is in government, all that is conveniently put to one side. As for elections or even indirect elections, there is not a glimmer.
In 2012, another place voted overwhelmingly in favour of a genuinely democratic House of Lords Reform Bill that included an 80:20 split of elected Members. The Bill foundered for lack of agreement on a timetable Motion. Perhaps we should ask this House of Commons whether they have become more flexible.
The hereditary peerage was abolished in 1999. As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie said, no right of succession has existed since then. I accept that heredity is a qualification for the excellent by-elections, but even I can see that the intention is that they will not remain for long.
So I ask the Minister: why on earth are the Government continuing some strange vendetta against a small group of Peers who are generally younger, more regular attenders and better participators in the House than the average, yet the Government are still unable to tell us their long-term vision for the House? We should not accept more bungled piecemeal reform until we have the certainty of proper reform that has been promised for so long.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the change the election ushered in, which we Liberal Democrats are particularly proud to have been part of. I wish the Government well in restarting the economy, rebooting our public services and providing calmness and stability after the dysfunctional chaos of the last few years.
In Scotland, we saw a serious reset of the obsessive nationalism that we have endured. I am delighted at the increase in Liberal Democrat seats to six—more than the Conservatives’—and the recovery by Angus MacDonald of my friend Charles Kennedy’s old seat. Gordon and Buchan, on slightly redrawn boundaries from my former seat, saw an increase in the Liberal Democrat vote in spite of a vicious squeeze by the SNP and the Conservatives. Indeed, the vote went up in Aberdeenshire, Moray and Inverness seats, which is a pointer to the new dynamics for the Scottish Parliament elections in less than two years. Then, I believe, Scottish voters will seek to continue the rout of the SNP after their disastrous tenure in government and there will be no appetite to bring the Conservatives into government in Scotland. Liberal Democrats will be there to offer a positive programme for government and, unlike those two, we might have some chance of implementing it.
In Scotland and across the UK, there is an appetite for change and reform. I am disappointed to say that Labour do not seem to be inspired for delivering that. I would like to see the devolution settlement clarified and entrenched. The lack of a constitution makes that difficult but not impossible. We do not need an endless debate about powers: just a clear rulebook and a proper partnership, with a clear dispute resolution mechanism when the need arises. The circumstances for another independence referendum surely need to be laid out in terms of what might trigger it, what the question might be and whether there is a case for a supermajority. I do not believe that we can define these things by a simple majority vote.
The electoral system for local government and the Scottish elections is devolved and there is a strong case for review. The current system for electing the Scottish Parliament is not very proportionate and creates two classes of MSPs: constituency and list. Scottish voters are familiar with the single transferable vote in local government. It would be consistent to adopt that system for the Scottish Parliament and create a much better connection with the voters.
Reform of the UK constitution is surely also overdue. Many commentators have said that our political system is broken, but neither of the two old parties shows any inclination to mend that broken system in real, fundamental ways. For example, much is made of the misalignment of votes and seats for the parties in the election, but what is much worse is that 70% of those who voted did not elect anybody, having cast their votes for candidates who lost. This is a fundamental disconnect between voters and MPs—a travesty of democracy, with most votes wasted. People used to say that a Liberal Democrat vote was wasted. It certainly was not wasted in this past election, but nearly everybody’s vote was because they failed to elect anybody. Our democracy is positively Neanderthal. I suggest that the argument that first past the post provides stable government has been very much disproved by the last 10 or 15 years, when it has produced anything but. It has been delivered only by denying people an effective voting system.
The final constitutional issue, which has hung over us for so many years, is our relations with Europe. Brexit has been a disaster, driven by people who never expected to win but hoped they would pick up votes by stirring up resentment. There is no shortcut back, as the nationalist pretension to the contrary is a deception. Nevertheless, geographically, politically, economically and culturally, our ties are closest to Europe, so we need to re-engage. We should accept the offer of limited freedom of movement for under-35s. We should rejoin Erasmus, align veterinary and food rules and more, but the EU may not offer any or all of that without some form of engagement. That is why the Liberal Democrats recognise that, in the long run, over a Parliament, we should be prepared to rejoin the single market to secure the benefits we previously had and which young people are desperate to recover.
The Conservatives have just learned the vagaries of first past the post in Scotland. Labour has benefited this time but could lose out in future. We need a radical rethink, such as New Zealand underwent a generation ago. This is a mission which we Liberal Democrats are prepared to take forward. If others will not fix the system, we will.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too welcome the new Attorney-General to his place in this House and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I wish him and all members of the new Government well as they face the great challenges nationally and internationally. I hope that our contributions in this House will help the Government in their consideration of these important matters.
I welcome the fact that, at the outset of his tenure, the new Prime Minister visited each of the countries of the United Kingdom—that was an important signal—and met the leaders of the devolved Administrations. I hope the Government will carry through on their commitment to a different and better working relationship with the devolved Governments. I look forward to hearing the details of the proposed new council of nations and regions that has been suggested—it is similar to the new east-west council proposed in the Safeguarding the Union document by the previous Government. It will be interesting to know how those two bodies will interact and relate to each other.
On donations to political parties, the Government are right to consider strengthening the rules on foreign donations. I urge them to look particularly at the anomaly in Northern Ireland where one political party—namely, Sinn Féin—is able to benefit by a considerable amount of donations from abroad, which has an impact on the electoral politics of Northern Ireland. That anomaly and loophole must be closed.
The Government talked about strengthening the Sewel convention. In the last Parliament, your Lordships highlighted a discrepancy in many debates: lip service is paid to the necessity of devolved government and cross-party agreement in Northern Ireland, yet, even when that existed, the Government ran roughshod over the views of elected representatives and people. I think particularly of abortion laws in Northern Ireland, where, again, the views of the elected representatives of the people and the people themselves were set aside, with this Parliament deciding to legislate in place of the devolved Government.
We have also seen that in relation to the issue of legacy. Despite there being considerable disagreement across the board in Northern Ireland, across all parties and communities, the previous Government decided to continue to legislate for a conditional immunity scheme for those guilty of the most heinous terrorist crimes. It was, in effect, a conditional amnesty—a shameful stain on the record of the previous Government and something we all opposed. I look forward to hearing what this new Government will do on that matter. There should be no question of Northern Ireland uniquely being expected to tolerate an amnesty for terrorist crimes when other parts of the United Kingdom are not in that position. Indeed, it is unacceptable wherever it is proposed.
We need to put the victims first and listen to them. I am not interested in those who are hypocritical in these matters. They are the victim creators: they made victims in Northern Ireland and yet bleat about human rights, respect and equality. I am interested in the voices of the real victims. In talks with the Irish Republic’s Government, as a neighbour of the United Kingdom, I would like the Government to raise the Irish Government’s approach to legacy issues as well, because there has been a shameful failure on their part to co-operate and bring justice to victims in the Irish Republic.
In February 2024, the courts in Northern Ireland ruled that major parts of the legacy legislation were not only incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights but had to be disapplied because they conflicted with EU law under the Windsor Framework/ protocol—a UK Act of Parliament struck down by EU law, still in the United Kingdom after Brexit.
In the 21st century, part of this United Kingdom, in 300 areas of law, has its laws imposed on it by a foreign political entity in which no representative of Northern Ireland here at Westminster or in the Assembly has any say. It cannot propose, develop, pass or amend such legislation. This covers vast swathes of our economy and, as we have seen with the legacy issue and on immigration law, areas much wider than just the economy. That colonial status in those areas for Northern Ireland is a travesty of democracy; it is a constitutional obscenity. I urge the Government to grapple with this issue. Some people may wish to sweep it under the carpet, but it is our job as democrats in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom to highlight this disfranchisement, and we must rectify it as soon as possible.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I will concentrate on two proposals in the Labour manifesto and the King’s Speech: the membership of the Lords and the proposed retirement on age grounds of Members.
Since the passing of the original 1999 Act, there has been no progress whatever in reducing the size of this House, and the result is that we now have a membership that will soon exceed 800. The original proposal of the Blair Government was to exclude all hereditary Peers, but that became subject to 92 hereditaries continuing, the result of a deal between the Government and the Conservative Leader of the Lords. It was a secret deal that just happened to exclude the actual leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague—now the noble Lord, Lord Hague. He showed his immediate view and enthusiasm for the proposal by sacking Lord Cranborne absolutely.
I do not dispute that there are excellent hereditary Peers in this House who give a great deal to public service and to this House—
Lord Fowler (CB)
Yes—we have known each other too long for me to be really rude to the noble Lord.
I hope that there may be an opportunity for those hereditary Peers who have given service to be appointed life Peers. It is not a question of personalities; it is a question of whether appointment of the House based on heredity is the right solution for the 21st century, and I do not believe that it is.
On Lords reform, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was critical on the basis that we were for ever hearing that Labour reforms were “just coming”. That may be right, but it is certainly better than Conservative reforms, which never come. I fear that has been the history over the past 30 years.
The second proposal is to fix a retirement age of 80. Personally, at the age of 86 going on 87, I imagine that I am in the direct firing line. I could say that my support was because this measure was a manifesto pledge of the Labour Party, but it goes deeper than that. The issue of there being too many Peers in this House is long standing, yet the last Government regretfully did absolutely nothing. People such as me warned them that, if they brought forward no measures of reform themselves, others would do so, and they have. In the light of that indecision, in 2016, as Lord Speaker, I set up an all-party committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who is here today, to consider the size of the House. Had the then Government accepted those proposals, we would be down to membership in the Lords of something just above 600, rather than the 800 that we have now—and there would be no ban on hereditaries and no reduction on grounds of age. That is what we threw away.
When the proposals were debated in the Chamber, there was widespread agreement but no notice was taken. If, as the Burns committee said seven years ago, reform is a matter of urgency, the new Government are entitled to introduce measures which catch up with the intervening period.
The real question is whether what is proposed is enough. I do not advocate measures to create an elected House, if for no other reason than that it would effectively gum up the work of the House altogether. However, other measures can be taken that do not all require legislation. First, the Government must state their aim in reducing numbers. We set out 600; what is their aim? Secondly, we should not just concentrate on existing Members but stem the flow of new Members, which means a permanent cap on the size of the Lords, restricting the discretion of any Prime Minister and setting a limit on the number of new Peers who can be appointed each year, otherwise we just leave the tap on full. Lastly, we should take measures to exclude those Peers who by any measure play no part in the life of the Lords. We should also look at the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that new appointments should be for a limit of 15 or perhaps 20 years.
In bringing forward the proposals, this Government have an almost unprecedented opportunity for reform. I hope they take it. Above all, we do not want another Bill on the House of Lords which leaves obvious gaps that will take another 30 years to put right.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer on his brilliant maiden speech. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on appointing him as Attorney-General. He will be a major voice for the rule of law. He has spent 30 years at the Bar and is absolutely honed in independence. His appointment could not be a clearer signal that this Government are committed to the rule of law. I very much welcome his appointment and his joining our House; for many years—subject to any reform—he will be with us to help our counsels.
I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that there are no risks to the rule of law under this Government. I also welcome him to the Front Bench in this debate. Especial attention should be paid to him because he is the only law officer in 150 years ever to have resigned on a point of principle. One should be very careful not to be persuaded by the quality of his advocacy, but one should listen to him on moral issues because he is a very worthwhile person. I welcome both noble and learned Lords.
The Bills affecting the constitution in this King’s Speech are very well judged. This is not a King’s Speech for massive reform, and rightly so. It is one to consolidate the basic principles of our constitution. I strongly welcome the electoral reform Bill to try to improve inclusion and the Hillsborough Bill that imposes a duty of candour on civil servants, which is incredibly important, particularly to victims of injustice, such as the Hillsborough victims. I also strongly welcome the repeal of the safety of Rwanda Act and the Northern Ireland legacy Act. I join the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in saying that the latter was an outrage to the rule of law. One of the first things that should be done is to repeal it.
I will mention just two particular points in relation to the King’s Speech. The first is on Lords reform. I, like everybody else, greatly admire the contribution made by hereditary Peers, but this King’s Speech promises two things: more women bishops and no hereditary Peers. Broadly, that is a sensible proposal for incremental change. The idea that we should engage in massive Lords reform at this particular moment in our history is a bad idea.
Secondly, I strongly underline the commitment to the rule of law, demonstrated by the repeal of those two outrages to the rule of law, the Rwanda Act and the Irish legacy crimes Act. It is also very important that, in what goes forward in the next five years, the Government demonstrate their support of the judges. The judges came into play politically in the post-Brexit period. “Enemies of the People” was not just a casual headline by the Daily Mail; it represented a view that the judges were too much part of an elite. It is incumbent on the Government, unlike the previous Government, to be absolutely clear that they support the independence of the judges and will allow and brook no criticism of them.
That would be assisted if the Ministerial Code made it clear that the Lord Chancellor’s role is to defend the independence of the judiciary, that when she is defending the independence of the judiciary she is not bound by collective responsibility and that when she asks Ministers to behave in a particular way, the Ministerial Code requires them to respond to what she says.
The second point is that I strongly welcome what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said about skeleton legislation. This House, and in particular the much-missed noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made it clear that we had moved away from the correct relationship between the Executive on the one hand and the legislature on the other. We in Parliament should be making the big political decisions, not a body, a Minister or a committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, said that he would respect that, and that is an incredibly important pointer to the future. I strongly welcome the changes in this Speech.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Government on their victory at the general election—although I hope it will not be thought churlish of me if I say that, as in 2019, the Government’s victory had as much to do with the electorate’s distaste for its immediate predecessors as for its own merits. I also strongly welcome the speech made by the noble and learned Lord the new Attorney-General. It was a very constructive speech and I hope very much that our exchanges will always be constructive.
Like so many of your Lordships, I want to address the question of the composition of the House of Lords. I myself have always favoured an elected Chamber, but my intention today is to focus on some of the major areas of current concern. First, I make a declaration of interest: I will be 80 next year. I have stood in two hereditary by-elections unsuccessfully. My wife has been a Member of this House for almost 30 years and, inevitably, any change will impact on us both.
There is, of course, a widespread belief that the House is too large. There are, in fact, 818 Peers, including those on the episcopal Bench. I do not wholly agree with that view. It is certainly uncomfortable, but a large House has the advantage of providing a wide and deep pool of expertise on which to draw. We have to remember, too, that many of your Lordships who make the most constructive contributions to debates are either over 80 or have served in this House for a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is 86. I am going to be succeeded in this debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is 86, and I was preceded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who came into this House in 1997. So we should be very careful not to deprive the House of serious legislators.
That said, I do think that the Government are bound to introduce some form of change, but I hope that it will be preceded by careful consultation—and in the context of that consultation I will make a few brief suggestions. First, on the creation of life Peers, I suggest that no life peerage should be created for more than 15 years. Secondly, on mandatory retirement, I do not think that getting rid of hereditary Peers addresses the problem in a very satisfactory way. I believe that the Government will come forward with proposals for mandatory retirement, but we need to keep in mind that 178 life Peers are over 80 years of age and 206 life Peers have served more than 20 years. So we are at serious risk of depriving this House of quality. Any change should be evolutionary and, in my view, should be introduced either at the conclusion of this Parliament or during this Parliament incrementally, or both.
I will make two further comments. On the hereditary peerage. I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen said. However, I do not think that hereditary Peers should sit in the House beyond the conclusion of this Parliament. I would not make a differential between them and other Peers during the lifetime of this Parliament, save this: I would abolish the by-elections. I have come to those general conclusions because I admire the contributions that hereditary Peers have made. Also, what is the difference, in principle, in a democratic society between unaccountable appointments —for example, by the Prime Minister—and an election from a hereditary pool? I suggest that they are not very different.
Finally, and notwithstanding the distinguished speech from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, I do think there is scope for reducing the size of the episcopal Bench. There are now 26 bishops capable of sitting on the episcopal Bench. Why not reduce them to five: the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London? That would be quite sufficient.
So I suggest pausing and further reflection—and I hope that, as a result of such reflection and indeed consultation, we might have serious proposals for an elected second Chamber or, at the very least, for the appointment and limitation of life Peers.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I join with many others in welcoming most warmly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his place on the Front Bench as Attorney-General. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, on his appointment to the Front Bench. The appointment of someone with the learning and experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, as a Law Lord in this House, demonstrated so ably by his excellent maiden speech, is especially welcome—I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on this point. It brings to life exactly what the Constitution Committee recommended in a report last year. It is so good to have an Attorney-General back with us again in this House.
I shall make one or two points on House of Lords reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke briefly about this at the start of her speech last Thursday. Like her, I welcome the Government’s manifesto commitment to a smaller House and to those who are appointed to come here being selected because of their ability and their commitment to making a real contribution to our work. However, like her, I wonder whether introducing a hard-edged, mandatory retirement age of 80 is the right approach. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I am in the firing line of that proposal as I am 68—I mean 86.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I wish I was; I feel exactly the same as I did when I was 68, but there we are.
The grand old age of 80 may seem like a far-off dream to those in their mid-40s and the passing of years does have its effect—but it does not affect everyone in the same way. The situation of one group to which I belong—former senior judges—is worth looking at as an example of what a hard edge would do. Serving judges are disqualified from sitting and voting in this House for as long as they continue to serve as judges, and their statutory retirement age is 75. Of course, not all of them continue to that age, but some do, such as myself and the late and much-admired Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Like me, he was already 75 when he came back here after leaving the Supreme Court, and many of his finest contributions to the work of this House were made when he was well over 80.
The same is true of the late Lord Judge, who was at the height of his remarkable powers when he reached that age, and we can be sure that he would still be contributing just as well today, had he not been taken from us by the sad illness that led to his death. It may be thought that to cut off members of this group after only five years, when they are only just getting their feet under the table, would deprive us of something of value. It would not fit with our special role as a revising House.
Joining the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I suggest that the better approach is to concentrate on non-attendance as a reason for disqualification. There is a weakness in our participation arrangements that needs to be examined and corrected. We are a part-time House but I wonder whether those who come hardly at all, of whom there are too many, should be accorded the same privilege to sit and vote here as the rest of us who come so often.
Turning to devolution, I welcome the Government’s commitment in the gracious Speech to strengthen their work with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The changes that the general election has brought about in Scotland are profound. I urge the Government to take full advantage of this. There is an urgent need to repair relationships that were so damaged by the attitude of both sides to the independence issue in recent years. It seemed to affect every decision taken by the Scottish Government in their campaign to advance their progression to independence. This, in turn, led to a tight-fisted attitude, understandably so, on the part of the UK Government. Thus, decisions on their part would be used as part of the drive for independence by the SNP. I hope that from now on, in view of these changed circumstances, respect and co-operation will be at the heart of their relationship.
I suggest that the Government look again at recommendations in the report of the Smith commission published in 2015. Two unresolved points deserve attention: further borrowing powers to support capital investment; and the Sewel convention, to which the last Government far too often were unwilling to give effect. If trust is to be maintained, it is essential that the convention be respected at all times by all sides. The commission recommended that the Sewel convention be put on a statutory footing, but the amendment made to Section 28 of the Scotland Act was so worded as to give away as little as possible. It was recognised by the Supreme Court to mean no more than that it remains a convention. I do not think that was what was intended. This needs to be corrected by a change of wording. If that is going too far, it is essential in the meantime that full weight be given in all circumstances to the Sewel convention right across the United Kingdom.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I shall focus on Lords reform. I congratulate the Government on avoiding the temptation to embark on wholesale reform of the Lords and instead approaching the issue on the basis of incremental change. I also congratulate the Labour Government on completing the promise of the 1997 Labour Government, who said that they would remove the hereditary principle as a qualification for membership of the legislature.
Section 1 of the 1999 Act states:
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”.
During the passage of the Act, as many in this House know and as described well recently by the Marquess of Salisbury, the Lords threatened to disrupt the Labour Government’s whole legislative programme and forced them to retain 90 hereditary Peers, together with an undertaking that any vacancies would be filled by by-elections in which only hereditary Peers could stand, and in which, for the most part, only hereditary Peers could vote. As it has turned out, all 92 are men.
I have tried in vain over eight years, and with four identical Private Member’s Bills, to scrap this ridiculous procedure. All my efforts, despite having the support of the overwhelming majority of the House, were in vain. The Bills were filibustered by half a dozen Peers and blocked by the Tory Government. Had I been listened to back in 2016, there would now be 27 fewer hereditary Peers, and the whole issue would have been well on the way to being resolved.
I understand, of course, the upset that many will feel, in all parts of the House, about 90 colleagues facing the prospect of ending their membership of Parliament. I certainly understand it; it happened to me. In my case it was at 3 am, announced by the returning officer and received in some parts of the hall with great rejoicing. But times change in any parliamentary system, and membership of Parliament carries no guarantee of permanence, as the 250-odd Members who lost their seats three weeks ago will testify.
When the Bill comes to the Lords, I hope we will recognise the context in which it will be presented. First, the Government have a clear and specific manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. Secondly, that manifesto commitment was contained in the King’s Speech as a first Session legislative promise. Thirdly, when it comes to us, it will have been passed by the Commons with a parliamentary majority probably in excess of 200. No Bill could come to this House with greater weight and authority behind it.
We of course have a constitutional duty to scrutinise the Bill, but we also have a constitutional and democratic duty to ensure that this Labour Government, with their commitment on hereditary Peers, are not subject to the same treatment by the Lords as their predecessors were in 1999.
I make one final plea on this subject to the usual channels. The House may not have noticed that, in a quirk of fate and timing, in the same week that the King’s Speech announced the planned ending of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote here, it has become apparent, would you believe, that two more by-elections are pending. Our Standing Orders require that these by-elections, one Conservative and the other Cross Bench, must take place within three months. The electorate for the Conservatives consists of 46 hereditary Peers, all men, and for the Cross Benches it is 33, also all men.
I appeal to the Front Benches: surely it would be pure farce to allow these by-elections to take place at the same time that a Bill was passing through Parliament that would scrap them once and for all. To go ahead would be a gift to critics of this House, as well as providing a spectacle whereby someone was introduced as a new Peer, only to be removed in a matter of weeks.
There is a simple solution, which is to suspend the Standing Order that governs these by-elections, and there is a recent precedent when the then Leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on 23 March 2020 successfully moved a Motion to do just that. I appeal to the usual channels to spare the House and any potential candidate the risible prospect of these by-elections going ahead by proposing the appropriate Motion before the Summer Recess.
In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the Government’s approach to Lords reform, which avoids the black hole of a grandiose comprehensive reform—which all precedents tell us would end in time-consuming failure. I hope that during the course of this Parliament, there will be further incremental reform to deal with the size of the House. I particularly welcome the Bill on the hereditaries; I often wondered whether it would ever happen in my lifetime. It will now take place as an early Act of the current Labour Government, and in so doing complete after 25 years the work of the previous one.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate on the humble Address, and I congratulate the Government on their success in the election. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his maiden speech. I know that his vast experience, knowledge and expertise will prove of great benefit to the workings of this House.
I am pleased to acknowledge the commitment by the Government to repeal the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. My noble friend Lord Dodds has already outlined this, but I trust that when the Government arrive at a more suitable plan, they will implement it expeditiously. I believe that the innocent victims deserve nothing less.
A strong United Kingdom growing together is in all our interests. I encourage the Government to establish and maintain effective communication and collaboration between the four parts of this United Kingdom. A strong United Kingdom, evolving and growing together, is in all our interests, now and long into the future. We all have a duty to persist in working to protect and strengthen the bonds between our four nations. For long-term peace, prosperity and growth to continue, all parts of the United Kingdom must play a full and equal role in the development and evolution of the kingdom. It is therefore vital that the upcoming advancements wholly encompass Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the last Administration’s negotiations with the European Union caused significant economic and constitutional disadvantage to one part of the United Kingdom, and had an extremely detrimental effect on Northern Ireland sovereignty.
Fundamentally, the root cause of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework is the continued application of European law in Northern Ireland. These arrangements have led to the intolerable situation whereby Northern Ireland remains governed by a swathe of European Union law. These EU regulations have the effect of causing Northern Ireland to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom in a vast number of areas. There are numerous examples of sea border checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland disrupting businesses. We cannot afford to have an economic division between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, where most of Northern Ireland trading takes place—some £12 million-worth.
It is important that, if Northern Ireland citizens and businesses are to be treated as equal to our fellow Britons elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom market must be fully restored. To attain this position, we must respect and fully restore the Acts of Union for Northern Ireland, and completely, not partially, remove the Irish Sea border. I trust that this Government will work assiduously to bring about the necessary legislation. This will require further effort and co-operation. I am confident that unionists can work positively alongside and engage responsibly with the Government to undo and remove all the damage associated with the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.
For all those who value our place in the United Kingdom, safeguarding and protecting Northern Ireland’s long-term place inside the UK internal market and the union is the most important responsibility that we have. As a confident unionist, I will continue to work on matters of mutual concern with our friends across the United Kingdom. Equally, I am willing to see co-operation with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. We simply ask that they too respect the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Finally, it is my hope, now that Stormont is back up and running, that Northern Ireland can start moving forward again. We must all continue to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from, and plays its full part in, alongside England, Scotland and Wales, the long-term future growth of the great United Kingdom.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on a witty and moving maiden speech, and welcome him to this House. He has an important role to play here as Attorney-General, and I am sure that his experience and knowledge will stand him, and us, in good stead. I want to say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, in his place on the Government Front Bench. I wish him well in his role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, a fellow north Walian, to his place in this House.
The result of the general election earlier this month has already ushered in changes to our Chamber and to the other place, and I commend the new Prime Minister on the change of tone that he has already achieved in the political discourse. There is a feeling now that the rabid unionism of past years has been replaced by a rational unionism, which could lead to our nations and peoples working together instead of pulling apart.
The Prime Minister’s visits to the devolved nations on his first days in power were a welcome game-changer. Many politicians in Wales breathed a collective sigh of relief, hoping that resetting relationships with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would lead to fewer examples of UK politicians riding roughshod over the Sewel convention, and that a more collaborative working relationship would develop.
I assure the Government that I understand the pressures on them and the need they see for the measures presented in the King’s Speech. Many of my Lib Dem colleagues have already expressed our intention to be a constructive opposition in this House. My concerns, however, lie in what is not in the Government’s programme, particularly the lack of prominence for issues concerning the devolved nations.
On a positive note, the formation of a council of the nations and regions is to be welcomed, and I look forward to learning more about its proposed powers and responsibilities in the days and weeks to come. I am pleased by the progress the Government intend making to devolve more powers to combined authorities in England, and look forward to these providing the building blocks for a more federal UK, sometime in the future.
There is nothing in the King’s Speech on the commitment in the Labour manifesto to give members of the devolved legislatures the same freedom of speech protections as UK parliamentarians. There is nothing on the commitment to consider giving new powers to Wales over probation services and youth justice, and nothing on the commitment to strengthen the Sewel convention with a new memorandum of understanding to protect the powers of the devolved legislatures. Perhaps, in replying, the noble Lord would clarify the situation regarding these manifesto commitments.
The PM had already forewarned that the commitment to votes at 16 in England would not appear in the King’s Speech, as his focus is on economic growth. I am disappointed on behalf of the young people of England. Sixteen and 17 year-olds in Scotland and Wales have the right to vote in devolved government and local authority elections; this latter right would have been extended to English students. The commitment would also extend to giving those in this age group throughout the UK the right to vote in parliamentary elections.
The PM’s priorities are obviously pressing, but I urge him and his new Government to take some time to consider the issue of political education in schools—even before they begin to write the legislation for votes at 16. This issue has been avoided in the past: teachers were unsure of boundaries and wary of being accused of indoctrinating their pupils, parents feared that their children would be indoctrinated, and, in the end, very little was done. Learning the facts about the process of voting, from the act of registering to vote through to what the political parties stand for and what happens in a polling station, is essential to the development of confident, knowledgeable voters.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to their ministerial offices. It is for us all a great privilege to have again in the House an Attorney-General, particularly one with such a deep and obvious commitment not only to the rule of law domestically but, as important, internationally.
There are two aspects of the Minister’s wonderful maiden speech on which I would like to comment. They are both rather unglamorous points, because legislation such as new Bills is always thought, by a Minister, to be the most glamorous thing of all to be able to introduce.
I will begin by talking about legislation, particularly its quality. First, to put down a marker, I hope we have seen the end of skeleton Bills. We should never have seen them in the first place, and I hope we never see another. Secondly, there is the problem of secondary legislation. It would be too much to hope to see it disappear from the way we do things—it is impossible to conceive of that happening—so I want to say a word about the quality of secondary legislation. Much started to be done towards the end of the last Government, but I hope that a much more radical view will be taken: first, to look at the proposals of the Hansard Society; and secondly, to discuss seriously the way in which amendments can be made to statutory instruments. This is a much-needed reform.
As important, and totally unglamorous, are the nuts and bolts of doing the job: first, making certain that when policy is formulated, information is available and is published with the SI; and secondly, that the work of drafting has sufficient resources—that those who do it are properly trained. It is not easy, and mistakes occur because there are not enough resources. The work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I had the privilege to serve, has shown what a wonderful job the staff can do; the clerks are expert. But there is no substitute for a commitment by the Government to improve; for the appointment of a Minister who will be accountable for the overall improvement; and for a real commitment to resourcing the job properly. It cannot be done on the cheap, but it is of vital importance.
I turn, secondly, to devolution to the home nations. There is not time to make a proper speech about it, so I will address one issue: the Government’s commitment to looking again at joint working. The way in which we have moved to our current constitution with the home nations requires joint working. There is nothing that sets out clearly the powers of the union or its purpose, but areas such as economic development, the way the internal market operates, and trade, clearly require the co-operation of the Westminster Government and the Governments of the devolved nations. In reality, there has been no proper machinery to make that work. There are lots of good ideas, such as common frameworks and the 2002 commitment to a joint intergovernmental working process, but none of this has ever been made to work.
Although much was done towards the end of the last Government, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, we need a radical rethink. Why this is so important is that if people work together and see that you cannot run a union without co-operation and the machinery of co-operation, things will not work. Solving problems such as the disappearance of the Sewel convention—it is not a convention any more—will ensure that, when we look at the more difficult problems of the union, if people are used to working together properly under a machinery, and, hopefully, with a Minister truly accountable for that, we will make a great deal of progress and improve the government of our nation. All of this is unglamorous, but most important.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it has been a delight to listen to the important contributions to this debate and a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a fellow Welshman. I congratulate those noble Lords making their maiden speeches today—in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, a fellow South Walian.
The gracious Speech last week was hailed by the Government as a time for “optimism” for the country, with “opportunity” at its helm. I acknowledge that I welcome some of the content, but before I do so I should say that devolution has rightly become an important constituent part of our democratic system. I was never more convinced of this than when I sat as a member of your Lordships’ Public Services Committee and we inquired into the public services response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was clear that certain key public services were best delivered locally. I distinctly recall the evidence of local authority leaders, mayors and healthcare workers, who persuaded me beyond doubt that, in such circumstances, devolution to a local level was clearly the way forward. I am therefore supportive, to a point, of the new Government’s plan to devolve more powers to metro mayors but will await the announcement of the precise details.
Today’s debate covers constitution and devolution aspects of the gracious Speech, but having looked at the finer detail, particularly where Wales is concerned, I could not quite believe my eyes, as “opportunity” seemed to be the least appropriate word. How do I justify that remark? In fact, Wales was named only once, and that was in reference to the Government’s plan to create a council of the nations and regions. Sadly, I believe that this could well be a reality check for what is to come—that is, Labour once again taking Wales for granted.
Noble Lords may be aware that I was for a while the Wales Office spokesman in your Lordships’ House in the last Government. The difference in delivery between the last Government and the current one appears to be very stark indeed. Perhaps I could spend a couple of minutes reflecting. Who was it that delivered an additional £18 billion—the biggest block grant in the history of devolution—to Wales? It was the Conservatives. Who delivered two freeports and two investment zones for Wales? It was the Conservatives. Who delivered two cuts to national insurance to help Welsh workers? It was the Conservatives. Who protected more than 100,000 jobs from being lost through an ambitious furlough scheme? Yes, it was the Conservatives.
In fact, the last Government did not stop there. We started to announce even more bold policies for Wales, which were all designed to reverse the sad decline in our public services that have been grossly mismanaged by the Labour Welsh Government. We committed some £1 billion to deliver the north Wales main line, which would have spread economic prosperity and created jobs. We had a very blurred response from the Minister during Questions earlier as to whether this will now come to fruition. We brought forward plans to help deliver the Magor train station, which, again, would have boosted the Welsh economy.
On health, we in Wales suffer the worst waiting lists in the whole of the United Kingdom. In fact, those spending two years or more on a waiting list in Wales now total more than 22,000; in England, the figure is 269. Just let that sink in for a moment, because those figures are incredibly revealing. However, we did not just sit back and bury our heads in the sand: we pledged to help those 22,000 Welsh patients by wanting to offer them access to NHS England. I am bitterly disappointed that the pledges I have outlined were not included in the King’s Speech. Of course, this begs the very pertinent question of why they were dropped. The only plausible explanation is that this was a political decision by the Labour Party.
There was also no considered detail in the King’s Speech on what the new Government will do for the Welsh steel industry. Many of your Lordships will remember last year, when we faced the very real threat of Tata Steel closing its steel-making plant in south Wales. The last Government pledged a £500 million support package to save the Welsh steel industry, plus an additional £80 million to help those who will lose their jobs. Labour’s response was to criticise the package but, so far, it has failed to offer any credible alternative.
Our country will look back at last week’s gracious Speech and view it, sadly, as a missed opportunity. Be in no doubt: the last Government’s pledges that I have just outlined would have improved people’s lives and helped to untap Wales’s true potential. So, although the gracious Speech has some merit, I fear that, from a Wales perspective, it is severely lacking. That is why I call on the Labour Government to place party politics to one side at long last and recommit to the previous pledges made for Wales. Should the Government do so, it would be a win-win situation—most importantly, though, for the people of Wales. I can assure the House that, having accepted the role of shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my priority will be to ensure that Wales is not forgotten by this Government. I will hold Ministers to account for their actions at every opportunity.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I join all other noble Lords who have spoken in warmly congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer and my noble friend Lord Khan on their government appointments. My experience in your Lordships’ House, both in government and as previous chair of the Constitution Committee, is that your Lordships will always give very detailed scrutiny to any business described as constitutional, and your attention is particularly assiduous when measures refer to the House itself. Therefore, it is not surprising that many speeches this afternoon have concentrated on the composition of the House and the proposed exclusion of the remaining hereditary Peers.
Now, perhaps because I see myself almost as the grandmother of the current proposal, I am clear that this admittedly rather belated proposition is simply a completion of the terms of the 1999 Act—terms which allowed an agreed number of hereditaries to remain on a temporary basis. Those arrangements were agreed specifically as a temporary compromise, part of a well- understood process of transition. To quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Chancellor at the time, from Hansard of 11 May 1999:
“The transitional House which will be created as a result of the Bill will be exactly that: transitional and not permanent”.—[Official Report, 11/5/1999; col. 1092.]
I suspect I am not alone in not expecting that transition to last for 25 years—a quarter of a century—but I am extremely pleased that the new Labour Government are now acting so quickly to achieve further reform.
Several noble Lords have already said, and I agree with them, that over 25 years we have all been aware of the important contribution made to the House by several of the 92 hereditary Peers who have remained. I certainly recognise that and pay tribute to their contribution. However, I echo my noble friend Lord Grocott in saying that I do not think even they can have felt comfortable with the very odd process of by-elections for succeeding hereditaries, a process that sometimes has meant that the number of candidates for succession has exceeded the size of the electorate, and which, I am afraid, has undoubtedly damaged the reputation and standing of the House.
Today, acting to exclude the remaining hereditary Peers may appear a simple proposal but I have no doubt—and it has been suggested this afternoon—that there will be many detailed debates on the exact meaning and terms of the original transition proposal, and the rights of today’s hereditary Members. I look forward to those discussions but hope we can avoid some of the frustrating moments of earlier proceedings. For example, I vividly remember long debates—and, indeed, votes—about whether the 1999 reform should refer to “an” hereditary Peer or “a” hereditary Peer. There were times when legitimate scrutiny verged on delaying tactics.
Having made those points, and while I wholeheartedly welcome these limited proposals in the King’s Speech, I wish the Government had also included some of the related manifesto commitments. I would particularly have liked to see other measures to improve the appointments process and to manage the size of the House. In my view, both could be achieved by extending the remit and powers of the House of Lords Appointment Commission—improving HOLAC, in other words.
This week, I pulled out from the cabinet the 2001 White Paper optimistically called Completing the Reform. Perhaps not surprisingly, the same sorts of further measures that are now in the 2024 manifesto are explained and spelled out there. The earlier White Paper could almost be a blueprint for further contemporary action. The then Government proposed, for example, a statutory appointments commission, a cap on the overall size of the House—the number proposed was 600—and guaranteed numbers or proportions for the independent membership. It would be easy today to incorporate these proposals in another Bill, which could be rapidly introduced.
On the controversial issue of retirement from the House or rules on the length of service, I would certainly qualify for the Labour manifesto proposal that Peers should retire at the end of the Parliament in which they reach their 80th birthday, and personally I would be happy to accept this. But as a matter of policy, I would prefer the proposal of a 15-year term of service, and I hope this will be further considered.
Twenty-five years has certainly been a very long time for this transitional House to exist, but I have very high expectations that this Parliament can now achieve further proper reform. I look forward to that legislation and to the success of the Government’s entire programme.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I add my voice of welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, whose fine reputation at the Bar precedes him. I believe he will be a worthy successor as Attorney-General to Victoria Prentis MP, one of the unsung heroes of the last Parliament, who is sadly missed from this one.
It is the time of year when newspapers publish lists of good reading for the beach. The Future of Democracy in the UK, published by the Constitution Unit in November 2023, is inexplicably omitted from those lists. It is a three-year project, based on a citizens’ assembly and two YouGov surveys of 4,000 people. On the big-ticket constitutional issues—proportional representation, an elected House of Lords—public opinion was unremarkably split.
What is truly striking is the strength of support revealed by these surveys for reforms that are often—wrongly, it would seem—dismissed as “Westminster bubble” issues. On ethics and integrity, there was over- whelming support for independent regulators of ministerial conduct to support the role of Parliament in enforcing the rules. On Commons scrutiny, twice as many people thought that Parliament, rather than the Government, should have the main responsibility for deciding what Parliament discusses and when it does so. On skeleton Bills and statutory instruments, 79% of respondents believed that Parliament should always need to consider and approve changes in the law, with only 4% disagreeing —Lord Judge would certainly approve.
I shall not venture into Lords reform, or even into the devolution debate, so aptly promoted first by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I will put to the Minister five proposals which, though formulated by experts, are in tune with the popular longing for ethical governance revealed by this report and others.
I begin with the November 2021 report, Standards Matter 2, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The committee wrote:
“Perhaps the most important element of a regulator’s independence is its statutory basis. Those regulators which exist solely as the creation of the executive are potentially liable to be abolished or compromised with ease”.
Does the Minister, whom I also welcome to his seat, agree with the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the independent adviser, the Public Appointments Commissioner and ACOBA, or their successors, should be put into statute, along with the codes they oversee? If so, I commend to him my public service, integrity and ethics Bill—unlucky in the ballot but as pertinent as ever.
Secondly, to echo the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, next week marks the 125th anniversary of a speech by Augustine Birrell KC MP, in which he deprecated what he called
“the new fashion of legislation by way of skeleton”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/8/1899; col. 1072.]
The Attorney-General has said encouraging things about this. Have the Government had a chance to look at the Hansard Society’s thoughtful suggestions for addressing the excessive use of skeleton Bills and delegated powers? These include a “Concordat on Legislative Delegation” and a new Act of Parliament to ensure that Parliament, with the help of sifting committees,
“can calibrate the level of scrutiny to the content”
of a statutory instrument.
Thirdly, do the Government favour an expansion of the lobbying register beyond just consultant lobbyists, or, as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Commons recommended in May, is it more important to ensure that departmental transparency declarations are issued more regularly, consolidated, and widened to cover contacts with special advisers and informal lobbying by phone and WhatsApp?
Fourthly, the Law Commission concluded in 2020 that the common-law offence of misconduct in public office provides neither the certainty nor the
“clarity that the criminal law demands, and is … prone to error, misuse and abuse”.
Will the Government look at the replacement clauses proposed by the Law Commission, and are they committed to catching fully what the United Nations Convention against Corruption describes as “trading in influence”, “abuse of functions” and “illicit enrichment”?
Fifthly, few of us in this House, I suspect, would like to see a written constitution, still less one whose enforcement is entrusted to the judges, but a political constitution needs a political centre of gravity. Does the Minister see merit in the suggestions of the final report of the Review of the UK Constitution, published by the Institute for Government and the Bennett Institute in September last year? The review proposed a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on the constitution, supported by an independent office for the constitution. A similar idea was floated by no less an authority than my noble friend Lord Hennessy in his book The Bonfire of the Decencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has famously said that “expensive noises” are coming from our constitutional engine, but if it can be properly serviced, it should keep us going for many years yet.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, a new Parliament always brings an assortment of challenges for an incoming Government, and this Parliament will be no exception. I welcome the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his place as Attorney-General and wish him well in his new role.
According to the newly appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, whom I also warmly welcome to his post, the gracious Speech included 18 Bills which would extend and apply to Northern Ireland, either in part or in full. However, much of the debate in the Province has been beyond the list of Bills, and I hope that in his wind-up the Minister will remove some of the ambiguity. The gracious Speech incorporated a commitment, in consultation with all parties, to bring forward measures
“to begin the process of repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023”.
As noble Lords will know, this legislation is opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, including my party, the Ulster Unionist Party, and other noble Lords have said today that they agree. While I warmly welcome the Government’s promise to repeal the Act, time is clearly of the essence because it is not on the side of many victims and their loved ones. I would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on when a replacement Act will be on the statute book.
The gracious Speech also stated the Government’s intention to
“strengthen its work with the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that the best outcomes possible are delivered for citizens across the United Kingdom. My Ministers will establish a new Council of the Nations and Regions to renew opportunities for the Prime Minister, heads of devolved governments and mayors of combined authorities to collaborate with each other”.
At face value, this promise is particularly positive from a unionist point of view. It was the political objective of my late friend Lord Trimble to take Ulster unionism to the heart of British politics. To have Northern Ireland political representatives sitting around the same table as their counterparts in the other devolved nations and regions to make the United Kingdom work better is a laudable objective. It is also a golden opportunity for Northern Ireland to have a more integral role in UK-wide political decision-making, which was far from the case under the previous Government. Again, I would welcome more detail from the Minister on the nature of this new body and an indication of when the Government hope it will be established. Might I boldly suggest that the first meeting should take place in Northern Ireland? I should remind Ministers that the Province successfully hosted the 39th G8 Summit in 2013, so we know what we are doing.
Of the 18 Bills in the gracious Speech that apply to Northern Ireland, I wish to make brief reference to two. First, the border security, asylum and immigration Bill will enable police to use counterterrorism powers to tackle gangs smuggling immigrants into the UK. Given that Northern Ireland is the sole part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with the EU, can I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be fully involved in the formulation and implementation of these new arrangements? Also, given the additional financial pressures they will bring to an already desperately under- resourced PSNI, can I have a guarantee that additional money will be provided for policing in Northern Ireland to deal with these extra responsibilities?
I welcome the pledge in the gracious Speech
“to establish a statutory Armed Forces Commissioner to act as a strong independent champion for our gallant Armed Forces and their families”.
They are the best of us and deserve the enhanced protections and respect that I hope this Bill will deliver. Yesterday, I tabled a Written Parliamentary Question asking His Majesty’s Government whether Armed Forces personnel engaged in a wide range of military operations under the current threat level in Northern Ireland will be eligible to receive the Wider Service Medal and if not, why not. Should the Government choose not to award this medal to members of the Armed Forces serving in the Province, as I hope they will, it is an issue that I will be raise directly with the new commissioner as soon as they are appointed.
Finally, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Booth, to your Lordships’ House and look forward to hearing his maiden speech.
Lord Booth (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, as I rise to make my maiden speech today, I want to add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord opposite on his excellent speech earlier. I start by offering my thanks for the welcome that I have received from your Lordships across the political divide. I thank all our dedicated staff who keep us in order, who feed us, who are custodians of the traditions of this place and who keep us safe. They are true public servants. I also thank my noble friends Lady Pidding, who cannot be in her place today, and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who introduced me to this House. They are friends, both having served as my predecessors in the role I currently hold as chairman of the National Conservative Convention, the voluntary part of the Conservative Party. My noble friend Lady Pidding was in charge in 2015 and my noble friend Lord Sharpe was in charge of the general election in 2019. The conclusions of their tenures were considerably more successful than my tenure in 2024. In fact, such was the outstanding result for my party in 2019 that my noble friend Lord Sharpe may well have heeded his own words to go out on the lash. I also want to praise all the hard-working volunteers of the National Conservative Convention and, indeed, all political volunteers across the divide, because political volunteers of all parties are the lifeblood of our democracy.
I wish our new Government well, for to do otherwise would be to wish ill to our nation. While we may disagree on the how, surely we agree on what we are here for: the betterment of the lives and life chances of the British people.
My life journey began in the coalfields of the north-east in Houghton-le-Spring, and I am proud to have Houghton-le-Spring as the geographical part of my title. I am very much a product of Houghton, where I was born and where my father’s family had been shop- keepers for four generations. I was brought up behind the shop counter, learning from an early age the value of hard work and learning to be part of a community. Like any good northerner, I can be blunt and to the point and have an irreverent sense of humour. My parents were aspirational for me, and aspiration is something that we must encourage for children across our nation. From Houghton, I went the University of Essex, and my first job was here in the Palace of Westminster as a researcher for a Member of the other place, so my return here is like coming home. In between, I ran my own retail businesses and then a small company designing and exporting spectacle frames across the globe. The small business sector is something I know about and hope to champion in this House.
Finally, I want to thank the most important person in my life for allowing me to spend time and effort volunteering in political life and for being on the journey with me. My wonderful husband Kelvin is here today and has been with me for the past 21 years. I find it wrong that in this House same-sex legal partners and partners of Baronesses get no courtesy title, and what recourse is there for that? In Kelvin’s case, maybe he could self- declare as a woman, put on a frock and, in the words of “Little Britain”, shout, “I’m a lady”, but I do not think that will happen. I encourage the Minister to do what he said in his maiden speech and listen and—I reflect on his own words—to reflect changes in our society, so I hope the Government might eventually address this issue.
I now turn to some of the content in this King’s Speech, and I shall try to maintain tradition by not being controversial. However, I believe it is right to question proposals and ask whether they have been thoroughly thought through and about the potential for unintended consequences of good intentions. I refer particularly to the proposal to remove our hereditary colleagues. The composition of this House was slowly changed with the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958, some 66 years ago. If that Act had been a person, it would have now reached pensionable age. It irrevocably changed the make-up of this House, but over a long timeframe. The overwhelming majority of us are here today because of that Act. It is the way of our unwritten constitution that a slow evolution occurs. I am sure that the authors of the 1958 Act did not envisage its consequences, but I think it worked out well. The House of Lords Act 1999 then reduced the hereditary Peers to 92 in number. Since joining this House in March, I have been impressed by the work of noble Lords who are not lifers but who are here by birth, and by the expertise, knowledge and commitment they bring to the work of this House. It seems unfair and wrong that they are to be dismissed. I ask the Benches opposite whether they can look at their friends and colleagues and say, “You’re fired”. I ask the government Benches to reflect carefully on these proposals, because in this country we should value public service given over a lifetime. I thank noble Lords for listening.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lord Booth on an excellent maiden speech this afternoon, resplendent with the mix of humour and insight that noble Lords would expect. He comes to your Lordships’ House not just with a successful business career behind him but, importantly, with a record of dedicated public service in politics, on which all our political parties depend. Being a senior volunteer in the Conservative Party over the last few years has probably not been a barrel of laughs but he has come to us with his humour intact, and his own delivery of that public service has only enhanced the very high regard in which he is held. We can all look forward to his making a very strong contribution to your Lordships’ House in the coming years.
I begin my remarks, as other noble Lords have done, by congratulating both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, in taking their place as Ministers in the Government. I also congratulate the Labour Party on its stunning victory on 4 July. A large part of that success was in Scotland, and we have to hope for a normalisation of politics away from constant constitutional bickering.
As a Conservative I will always believe that decision-making, where practical, should be made at as local a level as possible. The continuation of the previous Conservative Government’s increasing devolution to the regions of England should be supported and, while I recognise that there may be nervousness from some about a lack of control from parliamentary scrutiny, on my own side I think the examples of Andy Street and the noble Lord, Lord Houchen, demonstrate why devolution should not be feared by Conservatives. It is a pity that the same decentralisation to local councils is not applied by the Welsh and Scottish Governments.
However, after the significant constitutional change and transfer of powers over the last 25 years, I ask that the Government allow stability to reign in Parliament’s relationship with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yes, there may be unforeseen but necessary small, pragmatic changes to the balance of powers both ways—and the Government’s commitment to revise the Sewel convention will be part of this—but, if the constitutional integrity and stability of the United Kingdom is to be maintained, we must focus both the UK Government and the devolved Governments on the delivery of the public services for which they are responsible, rather than feeding constant demands from nationalists for more powers. After the idea was floated that immigration be devolved, I was glad to learn that the Government have now ruled this out; I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could confirm that.
The Labour Party’s success at the general election was undoubtedly helped by the return to a commitment to the United Kingdom, which was sadly missing from the Labour Party manifestos in 2017 and 2019. I also welcomed the commitment in the gracious Speech to a strong working relationship between central and devolved government. As unionists, the last thing we need to see is the machinery of government constantly in gridlock; nothing will do more to undermine our United Kingdom.
While I do not have any objection to the new nations and regions council, I hope that it will not be an alternative to the already existing Prime Minister/First Ministers council. It is important that the Prime Minister and First Ministers meet on a regular basis to support the vital personal relationships between them and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister. For collaboration and relationships to be substantive, it would be a mistake to lose these council meetings in the new, much broader nations and regions council; reassurance from the Minister would again be welcomed.
I have spoken before in your Lordships’ Chamber about the importance in Northern Ireland of continuing to build the case for the union with that fast-growing group: those who do not identify as unionist or nationalist but want the very best for Northern Ireland and their families. I was therefore a bit disappointed to read that the Prime Minister—on his first visit to Northern Ireland as Prime Minister—did not repeat his previous commitment to campaign for Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom in any future referendum. I appreciate that he had other important comments to make, and that included a welcome commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but I hope that the Minister can give us, once again, a commitment to the Government’s active support for Northern Ireland remaining part of our United Kingdom.
As I draw to a conclusion, I ask when, as part of the commitment to the UK’s constitution and legal frameworks, we might expect an announcement on the appointment of a new Advocate-General for Scotland to ensure that the Government are receiving the very best of advice on Scots law—such advice as we are privileged to receive from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Stewart of Dirleton. A timescale would be very helpful.
In conclusion, I make a plea, as this Government carry out their desired mantra of change, that the union is one area where stability and care are required rather than further flux.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have known the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, for a very long time and have long admired the breadth and depth of his legal knowledge, his judgment and his powers of advocacy, which were demonstrated here today. His appointment is very welcome on all sides of the House. He spoke with great humility. I remind him of the experience of Sir Patrick Hastings, who was Attorney-General in the first Labour Government 100 years ago in 1924. Sir Patrick too was a distinguished barrister before and after his appointment. He described his time as Attorney-General as “my idea of hell”, and his disastrous conduct in office in relation to the Campbell prosecution in 1924 led to the fall of that first Labour Government. The noble and learned Lord really cannot do worse than that. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to his post.
I welcome back the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to his Front-Bench post. He too is an old friend. He will, I hope, forgive me if I suggest that focusing on protecting the status of hereditary Peers is perhaps not the best way for the Conservative Opposition to demonstrate their relevance on constitutional issues.
I am very pleased that the Attorney-General emphasised the need to promote and protect the rule of law, as he also did in his excellent speech on 16 July on being sworn in as Attorney-General. In that speech, he gave an assurance that his legal advice to the Government would
“always be guided by law not politics”.
That is extremely important, as he recognises. I am delighted that one of his first decisions was to retain as First Treasury Counsel my colleague and friend Sir James Eadie KC, who has given previous Governments objective, skilled and wise advice on a large quantity and very wide breadth of legal problems over many years.
The Attorney-General also enjoys the support of the Solicitor-General, Sarah Sackman, another distinguished barrister of great skill and judgment. I also welcome the new Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, not just because she both understands the virtues of our legal system and recognises the urgent need for reform of those aspects of our system that are, sadly, in a state of serious disrepair, but because her background is, in her own description, as a child of immigrants who worked behind the till in her parents’ corner shop. That will encourage aspiring law students of all ethnicities and backgrounds that—with hard work, aspiration and an element of the luck that we all need—they too can succeed in the legal profession.
The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary have been under great strain in the past 14 years— I declare an interest in some of the relevant cases—but I am sure that the rule of law will be under strain in the years ahead. It always is, even under Labour Governments. Previous Labour Administrations have had their legal difficulties: the Belmarsh judgment on imprisonment without trial after 9/11, and the Hosenball and Crossman diaries cases during the Callaghan Government in the late 1970s.
The noble and learned Lord should enjoy his honeymoon period as it may be short—“Events, dear boy, events”. He should recognise that many of us lawyers in the House—you can never have too many lawyers—and other noble Lords will be carrying around copies of his speech today and that which he delivered on 16 July, and we will be reminding him of what he said on all relevant occasions in the future when the going gets tough.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have chosen to speak today because of my support and concern for local—very local—government, which has barely had a walk-on part in the new Government’s manifesto. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Khan—it is very good to see him on the Front Bench—regards it, as I do, as an essential part of our democracy.
There is a lot that I would like to mention. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in regretting that the Conservatives have chosen to focus on a very narrow issue that I do not think is a priority for most people outside this Chamber, although I am looking forward to working with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, again. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on his maiden speech. He clearly has plenty to contribute to the House.
I would say that local government is the local sphere, not tier, of government. It is separate, not subsidiary. It can exemplify public service, which has been much mentioned recently, and can be effective and influential in giving a voice to local communities. Here I am talking not about metro mayors, who the Prime Minister met so soon after 4 July, nor about combined authorities, which it is becoming clear are the Government’s preferred model for other areas—we will have to see what comes forward—but about councillors, whose job is often not high profile or glamorous but affects people directly. It is a title that I was proud to have.
The job of councillor has become harder. There is little scope for discretion in how you serve your local community. Budgets have become so divorced from local decisions that taxation and representation are largely detached. There seems little bandwidth to think strategically. In my view, that is a real threat to democracy, a situation that fosters distrust of politicians: “They don’t listen”, “Politics doesn’t matter to me”. I am constrained by the timing from going on and on about this.
I welcome the lines in Labour’s manifesto about multiyear funding settlements and ending wasteful competitive bidding. Councillors need the tools to do the job, and part of the job is housing provision. My view is that mandatory targets—we will have to see whether they are a contradiction in terms—are not a tool. Some authorities have found a way to provide social housing, but I have heard nothing about relaxing the rules to enable them to do much more.
Housing is fundamental to flourishing communities and is the bedrock of the integration of refugees— I hesitated as to whether to speak today or on the Home Office day. Local authorities have, or should have, a leadership role in integration. All spheres of government should be advocates for welcoming refugees. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, is not daunted —although he does not strike me as someone who is easily daunted—by the hopes and expectations of many of us that his appointment and his speech today herald both humanity and respect for the rule of law. He is warmly welcomed.
I have never thought that immigrants or refugees should be presented as a threat in competition with the established population. New arrivals can and should be enabled to benefit us all. As the Woolf Institute’s recent Commission on the Integration of Refugees said:
“At a local level, integrating refugees can provide benefits for all members of the community—from civil society to businesses, healthcare, and public services”.
I continue to find it astonishing what skills and qualifications so many asylum seekers have. The commission, which reported in March, also said:
“A focus on integration has the potential to empower local authorities, their partners and local people to meet the needs of their refugee, asylum-seeking, and long-standing communities by investing funds currently committed to asylum accommodation and refugee services into local communities”.
The commission talked of enhancing
“the agency of refugees, asylum seekers, and local communities, as well as bringing rapid economic and social benefits to the UK”.
It said:
“Current policy … is determined centrally by government in Whitehall, with local authorities often having little influence on decisions around dispersal, accommodation, and access to frontline services, despite being most directly affected by these issues”.
The local authority had plenty to say about the “Bibby Stockholm”, and I am so pleased to have just seen a report that it is to be closed.
The Prime Minister talked last week about the fight for trust defining our political era—yes, in all spheres of government.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I too congratulate the Attorney-General and my noble friend Lord Khan, who has the unenviable task of replying to what I suppose we could describe as a diverse debate. The most difficult reply will be to the Front-Bench spokesman opposite, who seemed to spend his time putting forward a better case for getting rid of the bishops from the House of Lords than on the hereditary Peers. Incidentally, I agree with those who have advocated that some of the hereditary Peers are obvious candidates for life peerages. There are one or two very close to me now who might be candidates.
I was disappointed that the spokesman for the Opposition did not talk about devolution, something that he knows I am enthusiastic about. It worked really well when Scotland had two Governments and two Parliaments and there was a Lib Dem-Labour Parliament in Scotland. It is only in the last few years that the SNP has weaponised devolution and the Scottish Parliament. It has opened pretend embassies overseas, because it could use our high commissions and embassies and the people who are there, and it wants advocates for independence in its own offices. To be fair to the Conservative Government, they were beginning to get this, and I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench here and next door will get it as well and come forward with a response.
One of the things about devolution has been the English democratic deficit. I am glad that the Government are starting to look at that and that the mayors are going to be involved. The thing is, if you involve only the mayors then there are huge areas of England that will not be included, particularly rural areas, so we need to ask the Government to make their plan more comprehensive and coherent so that the whole of England is involved.
I want to spend the remainder of my time on the composition of the House of Lords, because it is too large. I should declare an interest about this retirement at 80—no, not the one that your Lordships are thinking of. It is that I used to work for Age Concern and was chair of Age Scotland but I also have another interest, as most of us here have. There is a better way of reducing the size of the House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was touching on it and I want to make this my main point today.
There is a misunderstanding—a dichotomy—about appointment to this place. Some people treat it as an honour, one above a knighthood, so instead of getting a knighthood, cricketers, donors or whoever get a peerage, and then we never see them. Where is the noble Lord, Lord Botham? I have never seen him. Some of the rest of us treat it as a job. We are part of the second Chamber of the legislature and we want to work here. As someone said earlier, there are 400 people voting regularly. Why do we not make two separate kinds of peerages and have honorary and working peerages? Working Peers could get paid; they could turn up, vote and participate fully. Honorary Peers would not. They would have a title—maybe they could come in and have dinner to keep the catering going. Why can we not do that? These are two completely separate concepts: an honour and a legislator.
I have given a hint to my noble friend Lord Khan that I might raise this, and I know that the Government are looking at it. It would be relatively easy to legislate or might not even need legislation. I think getting honorary Peers and working Peers could be done by resolution of this House and the royal consent for it. Then we would not get this criticism that we are too large, because only the working Peers would be counted, or that people do not turn up, because we would not be expecting the honorary Peers to turn up. I hope everyone will look at that and am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is following me. If his committee is set up, I hope that he will have a look at it. That is one way forward and it gets rid of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—and he is one of the best examples of the fact that if we put in an arbitrary age limit, we will be losing some of the best people in this House.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Booth, and I congratulate him on his speech. He said that he was born in the mining town of Houghton-le-Spring, in the Durham coalfields. I was born in Hetton-le-Hole, two miles away; I went to school at Houghton-le-Spring and my father worked at Houghton colliery for the best part of 50 years, so I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord in the future as he brings his wisdom, both from Houghton-le-Spring and from all of the other things that he has done.
I will devote my remarks to the paragraph in the gracious Speech relating to constitutional reform and reducing the size of the House of Lords. In principle, I welcome the Government’s proposal to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the Lords. However, I have several regrets. I regret that the proposal for hereditary Members would mean that we would lose some of the valued and diligent Members who I have worked with on committees in this House. I regret that the outgoing Government did not take advantage of the attempt made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to abolish the hereditary by-elections and help to bring about reform earlier and more gradually—we would have been in a much better position if that had happened—and I regret the persistent increase over the past 14 years in the appointment of Conservative Peers relative to the appointment of Labour Peers. This has resulted in fewer Labour Members today than in 2010. It has brought us this imbalance in numbers and is, no doubt, one of the factors which is leading to the urgency of the Bill on hereditary Peers.
Of course, the previous Government were not unique in how they dealt with appointments to this House or in putting upward pressure on House of Lords numbers. For some time, Prime Ministers have appointed disproportionately to their own party. There is no control on this by either law or convention. Generally, appointments to the government party or parties have been between two and three times the number of appointments to the main opposition party. This has applied whether we have had a Conservative or Labour Administration, or a coalition. It is also the case that since 1979, whichever of the main party groups has been in opposition has seen its numbers fall. This is not a recent problem: the number of Labour life Peers also fell between 1979 and 1997; the number of Conservative life Peers fell between 1997 and 2010; and, of course, the number of Labour Peers has fallen since 2010.
This is what produced what we discussed in the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House as the process of leapfrogging. With each change of governing party, the new Government find themselves with fewer Members than the new main Opposition. The only way of restoring balance in the number of seats is to have a significant number of new appointments and therefore an increase in the size of the House. After the elections in both 1997 and 2010, the size of the House quickly increased by over 100 life Members. This has become the process by which the House has steadily risen in size, the largest steps taking place when there has been a change of government. Of course, this leapfrogging can take place only because Prime Ministers can make any number of appointments that they wish to the House, as well as to whichever party they choose, and because there is no cap on the size of the House of Lords, unlike probably all other legislative chambers. These fundamental problems were the background to the proposals that the Lord Speaker’s committee, of which I have been very pleased to be the chair, looked at.
Looking at our proposals, I think that they are still as relevant today as when we made them several years ago. The first proposal, and for me the most important, is that there should be a cap on the size of the House. We suggested that the cap should be 600. Without a cap, there are no constraints on appointments and a cap on size will incentivise much more careful scrutiny of the nominations and who is chosen to be sent here.
Our second proposal was that the balance of appointments between parties during a Parliament should reflect the results of the most recent general election. We opted for the average of the percentage of the national vote and the percentage of seats in the Commons. This would constrain the current practice of over-appointment by the governing party and the relative neglect of appointments to the opposition parties. It would be another very important step in removing this need for leapfrogging, which brings with it the increasing size of the House.
Our third proposal was that appointments should be for a limited term. This would create room for refreshment of the membership without increasing the size of the House. With a House of 600 Members, a 20-year term would generate an average of 30 vacancies a year, enough to cover the historic number of appointments that we see; a 15-year term would generate even more.
This takes me to the proposal in the Labour Party manifesto of an age limit of 80. I declare an interest in this limit, as I have already passed it. Nevertheless, in my view an age limit has a useful part to play in getting numbers down. However, on its own it is unlikely to be sufficient to prevent the same problems emerging in the future. It does not resolve the problem of leapfrogging. The age limit needs to be buttressed by the sorts of changes that I have mentioned. If they were introduced, the need for an age limit would actually disappear.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I declare my interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I offer my congratulations to the Benches opposite and to the Prime Minister on a great election victory. I too congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer—it is always good to welcome a fellow Welshman—and my noble friend Lord Booth on their excellent maiden speeches.
It is in our common interest as a nation that the newly elected Government are successful in their ambitions to reform the delivery of public services. Thirteen years ago, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham established the Government Digital Service to try to do precisely that. Although private enterprise had bequeathed us the touchscreen mobile phone and nascent 4G data technology, most interactions between the citizen and the state still took place through paper forms and face-to-face appointments. The gulf between private sector technological achievements and the success of the Government in harnessing those achievements was vast. Those analogue practices are, fortunately, largely confined to history; the Government today can offer almost all of their services digitally. The furlough and energy support schemes are both testament to government’s capability to deliver.
Today’s Government face the far greater challenge of how to harness artificial intelligence for the benefit of us all. Although I look forward to scrutinising the Government’s proposals for AI when they emerge, I wish to make two brief points based on my own experience. The first is that all technological revolutions are inherently labour displacing. Government must resist the temptation to protect incumbents at the expense of the insurgents. The second is that, if the Government wish to ride the wave of a technological revolution, they must be prepared, as with the GDS, to disrupt the established structures within the Civil Service, identify the skill sets in the private sector, persuade those people to come into the heart of the state and then properly empower them to deliver.
I will use my remaining time to make three short observations on other parts of the gracious Speech. First, although this is not in the Speech, the Labour Party’s manifesto includes a commitment to an independent ethics commission, a function largely undertaken and supported at present by the propriety and ethics directorate within the Cabinet Office. That directorate has been persistently and publicly drawn into areas of significant political controversy. Indeed, the director-general was only last week in the newspapers again. I look forward to the Government setting out further details of their plans, but I encourage the new Prime Minister neither to abrogate his autonomy to determine when and whether a Minister has breached the Ministerial Code, nor to blur the lines of accountability to Parliament.
Secondly, the gracious Speech stated that the Government have several ambitions for updating the UK’s devolution settlement, including a new council of the nations and regions. Although I welcome better co-operation between our nations’ Governments and Executives, I urge the new Government to resist any temptation to place these innovations on a statutory basis. Political decisions are best taken by politicians, not judges, and placing these initiatives on a statutory footing may serve only to invite further judicial erosion of the operative efficiency of government.
Finally, I note the Government’s commitment to introduce a statutory duty of candour for public servants. I applaud the motivation behind this but question whether it is necessary or likely to succeed. For civil servants, the Civil Service Code, which features honesty and integrity as core pillars, is already on a statutory footing. Despite this, the Post Office inquiry and the recent report of the Infected Blood Inquiry have exposed the reprehensible conduct of some officials. In the latter case, the report concluded that civil servants had deliberately destroyed evidence relevant to legal proceedings. It is worrying that even the Cabinet Secretary revealed to the Covid inquiry that he had lost evidence that he was supposed to have produced. The law can take us only so far. Those responsible for such failings need to be held properly to account.
On all these proposed reforms, which are not in the main party-political, the best chance of successful implementation comes with cross-party consultation and agreement. I hope the Minister will be able to give assurances that this will happen.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his speech today and his presence on our Front Bench—indeed, I congratulate all the new Ministers. It is great to be in this situation again. I also congratulate and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Booth. His maiden speech was not uncontroversial, but I hope the House authorities take his point on discrimination and the procedures of this House in the not too distant future.
I do not normally intrude on constitutional issues, and I do not intend to change that today. You can speak on anything you like in the King’s Speech debates, so I will try to take a number of different issues and focus on their constitutional implications. I usually speak on energy, environment, housing or employment, so I will pick a couple of issues in those areas and draw the constitutional implications from them.
I start with climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was just in his place and I wished to compliment him on his role here. I too have been involved with the crucial issue of our time. I was a Minister in John Prescott’s department when we signed the Kyoto agreement; I was a member of the Joint Committee with the Commons that led to the Climate Change Act 2008. Theoretically, we have had cross-party support for all these initiatives for nearly 30 years. It is important that we have that degree of commitment to a long-term programme—both of the institutions support it, and particularly the Climate Change Committee. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Deben, back in his place—I was just congratulating him. Where we have such cross-party support on long-term strategies, we ought to consider, as a constitutional issue, protecting them rather better than we do.
In recent months and years—in the last couple of years of the Tory Administration—the then Government and the national press effectively took us away from the strategy on which we were all agreed. That ought not to happen lightly. There ought to be a way to ensure that a slight change in the political mood following a particular by-election—which in this case was misinterpreted by both major parties—does not drive us away from a commitment we have made for years. In this case, the commitment is vital to the future of not only this country but the world. The effect of this has been to undermine not only our carbon change and net-zero progress but the United Kingdom’s role in leading the way around the world. That has a colossal implication, and it should not have been jeopardised by short-term political moves or relatively minor regulatory timetable changes to achieve changes to building standards and to electrify transport. The new Government can rectify this, and I believe they should.
The body politic as a whole needs to ensure that such strategies are protected. I am not saying they should never be altered—I am not a Mede or Persian—but I believe that we should have a stronger way of protecting such long-term strategies. It may be that defence strategy, for example, is in a similar category, and there will be others. I am not suggesting that we should never change them, but we should make it much more difficult to do so, and we should ensure that the good will and cross- party support for such measures is there.
The second issue relates to local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, recently spelled it out. The reality is that this Government’s measures on key issues such as social care, employment, and housing and planning will not be delivered without the co-operation of local government. Yet we know that, particularly in England, local government is in a terrible state. It is arguable—and it was argued earlier—that the structure of local government needs further addressing, and I believe that to be true. Certainly the finances of local government need addressing, which means that other resources must be available to local government, both directly in their own patches and through the system of rate support grants and the redistribution of that revenue from central government. If we do not do that, a lot of our programme will not be delivered.
I hope my colleagues on the Front Bench are listening and that, on both those issues, we will have some serious new thinking.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and thank him for his mention of Northern Ireland and his commitment to his role there.
The gracious Speech speaks of continuing support for the political institutions and devolved government in Northern Ireland. The only Bill relating directly to Northern Ireland will begin the process of repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It is ironic that it was precisely the failure of devolution that led to legacy being dealt with here in Westminster, rather than in Stormont. I very much welcome that the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has helpfully made it plain that this will not lead to the abolition of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, led by Sir Declan Morgan. It is right that this must be allowed time to show that it can gain the confidence of victims and families.
The replacement of the legacy Act will take many months; bringing the Act in took more than two years in the last Session. While it was always stated, and has been stated today, that all parties in Northern Ireland opposed the Act, it is important to point out they all had different reasons for doing so, and they still have no agreed alternative. I am concerned that the long period needed to work on new legislation will give time for resentment to build up and, consequently, lead to increasing use of lawfare. Your Lordships should be aware, too, of the potential colossal costs if demands are acceded to: £50 million to reintroduce the Troubles inquests; a Finucane public inquiry, if decided upon, costing up to £150 million; and payments for collusion—the new buzzword of former terrorists. That means limitless amounts of money, but certainly in the hundreds of millions of pounds. Then there are reparations in the form of bereavement payments, as advocated by the Commission for Victims and Survivors.
This would total several billion pounds and give little or no value in terms of satisfying victims or providing information, and zero prosecutions of IRA killers or other terrorists. However, once again, the brave soldiers and police officers who did their best to protect the public in hugely difficult circumstances along border areas, being blown up and shot at, only to find the terrorist escaping over the border into the safety of the Republic of Ireland, will be the only people persecuted and prosecuted. The state kept records; the IRA did not. The state gave on-the-run letters of comfort and royal pardons to terrorists, giving them amnesty. Veterans have been abandoned, and the real winners are some lawyers, who are literally making millions, and republicans, who want the history of the Troubles rewritten.
In Northern Ireland, devolution has taken a strange turn. The central basis of devolution, the Belfast agreement, has been unilaterally upended by the disapplication of cross-community consent, which was removed to impose the protocol and remains removed. Therefore, many who value the union will see that, when it comes to devolution, on the most fundamental issues Parliament has not devolved powers to the lawmakers at Stormont but has devolved lawmaking powers to the unelected and unaccountable European Union, which now rules over large parts of Northern Ireland’s legal system. That historic and unacceptable betrayal—I have to use that word—by the previous Government has not been accepted in Northern Ireland and will never be accepted. Political and societal instability will continue, because the damage to the union from the protocol has not been undone. It continues to infect Northern Ireland. One example of how things will get worse is the general product safety regulation, an EU regulation to be introduced in December, which will undoubtedly mean that more and more GB businesses will just refuse to trade in Northern Ireland.
The protocol will continue to be opposed, as the election of the Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister to the other House and increased votes for strong anti-protocol voices like Carla Lockhart MP demonstrate. Unionism is tired of being taunted about a border poll; there is an intensifying cultural war by republicans, weaponising such things as the use of the Irish language in areas where there is no demand for it. There is nothing in the Belfast agreement that says that the UK Government have to be neutral on the union. The Irish Government are certainly not neutral. There is concern at BBC Northern Ireland’s seeming lack of impartiality—there are too many examples to go into that today.
The people of Northern Ireland want to see workable and constitutionally compatible devolution, but it must be on two grounds: first, restoring the balance at the heart of the Belfast agreement, which means removing the protocol framework; and secondly, and most fundamentally, ensuring that devolution of power runs from London to Belfast, rather than from London to Brussels, with Northern Ireland left powerless. Sadly, the gracious Speech made no promise of genuinely restoring Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the UK.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is a convenient point to pause the debate on the gracious Speech, which will not be resumed before 7 pm, to allow the Leader of the House to repeat a Statement from the Prime Minister. That will allow the Statement to take up to its full 40 minutes, as allocated. However, if it finishes a few minutes early, we can return to the gracious Speech without having to adjourn the House during pleasure.
NATO and European Political Community Meetings
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Before I start my Statement, I would like to pay a short tribute to President Biden, a man who, during five decades of service, never lost touch with the concerns of working people and always put his country first. A true friend of the Labour movement, his presidency will leave a legacy that extends far beyond America, to freedom and security on this continent—most of all, of course, in our steadfast resolve to stand by the people of Ukraine. He leaves the NATO alliance stronger than it has been for decades.
With permission, I would like to update the House on my recent discussions with leaders around the world, including at the NATO summit and at the meeting of the European Political Community last week at Blenheim Palace, the biggest European summit in the UK since the war. The House knows the significance of Blenheim Palace, the birthplace of Winston Churchill—the man who steered the march of European history towards democracy and the rule of law. It was a shared sacrifice for freedom—the blood bond of 1945. At both these summits, we reaffirmed our commitment to that bond of security and freedom, and I am sure that we do so in this House today. NATO is the guarantor of those values, and that is more important than ever, because, today in Europe, innocent lives are once again being torn apart. Two weeks ago, there was an attack on a children’s hospital in Kyiv—children with cancer the target of Russian brutality.
Russia’s malign activity is not confined to Ukraine. In the western Balkans, in Moldova and in Georgia, it is sowing instability. Let us not forget that it has targeted people on our streets and attempted to undermine our democracy. In the first days of this Government, I have taken a message to our friends and allies of enduring and unwavering commitment to the NATO alliance, to Ukraine and to the collective security of our country, our continent and our allies around the world. That message was just as relevant at the EPC last week. May I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition, who brought that event to our shores in the first place?
At these meetings, I took a practical view of how the UK can meet this moment, driven not by ideology but by what is best for our country. That includes resetting our relationship with the EU, because on these Benches we believe that the UK and the EU, working together as sovereign partners, are a powerful force for good across our continent. That has been my message throughout the many conversations that I have had with leaders in recent days, because countries want to work with Britain—of course they do. They welcome renewed British leadership on security, on illegal migration and on global challenges such as climate change. Our voice belongs in the room, centre stage.
My conversations have focused on issues on which the British people want action, so I would like to update the House on my discussions in three specific areas. The first is European security. In Washington, I told NATO allies that the generational threat from Russia demands a generational response. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out a clear path to spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence. It is also why I launched a strategic defence review, led by the former NATO secretary-general, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to strengthen our Armed Forces and keep our nation safe.
I also took the opportunity at the NATO summit to confirm that we will deliver £3 billion-worth of military aid to Ukraine each year for as long as it takes. Together we confirmed Ukraine’s irreversible path to full NATO membership, because it is clear to me that NATO will be stronger with Ukraine as a member—something I reiterated to President Zelensky in person in Downing Street on Friday.
Secondly, I want to turn to the Middle East, because that region is at a moment of great danger and fragility. I have spoken to leaders in the region and allies around the world about our collective response. How can we deal with the malign influence of Iran and address its nuclear programme, manage the threat from the Houthis, ease tensions on Israel’s northern border and work with all partners to uphold regional security?
Fundamental to this, of course, is the conflict in Gaza. I have spoken to the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I have been clear that I fully support Israel’s right to security and the desperate need to see the hostages returned. I have also been clear that the situation in Gaza is intolerable, and that the world will not look away as innocent civilians, including women and children, continue to face death, disease and displacement. It cannot go on. We need an immediate ceasefire: hostages out, aid in, and a huge scale-up of humanitarian assistance. That is the policy of this Government and an immediate ceasefire is the only way to achieve it, so we will do all we can in pursuit of these goals. That is why, as one of the first actions taken by this Government, we have restarted British funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency to deliver that critical humanitarian support.
We received the ICJ opinion on Friday and will consider it carefully before responding, but let me say that we have always been opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and we call on all sides to recommit to stability, peace, normalisation and the two-state solution: a recognised Palestinian state—the right of the Palestinian people—alongside a safe and secure Israel.
Thirdly, I turn to illegal migration. This issue has now become a crisis. To tackle it, we must reach out a hand to our European friends. We started that work at the EPC, agreeing new arrangements with Slovenia and Slovakia, deepening co-operation across Europe through our new border security command and increasing the UK presence at Europol in The Hague, to play our full part in the European Migrant Smuggling Centre. The crisis we face is the fault of gangs—no question—but to stop illegal migration we must also recognise the root causes: conflict, climate change and extreme poverty. So I have announced £84 million of new funding for projects across Africa and the Middle East in humanitarian and health support, skills training and access to education, because the decisions that people take to leave their homes cannot be separated from these wider issues.
We will work with our partners to stamp out this vile trade wherever it exists and focus on the hard yards of law enforcement with solutions that will actually deliver results. I have seen this in action when tackling counterterrorism as the Director of Public Prosecutions, and we can do the same on illegal migration. But let me be clear: there is no need to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. That is not consistent with the values of that blood bond, so we will not withdraw—not now, not ever.
The basic fact is that the priorities of the British people do require us to work across borders with our partners, and a Government of service at home requires a Government of strength abroad. That is our role. It has always been our role. Britain belongs on the world stage. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. We on this side share in good wishes for the future of President Biden after his decision to withdraw from November’s election. It was only a fortnight ago that the Prime Minister stressed on what good form President Biden was, so this news was a great surprise to many of us. I hope, as others have said, that Sir Keir did not tell him that he was over 80 and had to go. I also express, on behalf of these Benches, our revulsion at the attempt on the life of President Trump and our delight that this murderous attack failed. We were struck by the great courage that Mr Trump showed. I was pleased that the Prime Minister conveyed our nation’s best wishes to him directly.
We live in a world of hatred running rife, murderous bloody war, the ambition to annihilate whole nations and, as the Statement said so eloquently, actions so heinous that they target women and children, and even glory in it. Against that, what we say may seem trivial, but it cannot help to create the right climate to call a political opponent such as Mr Trump a would-be dictator, a neo-Nazi or even Hitler. I think the people who invaded Normandy in 1944 and liberated Belsen and Auschwitz knew what a racist and a Nazi really was. I think many across the world could do well to look at the civility of discourse in this Chamber. That includes, and must always include—I make this abundantly clear—a respectful response to a maiden speech. I welcome all new noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite.
I was grateful as Leader for the unstinting support from that side of the Chamber for our Government’s unswerving commitment to Ukraine. Prime Minister Johnson was literally in it from the time of the first assault on Kyiv. We unequivocally support the strong words of the Prime Minister and his firm commitment of substantial and enduring resources to the future defence of Ukraine. Russia’s barbaric aggression must be halted and we on this side stand four-square with His Majesty’s Government on that.
We also welcome the Prime Minister’s positive commitment to NATO. For 75 years, NATO has been the most successful defensive alliance in history, and defensive it remains. However, behind some of the rhetoric in this Statement was a troubling fact: this Government have as one of their first acts dropped the previous Government’s funded commitment to raise defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP by 2030. We are told that a clear path may be set out at some time in the future. Can the noble Baroness say when this will happen? Will it come in the Autumn Statement or await the latest strategic review, to be conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen?
The whole House appreciates the great experience and sound judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. Can we be assured that this Government, in their enthusiasm for a so-called “reset” with the European Union—we have never been anything other than friendly with our partners in Europe—will not abandon the vital strategic emphasis on our Pacific partnerships through the CPTPP and AUKUS, among other instruments? With China’s threatening posture and North Korea’s support of aggression against Ukraine, it is surely essential that our ties continue to strengthen with this economically expanding part of the world. Will the noble Baroness restate the Government’s unequivocal commitment to the CPTPP and the AUKUS treaty?
There are disturbing reports that the Government may reconsider our commitment to the Tempest fighter project. This, too, is crucial to our ties in the Pacific. Our close ally, Japan, is a partner in the Global Combat Air Programme project. It was sealed by the signing of an international treaty in Tokyo in December 2023. A treaty—pacta sunt servanda. The other major signatory to this treaty was another of our closest allies, Italy. The Prime Minister said in the Statement that he wants to be
“in the room, centre stage”,
so will the noble Baroness assure the House that there can be no question of rushing off into the wings from a treaty on the Tempest project with a close European friend, Italy, and a close ally, Japan? Pacta sunt servanda. Does this principle apply to a Labour Government on a day when we are debating the rule of law?
Already, we have seen this Government unilaterally abrogate a treaty with a friendly Commonwealth ally, Rwanda. Notice of ratification by the UK Government was issued on 23 April. Six weeks later, it was “scrapped” —I think that was the diplomatic word used by a No. 10 spin doctor—with no prior contact with the Government of Rwanda. Pacta sunt servanda. I ask again: does this principle still apply? There is talk of money wasted—and certainly good will has been wasted —but in life, money is wasted not by those investing in a long-term project but by those who pull the plug on it as it comes to fruition.
The Prime Minister spoke of a full-scale crisis of illegal migration. He has unilaterally abrogated the Rwanda treaty. Can the noble Baroness now tell the House what specifically will be done to deter and deal with those individuals who land illegally in large numbers on our shores? What will the Government do with them? The Prime Minister was offered many opportunities to answer this during the election and did not do so. Will the noble Baroness respond to Parliament?
We were pleased that the Prime Minister went through with the EPC summit at Blenheim Palace. He was candid and generous enough to admit that this summit, with its emphasis on illegal migration, was planned—in partnership with the Italian EU presidency—by the previous Conservative Government. Hearing some of the excited spin doctors of the new Government, you would not have thought so—rather that it might have arisen miraculously in two weeks. I pay tribute to the work done by my noble friends Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Cameron in preparing this summit. We are glad that it was a success, though it is important never to forget that the only sure anchor of European security is NATO. We must take care never to allow any security pact with the European Union, however desirable it may seem, to undermine that truth.
Finally, the Prime Minister spoke about the situation in the Middle East. We all want to see progress towards a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, prosperity and security. However, as we make progress towards that goal, our friend and ally Israel must have the right to defend itself against the threat it is facing, demonstrated by the drone strike on Tel Aviv at the end of last week by the Iranian-allied Houthi rebels.
In conclusion, I assure the noble Baroness that we on these Opposition Benches will work positively with His Majesty’s Government on questions of foreign policy and national security. Of course, we will question and probe—that is the duty of this House—but across this Chamber we will always act in the national interest and work constructively with His Majesty’s Government to ensure the security of our country.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and begin by saying that we share the Government’s sentiments in their tributes to President Biden.
I welcome this Statement, not least because of its tone. In the last Parliament, we became used to gushing prime ministerial Statements that made grandiose assertions about Britain’s role in the world, which often seemed at odds with reality. Today’s Statement adopts a much more matter-of-fact tone, which seems more in keeping with our global position as a nation. It seems to me that this more realistic degree of national self-awareness is a much sounder basis on which to base our foreign and defence policies.
On the specific issues discussed at the NATO summit, the war in Ukraine remains the biggest threat to European peace and security. We therefore welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting Ukraine militarily and financially, and in moving towards NATO membership.
Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza goes from bad to worse. We obviously welcome the Government’s commitment to an immediate ceasefire and their practical decision to resume support to UNRWA, but we believe they should go further now by ending arms exports to Israel and recognising a Palestinian state. On the ICJ opinion, we are pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s reiteration of UK support for the work of the court. I therefore hope that the Government will respect all its judgments. We must not get ourselves into the position of supporting the work of the court only when it delivers politically convenient opinions.
The overarching challenge now facing NATO is how Europe should respond to a possible US retreat from its European commitments. That would be an immediate challenge were President Trump to be elected, but in the longer term even Democrat presidents, faced with an increasing preoccupation with China, are likely to give less priority to the defence of Europe. Europe is therefore going to have to stand on its own feet on defence to a greater extent than at any point since World War II, and the sooner we accept this and proactively plan to do so, the better.
That is one reason why we support the strategic defence review. We hope that it will agree with us that a top priority must be to increase the size and operational capability of the Army, and that the previous Government’s so-called tilt to the east was a mistaken attempt to pretend that we had a global military reach—which we simply do not have—and should now be reversed.
The Prime Minister was fortunate in the timing of the European Political Community summit last week, in that it gave him an early opportunity to begin to reset our relationship with our European neighbours, and particularly with the EU. It is a pleasure to be able to agree with the Government that we need to be in the room when the EU discusses security, migration and climate change, but we would welcome any indication from the Leader as to when the Government anticipate that this active participation will start. Has any timetable been agreed?
As the Leader and the House know, while we are pleased that the Government are adopting a more positive tone in respect of the EU, we do not think they are going far or fast enough in building our relationships. It is intensely depressing to me to hear the Prime Minister ruling out freedom of movement and membership of the single market or customs union almost as an article of faith. It is equally depressing that the Government seem unwilling to take smaller steps such as reinstating EU youth exchange arrangements, which are clearly beneficial for the UK and the EU alike.
The Prime Minister says that he is taking a practical rather than an ideological view of our relations with the EU. If that is indeed the case, can the Leader assure us that the Prime Minister will look practically and not ideologically at a further series of steps to restore our European links?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and questions. Indeed, I share the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about violence in political discourse and the attack on President Trump. Whenever we see such attacks, the world is shocked and holds its breath for the implications it may have. We should all choose our words carefully going forward, because words do matter and can have an impact. That might apply to President Trump sometimes too, but we should all be careful because political discourse can have a wider impact than just debates. The Prime Minister spoke to President Trump very soon after that incident. It was a very convivial conversation, and he conveyed the best wishes of us all.
I also thank him for the comments he made about responses to maiden speeches. The House will have heard and appreciated what he said. I know from my exchanges with him that he always acts with the best civility on how this House behaves, and I appreciate what he said.
On Ukraine, it has been really important that your Lordships’ House, the Government, the Opposition and the other House have always been as one. It is not just important that the Government and Parliament are as one; it is also important that we say to Ukraine that the British people stand with it. Friends of mine were privileged to host a Ukrainian refugee family. There were difficult circumstances for them to come over here, but so many people across the country have opened their arms and their doors to welcome Ukrainian refugees. When President Zelensky came to the Cabinet meeting last Friday, the message was that the people of this country and whoever is in government—across both Houses—stand with Ukraine and will continue to do so for as long as it takes.
NATO is stronger than ever. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a comment about the contributions made by member countries. In 2014 just three countries had reached 2%. Today it is 23 out of the 32, with others having plans to do so as well. That commitment shows how its strength is growing, and how all member countries feel exactly the same as we do on how important this alliance is for us all, and why it needs to be strong.
The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we have not dropped any commitment to 2.5% of GDP. I do not know how many times “commitment” has to be said, but it remains and always will. However, on timing, we have said that we expect the strategic defence review to report in probably the first part of next year, and that will inform how the amount is reached. It is an “if” and certainly not a “when”, and I assure him that we remain committed to that. He also talked about having another review, but the strategic defence review is fully independent. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill and General Barrons are big figures in the world of defence; they know what they are talking about. I am grateful to them all for taking on that role, and we look forward to seeing their report when it is presented.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned the EPC several times. I share the congratulations and thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Cameron, on and for the work they did in ensuring that the EPC came to this country; it was very important and it gave us, as a new Government, an opportunity to host that meeting. However, this is not just the EU—the noble Lord, Lord Newby, spoke several times about the EU, but it is important to note that the EPC is wider than the EU. The meeting was an opportunity for European leaders to get to know the new Government and understand the kind of relationships that we want to build with the leaders of all countries. It was a reset of our relationship, which will be important going forward.
The Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of Israel. As we have said so many times, it is absolutely right that Israel has the right to defend itself. How it does so is also very important—as long as it acts within international law. After the appalling attacks on 7 October, it was shocking and upsetting to hear that news coming through around the world. The way forward has to be a ceasefire; it is hard to see any way of getting all the hostages released unless there is a ceasefire. We want all the hostages to return home to their families. Anyone who met the families of those hostages when they visited your Lordships’ House will know of their deep despair, as well as their courage, as they wait for their family members to come home.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his comments on the Prime Minister’s tone. It is quite clear that we have a Prime Minister who is thoughtful and careful in how he approaches these issues. What he wants is to work in collaboration—without conflict—by seeking common cause where it is possible to do so.
On Ukraine, we now have an irreversible path towards NATO membership. On the arms exports issue that the noble Lord raised, we will ensure that international law is fully factored into those decisions, in line with the strategic export licensing criteria.
Something I said in response to the King’s Speech was that, too often, illegal migration has been a political campaigning tool. We have to lower the rhetoric and find action that works. The Rwanda policy was hugely expensive. I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the costs on those who pulled the plug, as he put it, but I note that while about £700 million has been spent so far and £10 billion was apparently factored in, only four people volunteered to go to Rwanda. Some 1,000 staff working on that have now been redeployed to work on assessing claims and returning people who have no right to be here. The new border security command is a way forward on that. The greatest deterrent for anybody who wants to come to this country is to know that, if they come here, their claim will be processed in the appropriate way and they will be returned—that is the most important thing and where we will put our efforts. Also, through the money spent in Africa and the Middle East, it is important to try to tackle the causes of why people are leaving their countries: extreme poverty, conflict and the effects of climate change, as we have said. I make no apologies whatever; we feel some pride that the Rwanda policy will not be pursued by this Government.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the Leader of the House; this is the first time I have spoken since she took up her new position. I also welcome that the Statement mentioned the advantage that the Prime Minister took at Blenheim to give his colleagues and partners at that meeting the two key points in the gracious Speech about our relations with other European countries and the European Union: the reset and the pact of security in the widest sense.
I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that the next country to chair the European Political Community is Hungary and there is due to be a meeting there, presumably in Budapest, in the second half of this year. The Prime Minister of Hungary is a past master of pretending that he is something that he is not: the representative of the European Union. His rotating presidency gives him no right to that; that is a matter for the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. Can the Leader of the House assure me that we are alert to attempts that may be made to peddle the aberrant views on the Ukraine conflict held by the Prime Minister of Hungary?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. First, I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition; he asked me a question that I forgot to respond to. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will not mind that I address that. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the Global Combat Air Programme, an intergovernmental organisation. An order will come forward to this House, probably on Monday; I will propose a Business of the House Motion to allow that to come forward. I will send him information about that; I think that the Chief Whips have already spoken.
On Hungary, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that his question is probably one for the European Union rather than me. It is worth restating that we stand completely in solidarity with Ukraine—that is an ironclad commitment. There have been different views within the EU—Hungary, is notably one of them—but the EU has spoken with one voice and stands with Ukraine.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I too take this opportunity to warmly welcome my noble friend to the Dispatch Box as the Lord Privy Seal. I congratulate her on a well-deserved appointment to that position and wish her well.
I fully support the steps that my Government are taking to tackle the crisis of illegal migration, which was created substantially by the previous Government’s inaction and incompetent handling of the issue. That aside, the Statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on it is reported in Hansard on Monday at cols. 369-70—I will not read it all out, but it is there for noble Lords to read. However, I will make the point that there is not one Member of your Lordships’ House who, if forced to leave his or her home because of persecution or conflict, would not expect to be able to seek asylum safely. That is not available to anyone who seeks asylum in Europe. I ask my noble friend: was the question of opening safe routes, so that refugees have an alternative to dangerous journeys, raised at all in the discussion with the EPC? There was much agreed, much discussed and much started, but was that touched on at all?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I do not know all the details of what was discussed in the meeting, but yesterday I spoke to the Home Secretary, who told me that the meeting on migration lasted twice as long as was anticipated, such was the range of issues discussed and the willingness of countries to co-operate on that. This issue is quite complex and multifaceted in some ways. One of the reasons we want to ensure the £58 million for Africa and the Middle East that I spoke about is to tackle some of the root causes of why people flee their countries and seek asylum. We should address those issues—conflict, poverty or the effects of climate change—as they will have an impact on why people want to leave. I hope that some of them will be addressed. As I said, I do not have a full readout of the meeting, but it was very long and I am told that it was also very productive.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Leader of the House mentioned the restoration of funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency. Obviously, she and the Government will be aware of the level of infiltration by Hamas of that organisation. A number of its staff took part in the appalling evil of 7 October. A number of its schools have funded the storage of weapons. Furthermore, Hamas has been using tunnels under its headquarters for terrorism purposes. Can she assure the House that this organisation really has turned a new leaf and sorted out these problems, and has been properly investigated? Can we really be 100% sure that UK taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund terror and spread hatred?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I reiterate, and will do so, I am sure, on many occasions, that we utterly condemn Hamas—not just for the attacks on 7 October but for its terrorism and the way in which it behaves. That is an unequivocal attack on Hamas. On the allegations that were raised, there was an independent report from the UN, and we are reassured after that report that UNRWA is ensuring that it meets the highest standards of neutrality and strengthens its procedures, including on vetting, so that there is no contact. That does not for one moment take away from the seriousness of the allegations made. I will also say to the noble Lord that the experience that UNRWA has, its logistical capacity, knowledge and infrastructure are the best way of getting aid to where it is desperately needed— I know that he feels the same about the aid issue. Other countries have felt the same, and the EU and Japan have reinstated funding. I am in no way condoning anything that Hamas does—the noble Lord can be reassured on that—but we need to get aid in and have had assurances via the UN and that report.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on her becoming the Leader of our House and wish her well in the times to come. I wanted to talk about the European Political Community. It is a young child. It began only in 2022 and this was the fourth meeting of it. Forty-three Heads of Government and Heads of State came to Blenheim Palace, which was a remarkable result; 24 of them were from the EU, indicating just how much of the community is outside the EU. The original intention was to have not only a meaty agenda but quite a lot going on in the margins. Indeed, this time there is a report on what sounded like a very important meeting in the margins regarding Moldova. However, the Prime Minister in his Statement did not say anything about his general enthusiasm for the political community, which is still a young child. It is something for which he is going to need the enthusiasm to drive it through—we have just heard that the fifth meeting is on 7 November, and the sixth meeting will be in Albania next year. However, it is important to have an expression from the Government of how valuable this format is, both for what is on the agenda and for what takes place in the margins.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I totally agree with the noble Earl. I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not sound enthusiastic enough for him. The tone was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but perhaps he has put some greater enthusiasm on it. The Prime Minister is very enthusiastic about this, and he welcomed the opportunity to host such a meeting at Blenheim Palace, given its historical significance. Apparently, some of the union’s leaders and those of other countries said that they had visited before and seen around the grounds but had never been inside the palace itself. It was a bit of soft power being used to great effect at that point.
When we have international problems, they need international solutions and the breadth of the countries there. The noble Lord is right: there was the formal meeting but, as every one of us who has attended conferences will know, the informal part is where people get to know and talk to each other. In those informal meetings, one builds up relationships. When things get difficult and one might have to impart a difficult message or exchange stronger views, having had that informal as well as a formal relationship will help those discussions take place. I can assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister is very enthusiastic about the EPC, as are the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and others who were there. It is something that we want to build on and see as a cornerstone of a lot of the relationships we will have with others around the world.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, in paying tribute to my noble friend who is now the Leader of the House, I also pay tribute to what she had to say about Joe Biden. I think that many of us worry greatly that we may see in his passing the last truly Atlanticist President of the United States. For us, Ukraine is an existential threat to democracy and all we believe in. One cannot be sure that President Trump and Mr Vance feel the same way. Given that situation, have we not to recognise that Europe has to get its act together? The EU is making some progress in that direction—after all, the value of arms support through EU funding is probably greater than what the UK has given so far. It is trying to get its defence industry on a better basis. Is this not a powerful argument, quite different from those we faced in 2016, that we have to work closely with our European allies and friends?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I have been a great admirer of President Biden, Joe Biden, for many years. Unlike my noble friend, I do not want to prejudge or predict the outcome of the election. However, the relationship between our two countries, the UK and the USA, endures, whoever is in government in either country—that is a really important message to send. The point that my noble friend makes about how closely European countries should work together is valuable and important. It is something that we cannot take for granted. We are no longer in the EU, but our relationship with it and through the EPC with other European countries is vital, whoever is in the White House.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will the noble Baroness accept that one of the most important things in that Statement was the connection between migration and climate change? Will she do all in her power to remind those who are always talking about migration that they have not seen anything yet unless we do something about climate change, because that will drive huge movements across the world? Our climate change policy should be central to any kind of policy to deal with migration.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the climate emergencies that we have seen increasingly recently, with extreme weather conditions, have brought home to many people the importance of the issue, whereas perhaps it was previously seen as a side issue. The fact that the Prime Minister references that specifically in his Statement as being one of the drivers for migration is important. I can therefore give the noble Lord the assurance on that ground.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench, particularly as Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal. I thank her for the Statement and its contents, particularly with reference to the restoration of funding to UNRWA and the unequivocal position on the ECHR. Those are important principles, and I refer also to where the Statement says in relation to the Middle East
“we call on all sides to recommit to stability, peace, normalisation”.
That applies both to Israel and to Gaza. It is vital. Can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether discussions have taken place within NATO and the European Political Community about a reconstruction fund for those areas similar to what we had in Northern Ireland in terms of the International Fund for Ireland?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure whether my noble friend means a reconstruction fund in terms of Ukraine or wider. In terms of Ukraine, of course, there has been a discussion about how we use the frozen Russian assets and sanctions. I was not present at all the meetings. I shall find out for her whether that issue was discussed.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments made by my noble friend regarding UNRWA, because we know that it has been a corrupt organisation and that there were members who were involved in the attacks on 7 October. My point is about the £84 million that the noble Baroness said government was going to give in aid to Africa and the Middle East, which sounds very promising. Can the Leader of the House please give us details of what those projects are going to be? Can she also tell us who will be responsible for the oversight of them, because this is a huge amount of taxpayers’ money?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not have full details of all the programmes yet; we will try to update the House as we go on. However, work will be around the issues that drive those people to leave their countries. There will be some work on climate change, which we have spoken about, but also on issues such as trying to ensure that people have a future in their own country—for example, on provision of skills and education. Just look at how bad girls’ education in particular is around the world—I pay tribute to the work Gordon Brown has done on this. Those are the kinds of issues that force people to try to seek a better life somewhere else. There has to be hope in their own countries for them as well. The kinds of projects that we will be working with are around access to clean water and to a decent standard of living. We will update the House as more information becomes available.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to her position as Leader of the House. I am glad she emphasised the Prime Minister’s comments about President Biden. When he leaves the stage on 20 January next year, a very important phase in post-war Anglo-American relationships will in some ways come to an end.
I want to ask a question arising out of this Statement, which refers to the resetting of relations with Europe. As has been pointed out, the EPC meetings provide the opportunity for informal discussions. Can the Leader of the House give any encouragement to those of us who hope that discussions will now be able to take place on a youth mobility scheme or, as the Minister of Science said yesterday in this House, the greater movement of scientists between the US and Europe, and, if I can add this, musicians, especially youth musicians?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is early days to give my noble friend some of the assurances that he is looking for. At this stage, we are looking to establish those relationships and get structures in place to see what outcomes we can produce going forward. The kind of co-operation we want is an EPC that, from all those countries, wider than the EU—which I think part of his question relates to—ensures that we can have co-operation across a range of issues, which will benefit all those involved.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s reference to investment—if I can call it that—in upstream issues, not only climate change but conflict and poverty and so on, is of course welcome, but it will not address everything; it cannot. I urge her to ensure that the provision of safe routes for refugees does not go off the agenda.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I doubt that it will go off the agenda at all, but the noble Baroness is right that it is an investment. With all these things, it is very easy sometimes to talk about money being spent; the key is what happens to that money and the impact it has at the end. That will be really important. Poverty, as the noble Baroness mentioned, is a particular issue. So many people flee their countries looking for a better life, and they want to work and engage. If we can provide some of those opportunities for them in their own country, that will be better for all of us.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, can I press the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the commitment to raising NATO spending to 2.5%? She referred to the strategic defence review outcome early next year, but the Prime Minister referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting out a path. Can she be more definitive about when exactly we can expect an announcement as to when this commitment will be honoured?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think I can make an announcement about an announcement. However, I can tell the noble Lord that it is a commitment to 2.5%. We will get the outcomes through the strategic defence review. I think the House will want more information about not only the amount of money that is spent but how it is spent. When the strategic defence review reports, we will report back to the House.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said in her remarks that the best form of deterrence for illegal migration was to return those who had no right to be here. Since 2018, the five largest nationalities crossing by small boats have been from Albania, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Iran. The previous Government set up a highly effective return agreement with Albania. There is no agreement with the other four. Do the Government intend to remove people from those countries, and if they do, where do they plan to remove them to?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think the noble Lord slightly truncated my comment. I said that the greatest deterrence was the feeling that they were going to be caught, and that if they were caught and were not entitled to be here, they would be returned. It was slightly broader than what he said. Having bilateral agreements with countries, whereby people can return to safe countries, is certainly part of the plan and the mix of how we deal with this issue.
King’s Speech
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I want to focus my remarks on the constitution. I start by noting that, in the Labour manifesto, constitutional reform found its place in the chapter entitled “Restoring public service in Westminster”. I commend that wider ambition, which is about trust in our system. We are all agreed that renewing trust has never been more important.
Where have we got to in the King’s Speech? I personally accept that the removal of the hereditary Peers is probably a sensible and incremental step for any Government intent on modernising the House of Lords. Many hereditary Peers are close colleagues and their individual contributions are consistently impressive, but I think they know, as we probably all do, that, collectively, they have been on borrowed time for 25 years. This measure will slightly reduce the size of the House and ensure a slightly better gender balance, but there is much more to be done on both those counts.
I add one small, additional point. I have very occasionally heard it argued that removing the remaining hereditary element of our legislature risks undermining the hereditary institution of monarchy. This argument does not stand up to a moment’s scrutiny—the roles are obviously entirely different.
In the manifesto, but not in the King’s Speech, is reform of the House of Lords appointments process. It may be that strengthening the vetting powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—HOLAC —could be achieved without legislation, as could an acceptance that HOLAC recommendations are binding. I hope, however, that in due course legislation can be introduced to put the essential work of HOLAC on a statutory basis. The arguments for doing so are well known.
Why is it important? The present system of appointments to the House of Lords is widely seen by the general public as being about unattractive, and occasionally unacceptable, political patronage. That power of patronage is seen as a tool of party management and party fundraising. I suggest that a Government with a large majority could afford to take risks in limiting this power. It is also another way to restore trust in our political system. There is more to be done.
The area which is neither in the manifesto nor the King’s Speech is the importance of proper scrutiny of secondary legislation. This is hardly a surprise. There are few votes to be had in trying to explain that Parliament lacks the teeth to scrutinise much of the legislation that governs our lives, even if the pitch is spiced with references to Henry VIII or skeleton Bills. However, key democratic principles are at stake. Effective scrutiny makes better law. Parliament’s fundamental constitutional role to hold the Executive to account is weakened by present arrangements.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on his excellent maiden speech in which, to my surprise and admiration, he mentioned secondary legislation. I urge him to study the two recent Lords reports on this issue, which highlight what is a democratic deficit in our system of legislation. As with House of Lords appointments, there is scope here for putting wider public interest above party self- interest or executive expediency. There is much more to be done.
I finish where I started. Restoring trust in the way we are governed has never been more important. Constitutional reform has a vital role to play in this, but there is more, much more, to be done.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to his post and congratulating him on a superb maiden speech. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to his post. It was one of the great honours of my life to serve for a little over two and a half years as a Northern Ireland Minister in this House. After some 36 years of involvement, I will continue to be an active participant on all Northern Ireland matters both inside and outside the House.
In the short time available, I will make three points. First, the election result in Northern Ireland does not in any way indicate that constitutional change is imminent or inevitable, let alone desirable. Yes, Sinn Féin now has the largest number of seats in the other place and, for the second election in a row, there are more nationalist MPs from Northern Ireland than there are unionists. But that tells only part of the story. In fact, nationalists returned exactly the same number of MPs at this election as five years ago. The two main nationalist parties, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, won 38.1% of the vote. For context, it is worth recalling that in the 1998 Assembly election those two parties had 39.6% of first preference votes. The question that those who advocate the end of the union ought to be asking themselves, therefore, is why, after an agreement that they claimed would deliver a united Ireland by 2016, and despite demographic changes, nationalism is in roughly the same place as it was a quarter of a century ago.
The big shift from 1998 has been the decline of the unionist vote, probably exacerbated at this election by events that could not have been foreseen, and the rise of Alliance as an electoral force. However, as I have said before, I do not believe that too many people are motivated to vote Alliance out of a burning desire for constitutional change, and in the constituency won by Alliance at the election, Lagan Valley, more votes were cast for unionist candidates than in any other seat in Northern Ireland. Those predicting or hastening the end of the union are being decidedly premature, so I welcome the reaffirmation by the new Secretary of State—incidentally, my local MP—Hilary Benn that a border poll is not on the horizon. The circumstances that would require it to be called are nowhere near satisfied.
My second point is that this creates both challenges and opportunities for those who want to see Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom strengthened. I count myself among their number. The most obvious point is that unionism has to find a way of co-operating rather than constantly tearing itself apart. It needs, as one unionist put it recently, to start finding new friends rather than constantly seeking out Lundys and traitors and fighting yesterday’s battles.
What form this takes is primarily for unionists in Northern Ireland to determine, although my noble friend Lord Godson set out a number of suggestions in a typically erudite speech in Limavady earlier this year. Unionism cannot afford to appeal to an ever-decreasing base. There is a broader constituency out there that needs engaging about the long-term economic and social benefits of the union, which remain considerable.
My final point is for the Government. I welcome the pledge in the gracious Speech to
“support the political institutions and devolved government in Northern Ireland”.
The restoration of Stormont in February was the culmination of intensive efforts by my colleagues in the previous Administration. It was achieved as a result of the changes we set out in the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union to address the serious defects in the original protocol.
The Government’s manifesto states that they are
“committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith”.
However, it does not mention the Command Paper, which was also vital in getting Stormont back. The Command Paper contained a number of positive and practical measures to strengthen the union—the East-West Council and Intertrade UK, to name but two. I hope that the Government will faithfully implement all those commitments in the Command Paper that are designed to strengthen the union.
As my noble friend Lord McInnes of Kilwinning reminded the House, in 2021 the then Leader of the Opposition stated:
“I believe in the United Kingdom and I will make the case for a United Kingdom”.
However, on his visit to Belfast, days after becoming Prime Minister, he said that he would be an “honest broker” on the issue, intimating incorrectly that this was somehow a requirement of the 1998 agreement. I hope that this does not herald a retreat back to neutrality on the union and Northern Ireland’s position within it. No UK Government should ever be neutral on the union. The Prime Minister should stay true to his commitment to make the case for the United Kingdom and for Northern Ireland’s enduring place within it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Caine, whose commitment to Northern Ireland is unquestioned. Although he had a very bad hand to play in the last Government, he played it with great integrity. It is also a pleasure to welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to the Dispatch Box. As a Welsh lawyer, he follows in the footsteps of my friend Gareth Williams, Lord Williams of Mostyn, a distinguished Attorney-General in this House. With him, both in the courts and in this Chamber, I was able, as Shakespeare wrote of lawyers, to
“Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends”.
I hope it will be the same with the noble and learned Lord.
In all the controversies over the abolition of the hereditary peerage in the Labour Government of 1997, Gareth and I walked together through the Lobby in support of a fully elected second Chamber. This is not surprising. My general election address in 1964 in West Flintshire, which covered his home town of Mostyn, called for the abolition of the hereditary peerage entirely, and also for a Welsh Senedd; 60 years later, we are nearly there.
My criticism of this Government’s programme is in the great Liberal tradition—it does not go far enough. I dislike those dark shadows who, to quote Shakespeare again, strut and fret upon this stage for five minutes and then are heard and seen no more—save to appear briefly at the Bar to collect their tick. What is needed in this House is a body of no more than 400 working Members who will properly scrutinise the Government’s programme on the floor of this Chamber and fill the committees that play such an important part in the work of this House. I would prefer them to be elected representatives covering the whole country, with a nine-year renewable term and with elections every three years of one-third of the body. Short of that, if Members are to be appointed rather than elected, I would abolish prime ministerial patronage. I suggest that a quarter should be appointed for a fixed term of no more than 15 years by an appointments commission as non-affiliated Cross-Benchers.
As for the rest, after each general election political parties that gain representation in the House of Commons should appoint, in accordance with whatever democratic system they choose, a number of Members to the second Chamber proportionate to the votes cast in the election. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would agree with me on that. No one should be reappointed for more than 15 years’ service. We should take the opportunity to get rid of the flummery. We do not need to be “Lords”. “MS” should be enough: Member of the Senate or of the second Chamber.
By all means, let us have a new order of chivalry for those who are public-spirited enough to fund our political system. I am all for that; let us call it the most noble order of the wallet—after all, a garter is meant only to hold up your socks. But let us ensure that it is not possible simply to buy one’s way into the legislature.
One final thing: I have been fortunate enough to draw a place in the ballot that will permit me to introduce a Private Member’s Bill that I hope will make it possible for secondary legislation to be conditionally amended, as the Hansard Society has called for. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lords, Lord Janvrin and Lord Anderson, referred to this. In opposition, Labour, unlike the Liberal Democrats, refused to contemplate fatal Motions. It is the nuclear option, but regret Motions are a waste of our time and space, since the Executive can and do ignore them.
The Labour Party’s attitude was consistent with its failure to join with the Liberal Democrats to vote down the Rwanda Bill at Second Reading—only months ago—which would have saved weeks of unnecessary argument. However, the first thing it did when it went into government was to abolish that policy entirely. I hope that my proposed Bill will provide a sensible and rational check on Ministers seeking to exercise their powers, in particular their Henry VIII powers. Will it take 60 years?
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have, I thank the Attorney-General for his impressive, striking and wide-ranging maiden speech.
A passage in the King’s Speech caught my attention. It goes as follows:
“My Government will strengthen its work with the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that the best outcomes … are delivered for citizens across the United Kingdom. My Ministers will establish a new Council of the Nations and Regions to renew opportunities for the Prime Minister, heads of devolved governments and mayors of combined authorities to collaborate with each other”.
Understandably, given the last few years, our ears are ringing with the phrase “reset”. There is an element of reset: this is a new institution. As has rightly been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, there is a question about how this relates to other institutions in this area. But there was an immediate echo in my mind when I read this passage; it not just a reset, but a fundamental return to basics for the Labour leadership.
I refer to Tony Blair’s speech, as the newly elected Prime Minister, given in Balmoral, Belfast, on 16 May 1997—a speech that, in my view, was the sine qua non for the subsequent negotiation of the Good Friday agreement, which was again supported in the King’s Speech, while outlining a concept of devolution throughout the United Kingdom. Tony Blair said:
“I want to see a Union which reflects and accommodates diversity. I am against a rigid, centralised approach … The proposals this government are making, for Scotland and Wales, and for the English regions, are designed to bring Government closer to the people. That will renew and strengthen the Union”.
This was a crucial moment in 1997. It outlines a vision that was put into effect over the next generation.
To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, Tony Blair was not neutral on the union. He said, quite clearly:
“The Union binds the four parts of the United Kingdom together … I value the Union”.
Sir Keir Starmer said the same in his interviews with Enda McClafferty of BBC Northern Ireland, which have been mentioned.
There is an understandable view that the commitment to equality of esteem somehow erodes this commitment, but it clearly does not. Tony Blair stated that commitment; he knew it was the price of getting the agreement done and he negotiated equality of esteem. Equality of esteem means fair play for the two communities within Northern Ireland, and it has to be exercised by the sovereign Government.
My final point is that this is actually devolution 2.0. Devolution has been through various traumas in Northern Ireland. It had the massive struggle, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, by which the last Government, through the Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union, eventually restored devolution in Northern Ireland. That was indisputably the great achievement of the Government who have just left office.
I was very pleased yesterday by the way in which the new Front Bench, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, spoke about the functions, role and support it has for the Windsor Framework. That was an important moment and we can expect continuity in that policy area.
But this is devolution 2.0. The fact is that, for long spells, not just in Northern Ireland but in Scotland, it has not worked in the way that anybody happily thought it would in 1997. The Government now have a second chance to restore it to the validity of the original vision that Tony Blair brought to it, in the first instance. All I can say is that that will be difficult and require much effort.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer on his maiden speech, and to welcome him and my noble friend Lord Khan and his colleagues to the Front Bench. It is wonderful to see them there; long may it continue.
I will speak briefly about devolution, which has not been so much discussed in this debate. For me, devolution is vital and it must have the criteria of delivering something that is level, equal across the UK and balanced. For me, probably the worst example of that is where I live, the Isles of Scilly, so I will concentrate my remarks there.
It is a very independent community, 28 miles off the English coast and remote from the rest of the UK. It is a very strong and loyal community, which will tell you that it does not want to be linked with Cornwall. Some noble Lords may have read that the six former Conservative MPs who lost their seats in Cornwall at the last election—in favour of four Labour and two Lib Dem—think that the answer is to have a Minister for Cornwall. If we had a Minister for every county, ministerial boxes might get a bit full, so I do not think that that will work.
Scilly does not want to be part of Cornwall. I have had many discussions with the council on the Isles of Scilly and it has problems. It wants to preserve the community spirit and be a sustainable place to live, but there needs to be a financial settlement, which would probably be different from that of most local authorities.
The single biggest challenge on the islands is transport. Noble Lords may have read about the Harland & Wolff issues, which I am not going to talk about, but the reality is that these transport links are fragile, unreliable and expensive. You can travel on a bus for many miles in Cornwall for £2 a journey, when residents travelling between the islands of Scilly sometimes have to pay as much as £110 for a single fare in the winter, for just a couple of miles. It is the same if you want to go to the mainland, to hospital or for anything else. It is 28 miles, which would probably cost £10 or so on a train. Last week, I paid £110 for a three-hour journey on a ferry. It is a lot more to go by air and it is an unreliable service. Basic services are awful there.
The cost of living on Scilly is seriously high. Housing is a problem. Noble Lords may know that, in the last stages of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, before the end of the last Government, the Duchy of Cornwall promised new tender or leasing documents for people leasing their buildings on the Isles of Scilly. No leases extend for more than 40 years at the moment so, if you spend several hundred thousand pounds doing up your house, you will still have only a 40-year lease. I am looking for Ministers to tell us when the Duchy is going to publish its guidelines.
Similarly, it is difficult to get local authority building now because the costs of freight are so high, so something needs to be done and it is not easy. The Council of the Isles of Scilly is good at trying to sort out what should happen there. There must be a devolution deal that will take Scilly outside the normal local authority funding rules. I do not know when that will happen, but the transport needs to become a public transport system rather than one with the costs I have just quoted. Otherwise, the residents will give up and the community will get lost.
The community does not want to be linked with Cornwall and I hope that my noble friends, when they come to look at the devolution of the south-west, Cornwall and Scilly, will come to discuss and consult—as they have said they will—and have a special, bespoke arrangement ready for the Isles of Scilly to talk about.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I add my appreciation for the contributions of the two maiden speakers.
Because of Brexit and the changes envisaged in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Government will have the power to award huge sums of money across the country, and the relationship between devolved Administrations and Westminster has entered a new phase. In January the previous Government listed their 12 missions as required under the Act, which will be the channels through which the money will be distributed. The challenge for the present Government is whether they can build a better relationship with the devolved Governments than that which exists at the moment.
My family and my health are now telling me that it is time to take a break. At the end of this Session I will take a leave of absence. My interest has been particularly on the constitution and devolution. It has been a privilege to have served this House for 28 years so far. It has meant that my family has been involved in both the constitution and devolution in this country since accompanying King William the Lion of Scotland on his return from exile 900 years ago.
In this building, when I walk between Central Lobby and the Members’ Lobby there is a painting of the scene of the execution of the First Marquess of Montrose, my direct ancestor, for commanding an army that sought to restore the monarchy represented by Charles II. Montrose was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered. The night before he wrote a short poem, which begins:
“Let them bestow on every airt a limb,
Then open all my veins that I may swim
To thee, my Maker, in that crimson lake”,
and finishes defiantly, with the lines:
“I’m hopeful thou’lt recover once my dust,
And confident thou’lt raise me with the just”.
In my view he was justified.
The theme that runs through all the subsequent generations was the ancient feudal responsibility that the Minister referred to in his introduction. In the early days it meant, “Do your duty to God and the King”. My family’s motto must date from that time, and it contains the instruction, “Do not forget”. In case I am not granted the opportunity to join noble Lords again, I will say that my hope is that your Lordships always remember what is expressed in the Norman French motto, “Ne Oublie”.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his service to this House. I warmly welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to this Chamber, and I am pleased that the Welsh contingent here is growing. Croeso a llongyfarchiadau—welcome and congratulations.
I welcome the commitment to votes at 16 in the Government’s manifesto. I have long campaigned for votes at 16 and was involved in the establishment of the Welsh Youth Parliament during my time as NUS Wales deputy president. Votes at 16 and 17 would strengthen and renew democracy by enfranchising young people at a habit-forming age. This move would also see an end to the imbalance in which Scottish and Welsh 16 and 17 year-olds can participate in democracy but their English contemporaries cannot. Research suggests that when given the opportunity, 16 and 17 year-olds turn out more than those in the next age group. This pattern was seen during the Scottish independence referendum.
It was promising to hear a commitment to encouraging greater participation in the democratic process in the King’s Speech. This comes after a general election with the lowest turnout since 2001 and record low levels of trust in politics. This was also the first general election in which voters needed to prove their identity with strict voter ID rules. So I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s proposals for righting the democratic course we are on.
I turn now to the initial proposals on automatic voter registration, which I hope to see as part of the Government’s plans to encourage wider participation in the democratic process. The Electoral Commission has previously estimated that up to 8 million eligible voters are missing from the electoral rolls—either because they are not registered or because they are incorrectly registered. During the general election, 2.9 million registration applications were made via the online registration portal from the date the election was called until the deadline on 18 June. These figures suggest that while there has been a surge in applications, many people will have missed out on being able to vote because they were not registered in time.
I am pleased that following the passing of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill in the Senedd earlier this month, automatic voter registration will be piloted and introduced in Wales. I hope to see the UK follow soon.
I now turn to the proposals to reform this House. I begin with a reminder of my own view and that of Plaid Cymru—we do not believe that an unelected upper Chamber has a place in a modern democratic society. I therefore welcome the initial steps towards reform of this House with the removal of hereditary Peers. However, I am disappointed that this is happening in isolation, with other reforms being pushed to a further consultation.
As we look to receive this consultation from the Government on age caps—shortly, I hope—I encourage them to use the opportunity to think more broadly. In their first term at least, I urge them to consider term limits rather than simply an age limit. This would remove the “job for life” element, control the size of the House and bring in new ideas on a regular basis. Work has been diligently carried out in this area already, with the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House also suggesting that term limits could work. This should be alongside wholesale reform. Term limits by themselves will not fix gender disparity; neither would they make the House more representative of the nations and regions, nor of socioeconomic background.
Gordon Brown made some interesting suggestions, such as replacing this Chamber with an assembly of the nations and regions. Do this Labour Government intend to progress with such recommendations? If so, when? We can begin a new chapter for our constitution and democracy, so let us not delay. I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s plans in the response from the noble Lord, Lord Khan. It has been 25 years since the first stage of Lords reform; I hope it will not take another 25 for the second to be completed. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I much welcome our new Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. He walks in the steps not only of Lord Williams of Mostyn, whom we all remember with great affection, but of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, who was Attorney-General from 2001 to 2007 and of my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, who was Attorney-General from 2007 to 2010. It is most welcome to have the Attorney-General back in our House.
From these Benches, I pledge support for our new Government. I do not agree with all the proposals in the manifesto but I am confident that my Government will listen with willing ears to my concerns and, better still, may abide by them.
This brings me to my confession. For that purpose, I have to take your Lordships to last Wednesday afternoon for the first round of speeches following the gracious Speech. Your Lordships who were present would have heard the most excellent speeches from my noble friends Lord Reid and Lady Hazarika. Your Lordships would also have heard in the middle of the speech of our new Lord Privy Seal a loud, “Hear, hear!” This was also clearly recorded at col. 23 of Hansard, which reads: “A noble Lord: Hear, hear!” That was me.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Thank you for a further, “Hear, hear!”
I made this noisy intervention because our new Lord Privy Seal had said:
“Ministers in our Government will not accept all changes but, when the House expresses a constructive view, the Government should treat that with respect”.—[Official Report, 17/7/24; col. 23.]
This will not always be easy. Under the last Government, the power of government—the power of the Executive against the legislature—became most powerful. Your Lordships will perhaps remember Report on the Illegal Migration Bill, when we passed no fewer than nine constructive amendments and they were all chucked out without even consideration by the Government of the day.
It is not only in this House that we suffered. I read from a report by my friend Jess Phillips in the New Statesman:
“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 … It feels to me like the very definition of madness that this is how our democracy works: hours wasted on a foregone conclusion that in the end will amount to no change … during these past few weeks … parliament”,
has felt to be a “farce”. On any view, that is most concerning.
It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in that debate—he spoke, as always, very well indeed—referred to the 409 government defeats in the last Parliament. I think his point was that there were too many Divisions, but it can also be said that on each of these 409 occasions the Government of the day were not listening to your Lordships’ House.
I finish by mentioning my own departure. I have always been under threat of expulsion from the moment I arrived in this House over 50 years ago. The first Wilson Government had proposed serious reforms of the House of Lords, which were defeated by an unholy alliance between Enoch Powell on the right and Michael Foot on the left. I have been under your sufferance for all these years, but it has been a great honour and an enriching experience to be here. Thank you. I am ready to be expelled for the second time.
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Labour Party on its stunning victory on 4 July and unpatriotic not to wish the Government luck and a fair wind. Since the abolition of the hereditary element in this House was in their manifesto, and of course they have the political power to enact it, all I want to do today is speak as an historian about the effect of breaking this living link that we presently have with Britain’s past.
Burke tells us:
“Society is indeed a contract … it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.
The hereditary element in this place represents— I hope hereditary Peers in this debate will not mind this characterisation—the “dead” part of that contract, for they do not merely represent themselves here; they also represent their ancestors, whose often glorious deeds have made Britain the country that she is today.
When we see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for example, as well as the good-natured and highly intelligent fellow who sits on the Labour Front Bench, we see the shade of his great-great-great-grandfather, Major General Sir Frederick Ponsonby, whose charge of the 12th Light Dragoons helped save the Union Brigade at a critical moment of the Battle of Waterloo—which, of course, was won by the ancestor of another of our present-day Members of this House, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who is speaking in this debate, holds a title that, for all that it went into abeyance for 400 years, was created in 1375, 650 years ago next year—nearly two- thirds of a millennium.
We are surrounded by ghosts in this Chamber, but they are the ghosts of the great. One of the speakers in this debate from the Liberal Benches will be the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. At a crucial moment for the continued existence of this country, in May 1940, his grandfather, Sir Archibald Sinclair, put party differences to one side to make his old comrade from the trenches, Winston Churchill, Prime Minister. He was Secretary of State for Air during the Battle of Britain. Then, only three months after he left that vital post, his place was taken by Viscount Stansgate, a decorated RAF officer and, of course, the grandfather of our own noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate.
Some of the families represented in this House go back to the very founding of our country. The first Duke of Montrose—we heard that moving statement from the eighth Duke—played a central part in the Act of Union that created the United Kingdom.
The greatness and the drama of our national past finds a living embodiment here in this Chamber in a way that does not exist in other Parliaments around the world. Once that link is broken, it cannot be reconstituted. To quote Burke again,
“the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists; and calculators has succeeded”.
I hope that, when the time comes to say farewell to the hereditary Peers, we will do so full of genuine gratitude for the centuries of service that they and their families have given this House and this country.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, a lot of congratulations could be in order this evening, but I particularly congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his outstanding maiden speech. How marvellous it was to hear the priority he gave to the rule of law and to bringing legislation before Parliament in a full and proper form. I thought to myself how much Lord Judge would have welcomed that statement.
I welcomed the recognition in the Labour Party’s manifesto of the House’s role in scrutinising the Government and in improving the quality of legislation. I also welcomed the statement that reform of the House is “long over-due”, and the recognition that this needs to address the size of the House. Having said that, I was disappointed that the only specific measure announced in the gracious Speech is for the removal of the hereditary Peers. As others have pointed out, the proposed Bill could result in the precipitate exclusion of many Members who currently make such a valuable contribution to the House. I fully recognise the Government’s right to pass the legislation, which was in both the Labour Party manifesto and the King’s Speech, and I hope the House will recognise that also. At the same time, I hope that some means might be found to retain the services of those who continue to make such a contribution to the work of the House.
Of course, the exclusion of the remaining hereditaries will go less than halfway towards solving the current imbalance between Conservative and Labour Members of the House. While the Leader has ruled out the creation of massive numbers of additional Labour Members and has said that she would wish to see
“roughly equal numbers between the Government and the major Opposition party”,
it seems inevitable that, contrary to the aspiration in the Labour Party manifesto, the House will get bigger before it gets smaller. That can be dealt with in due course by the proposal for a compulsory retirement age. As one of those affected, I have no objection to that. But on this proposal the Government appear to be stalling, and I think it is right to stall. Paradoxically, a retirement age of 80 would remove more Labour Members than those of any other party, and thus make even worse the imbalance between the main parties in the House. So I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that more needs to be done, and I disagree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that the Government are wise simply to be confining themselves to the Bill to remove the hereditaries.
How, then, is the House to be reformed? I share the view of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which was also reflected in a recent letter to the Times from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: that in the longer term the only effective means of permanently reducing the size of the House would be a statutory restriction on the Prime Minister’s power to appoint new Members. This could be combined with imposing a statutory limit of, say, 600, on the size of the House, to be accomplished progressively by the formula of two retirements to one appointment, as recommended by the Burns committee. As part of a comprehensive reform of the House, many of us would also like to see the implementation of what I know as the Norton Bill, to make the House of Lords Appointments Commission statutory and widen its terms of reference to include competence.
I am not entirely pessimistic about the future. I hope I am not reading too much into the speech of the Leader of the House last week, when she said that it will be
“helpful for us, as a House, to discuss how to move forward on these issues … to ensure we get things right”.—[Official Report, 17/7/24; col. 25.]
I hope that this might imply a degree of flexibility on the Government’s part. If it does, I believe that the great majority of the House will want to welcome and co-operate with the Government’s commitment to House of Lords reform.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Booth, and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan to his position on the Front Bench. I also declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Local government can and will, I am sure, do everything it can to support the new Government’s growth agenda, but by no means does this give Whitehall consent to sideline local councils in the process. To highlight the point I have just made, we saw the example earlier this month of the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero approving several solar farm applications in the shires and bypassing councils in the determination process—decisions that would normally be taken by democratically elected councillors who understand the needs of their communities best. On devolution, if the Government are truly serious about resetting the relationship between Whitehall and local government, may I suggest that making such bold decisions that impact local areas while bypassing local councils is perhaps not the best way to go about resetting the relationship? When it comes to infrastructure, it is councils that approve nine in 10 planning applications. The knowledge that councils have of their communities cannot be replaced.
I am pleased to see a commitment in the King’s Speech that an English devolution Bill will be introduced, and I hope I can outline to the House this evening some of the areas that I believe the Bill should cover. For a start, we need to end the endless bureaucratic competitive bidding processes for grants that local authorities need to go through to access funding, often spending thousands in taxpayers’ money and employee capacity in the process just to bring forward worthy bids.
The granting of further powers for local government as part of any devolution is, of course, welcome. However, further powers must come with fairer funding, with a commitment from the new Government to undertake a fair funding review for local government. We urgently need to review the formulae and data that the department uses to determine funding for councils. In addition, a commitment to multiyear financial settlements in areas such as adult social care, children’s services and highways will give local government a powerful hand to deliver alongside any new powers handed to it through the future devolution process.
To give local government more fiscal devolution over the course of the next Parliament, what quick and easy measures could the Government introduce as part of the English devolution Bill? First, if the Government are serious about growth they need to give local councils more flexibility to expand their capacity within planning departments to speed up the planning application process, allow them to set planning fees at rates that consider local demand and give them a firm hand to compete against the private sector on planning recruitment.
Secondly, if Whitehall wants local government to do more and deliver better, it must come forward with serious funding commitments to back that up. That is why I hope that the idea of 100% business rate retention can be explored again, in this Parliament, keeping business rates collected by councils inside local economies. A commitment to devolution should also mean a degree of trust between Whitehall and local government. It must be left to get on with the job without interference from civil servants in Whitehall. On that point, the Government should give an indication of what they envisage the role of the newly created Office for Local Government to be. As a Conservative, I think competition can be good for the sector. However, I do not believe it would be in the interests of local government to see a rehash of the Audit Commission.
To support a reset in the relationship between Whitehall and local government, a better understanding of how local government operates is key. To that end, I would welcome a commitment from the Government to increase the number of secondment opportunities from Whitehall departments into local government in areas of high demand with capacity issues; for example, in planning and infrastructure and related work that is undertaken by local government. I welcome commitments to devolution, but to achieve that a complete reset in the relationship between Whitehall and local government is needed, and I look forward to hearing in more detail the proposals that are likely to be contained in the upcoming English devolution Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to his place and thank him for a very thoughtful and calm speech, which I am sure will set a good platform for how he wishes to go forward. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to his place. I am sure his knowledge of local government will stand him in good stead. I am very sad that we will be hearing the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who I have admired over many years for his insight into health. I look forward to what he has to say.
The new Labour Government’s word is “change”, but what kind of change will we see? With the majority that they have in the House of Commons, will it be bold, radical change or some tinkering at the edges? On the two issues in the gracious Speech that I am going to speak about, I feel it is more tinkering than the bold change that is needed. My view on this House is based on a matter of principle, which is that it should be elected, not appointed. That is not to deflect from the great work that many, if not all, noble Lords do around this House, but as a matter of principle, I believe that this House should have legitimacy based on a democratic process. However, I realise that that is not going to happen under the new Labour Government, at least not in this Parliament, so what we are left with is not a wholesale reform but a piecemeal approach.
In that piecemeal approach, one group in your Lordships’ House seemed to be immune from questioning until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke earlier. It is the 26 Church of England Bishops who are guaranteed a place in Parliament. In fact, the Church of England is only institution in the whole country that is by law guaranteed seats in the UK Parliament. In a modern democracy, no religious organisation should be guaranteed seats in a parliament, particularly when less than 1% of the population regularly attends a Church of England service and consistently only 15% to 16% of the population say that bishops should have an automatic place. I believe that in 2024 it is time to end the automatic rights of a particular church to have seats in this Parliament, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on this issue and on why the Government are silent on that.
I am a total advocate of a federal approach to governing the UK. Such an approach is successful throughout Europe, with fiscal and policy devolution, and not just the policy decentralisation that we have in the UK. I register my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Real devolution can be seen across Europe, whether in the Länder of Germany, the cantons of Switzerland or the regions of France. It allows local leaders to have their hands on the levers of both fiscal and policy devolution. I am interested in the direction of travel that the new Government have signalled on English devolution, but I worry that it will not have the maximum impact, as it seems to be just more of the same with a few extras added in. I feel that there may be a little bit of top-down pushing, and that the culture in Whitehall may not have changed. The Bill on English devolution will direct that each area must have a local growth plan. It will be interesting to see how prescriptive these plans are and whether they will be used to push the national Government’s agenda, rather than local priorities. Time and the detail of the Bill will tell.
What is missing from the Labour Party manifesto and the gracious Speech is fiscal devolution. That is the elephant in the room when it comes to English devolution—an opportunity missed, and one that needs to be addressed. I hope that the Government will pilot a tax assignment scheme in one area of England to examine the benefits that it could bring. They will not have to look far, as the Institute for Government has suggested a way of doing this. A small percentage of national insurance—it suggests 5% of local national insurance—could be retained to the local area, but the rates and bands still set by the Treasury. This would help stimulate growth through local initiative and help with investment pressures. Until we get some form of fiscal devolution in England, the grand words about unleashing the full potential and opportunities of the areas and regions of England will not be achieved. I hope the Minister will respond to this in a positive light.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate on the gracious Speech. Along with others, I congratulate the Minister on a fine inaugural outing; it was an excellent maiden speech, for which I thank him. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to his new role; that too is good news.
I congratulate the Government on what has been an awesome election victory. The counter to that is that, for us, it has been humbling and devastating. In many areas, we will clearly need to rethink policy—not principles but certainly policy. I hope that, in doing so, we will continue to inhabit the centre ground, as we must, talking about what matters to people.
I have some thoughts on the areas that are the subject of debate today. On the second Chamber, I can quite understand why the Government do not, at this stage, want to engage in radical reform and tie up this House and the other place in endless discussion when there is so much else that needs attention. The two principles that should guide us in looking at any proposed legislation are these: first, the importance of the House of Lords as an effective second Chamber; and, secondly, that by common accord the membership of the House is too large. I listened with interest to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I thought it had much to recommend it, and I hope it is something that we could look at. I hope that we approach this issue with a sense of balance, and of the importance of getting the numbers down and moving on to do many of the other things that are necessary.
I am not totally persuaded of the need to revisit the voting age limit of 18, but I will listen to the discussion. I note that there is an asymmetry about things in Wales and Scotland, and that for local and parliamentary elections it is different. I am persuadable but not convinced.
Metro mayors is one area where my party does not need to reconsider its position. They have been a success. This was a policy brought forward by George Osborne. I have no doubt that it needs refreshing, and that we need to look at how it can perhaps be extended and deepened, but it is a policy that has led to success. While politicians are not generally popular, to say the least, metro mayors sometimes present an exception to that rule. We should look at the way they have been able to engage with their cities and regions, and use that as a driver for growth.
On Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I welcome the strengthening of the Sewel convention. That is desirable. I also welcome—indeed, I have long argued for—a council of the nations. I see that it is proposed to extend this to the regions as well; that could be extremely valuable and useful.
One dog that has not barked in the King’s Speech is the Barnett formula. It is high time that it was reviewed. It was possible to defend it when it had been there for only 20 years—it was, after all, brought in in the 1970s —but it is high time that it was revisited in the interests of all constituent parts of the United Kingdom and all our peoples. I hope that can be done, because it needs doing.
On a personal note, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, a Member of your Lordships’ House, is about to become the First Minister of Wales, something upon which we should very much congratulate her. I have known Eluned for the best part of 30 years, and on personal grounds—though not political ones—I am delighted at her success. At a time when we are debating the peerage in the House of Lords, it is interesting that she will be the first Peer to be the head of any part of the United Kingdom since Lord Home of the Hirsel; that is somewhat ironic. I hope that my endorsement of her does not damage her too much, and on personal—but not political—grounds, I hope very much that she makes a success of things. I am sure that her approach will be a constructive one.
With those thoughts, there is much important work to be done. I hope that we are not just going to divert all our attention to House of Lords reform and that we can keep it narrowed to getting the numbers down, concentrating on the important things that we need to do, as both a Government and an Opposition, and continuing with our effectiveness, as we have done for so many years.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, some of my first words in this debate are in my native tongue. “Croeso mawr”—a huge welcome—to so many things in the manifesto of a Labour Government relating to the devolution matters of our nations and regions. I welcome also my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley, who is taking his place on our Front Bench today. I wish him every success in his important new role. He knows that he will have my full support as he deals with the problems that cover our local government colleagues, and indeed with revolutionising housebuilding across the UK.
Similarly, I say “croeso” to my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer, and thank him for his excellent and wise maiden speech. I remind him that, as he is a former pupil of Cardiff High School, some of my best friends were in his year group there, in the 1980s. I look forward to working with him as he applies the law, considering his political knowledge while maintaining his professional independence.
What have we learned from the Government’s manifesto commitments in the gracious Speech? Members of the devolved legislatures will be given the same free speech protections as those enjoyed by Members of the UK Parliament. There should be elected public forums where all manner of persons, irrespective of their power or wealth, can be criticised.
The Sewel convention is to be strengthened with a new memorandum of understanding. I cannot remember how many times I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite in the previous Parliament raising matters that ran roughshod over the convention’s very existence, with former Prime Ministers either ignoring or refusing to speak to the First Minister on matters of state. Both the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales and the Brown commission called for legislation to protect the constitutional principle that consent from the devolved institutions was required for changes related to devolved areas and devolved powers.
It is therefore good to learn, as other noble Lords have mentioned, that we will have a new council of nations and regions. While it will bring a wide range of partners to the discussions, I have no doubt that there will be much closer and direct co-operation between a Labour Government in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster. Indeed, the Secretary of State has publicly said that this closer working has already begun. It will allow the opportunity to work in detail on a fiscal framework for Wales, and both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Furthermore, the consideration of giving new powers to Wales over probation services and youth services is a welcome beginning to what I am sure will be a continuing conversation during this parliamentary term about any further developments in this area. The Welsh Government have issued a written statement welcoming the King’s Speech in Westminster and praising the UK Government’s legislative programme, together with early and thoughtful engagement carried out ahead of the King’s Speech.
It would be remiss of me to speak about the Welsh Government without mentioning the difficulties experienced there in the last few months. Just two weeks ago we had the honour of welcoming Their Majesties to the Senedd to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Welsh devolution. In all that time we have not seen such discord in the body politic as we have in recent months. We now have an opportunity to rebalance, with a new First Minister. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth: I am delighted to see that it looks like it will be my noble friend Lady Morgan, Eluned, a very good friend and the first woman Labour leader of any UK nation. The Government can then concentrate on what is important to the people of Wales—and the people of the UK—by growing the economy and delivering the best public services. Indeed, the reform of our planning system is essential to build the housing we need, together with changes to transport, infrastructure and energy infrastructure.
Like many colleagues in Wales, I am a proud member of the Co-operative Party and parliamentary group. I am delighted to see our campaign on increasing local ownership of the places and things that matter reflected to us in the King’s Speech. As co-operators, we know that giving people a meaningful stake in and say over our town centres, our high streets and our assets of community value gives us a stake in our future that we can all benefit from. These are the things that matter to the people of Wales and to the rest of the United Kingdom. I am proud that after 14 years of inertia, high taxes and a lowering of living standards, we finally have a great opportunity for the change that our communities are crying out for, which was ably demonstrated by their democratic choice in the general election result of 4 July—an independence day to remember.
Lord Warner (CB) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, let me first compliment our new Attorney-General on his excellent maiden speech. I very much welcome his commitment to the rule of law, internationally and nationally, but I am afraid it is hello and goodbye because after 26 years here—and being nearly 84— I have decided that enough is enough. That may be a blessing of relief for many people in this House.
I am not going because of the Labour Party’s commitment to downsizing the House of Lords. I am going because I support that, but it is too timid and not strong enough. What I would like to see is a statutory cap, as others have said, of 500 or 600 Peers with fixed terms of 10 to 15 years, alongside retirement at 80 and together with restrictions on prime ministerial appointments. If we have the courage to do that, we will seriously get to grips with a permanent control over the volume of people in this House.
I also want to emphasise my commitment to the idea of removing the Bishops. They are as much an anomaly as hereditary Peers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has done us a service in seeming to support that view that they should join the hereditary Peers at the exit. We are a secular society, as censuses and the British Social Attitudes surveys have shown for some time. Anglican Church attendance is shrinking faster than the volume of letters delivered by the Royal Mail, while its congregations largely consist of people over 60. Apart from theocracies such as Iran, there are no other Parliaments where clerics have a right of representation, so that is my starter for 10.
I also strongly support the Government’s commitment to greater devolution. Throughout my working life the governance of England has been overcentralised, with Ministers taking too many powers of direction and senior civil servants—some of whom are here and may disagree—enjoying command and control, undeterred by the short-termism that command and control has seemed to attract in the behaviour of government departments. The Government need to have the courage to start tackling some of those problems. The considerable devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has failed to be extended to English regions over a long period of time, apart from a few city mayors.
Take a slightly unglamorous region, if I may put it that way, such as Yorkshire and Humberside—
Lord Warner (CB)
I thought noble Lords needed waking up at this time of night. I will say something nice about it. A region such as Yorkshire and Humberside has a bigger population than Scotland and nearly twice the population of Wales, but its public services are largely controlled from London. It is very easy to say we want more devolution, but you have to have some of the detail to make it happen. For devolution to work, the Government need to move to multiyear budgets, remove all these silly local biddings for small pockets of money and use flexible population-weighted financial allocations for many more local services.
This cannot be achieved without a major overhaul of the council tax system—this is absolutely essential. That system is simply not fit for purpose, given the statutory duties and powers that local government has had laid on it by this Parliament. We have to be honest with people that that system is bust—it is broken and needs to be replaced. Nowhere is devolution more urgently required than our broken NHS. I do not have time to go into this, but it is essential that we use devolution there to move the money away from often failing acute hospitals.
I am sorry I am leaving before we have legislation allowing assisted dying and protecting children from illegal religious schools. As the new Attorney-General has said, there are some issues about whether the Government will take seriously the new ICJ ruling on Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Territories. I hope the new Attorney-General will pay attention to that and get the Government to take seriously some of the concerns in this area.
However, I have been around politics a long time, and I am a bit like Mick Jagger, who has been singing for 60 years, “You can’t always get what you want”. That’s it. The end.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who, in the short time I have been here—only six years—has always made thoughtful contributions to our discussions. He could give Mick Jagger a run for his money. I am pleased he chose this debate for his valedictory speech because I have heard him referring a few times to the situation with the devolved Administrations and their rights—he always comes down on their side. I wish him the very best for his future.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on their maiden speeches; that of the noble and learned Lord, in particular, was a breath of fresh air after the last few years in this Chamber. I welcome him, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, to their new posts.
Imagine the critical comments we would rightly make of a wealthy and influential country that had an unelected second legislative Chamber with some Members there on a hereditary basis. Imagine it had reserved places for members of the established religion, that it did not have fair representation of the nations and regions, that less than 30% of its Members were women and that its membership favoured ex-MPs and members of selected well-paid professions. We would probably question the country’s democratic credentials.
Our constitutional problems do not begin and end with the second Chamber; there is a huge imbalance of power between the Executive and Parliament. It was interesting to hear that noted from the Opposition Benches. The new Government have 63% of the Members of the Commons, based on only 33.7% of the popular vote.
Finally, we have no codified constitution, which means there is no protection of fundamental rights that would be usual in other democracies. As we saw in the last Parliament, this is not a hypothetical issue but a real danger. However, instead of seeing the obvious anomalies, we tell ourselves that ours is a special democracy that the rest of the world can learn from.
One of the classic functions of a second Chamber is to protect the constitution and fundamental rights, and this Chamber has fought long and hard to do that. But, without the democratic credentials to be able to justify its role, it will always be overruled. Second Chambers are common in federal states, but our quasi-federal system does not have the usual protections, powers and cross-territorial arrangements that others have. While I welcome the proposed council of the nations and regions, it will currently involve only around 16 people.
While I sincerely welcome the removal of the last of the hereditary Peers, it is disappointing that the Labour Party did not manage to conduct a consultation on the more substantial changes proposed at the 2022 launch of the Commission on the UK’s Future. Because of the lack of democratic credibility of the Lords, we have no legitimate parliamentary means of holding the Government to account when, as has happened, their legislation threatens fundamental rights. Also, there have been numerous examples over the past few years of legislation being imposed on devolved Administrations despite the refusal of legislative consent. The Sewel convention expected that this would happen only in exceptional circumstances, but it has become totally common.
Faced with all this, it is obvious that we need more effective checks on the unrestrained powers of government by having a democratically accountable second Chamber, which I would argue should be a senate of the nations and regions.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate both the maiden speakers, and the wisdom in the valedictory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Warner. There were very good points there.
This is an appeal to all the Members of this House and the other place who believe in democracy: please do not accidentally create an autocracy where one person wields all the power. The primary purpose of Parliament is to make the rules under which the Executive branch will operate. MPs in Parliament who are also Ministers are passing laws to control themselves and their successors, and the head of these is the Prime Minister of the Executive, who is also the leader of the majority party in the other place.
We must remember that we are legislating to control an executive Government of the future, and it may be led by a Prime Minister who may have a very different view of democracy from the one we hold today. Just look at some other countries right now. Therefore, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the powers of the Prime Minister must be severely circumscribed, or they will control both Houses of Parliament.
The power to appoint Peers is ancient history; it is an accident. The monarch was absolute until King John and Magna Carta and this is a vestigial relic of that age that is now exercised by the monarch’s constitutional adviser, the Prime Minister. After Magna Carta, we set up all the other elements of democracy slowly through the ages, but that one thing has remained and it is an anomaly.
We hereditary Peers are also a vestigial relic, to a large degree, but we are here to give an incentive for proper reform of the Lords. That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he was Lord Chancellor, gave a Privy Council oath, binding in honour, that the next stage of Lords reform would be comprehensive—not just the ejection of the remaining hereditaries. That is in Hansard for 30 March 1999, at column 207. We took his word for it, but unfortunately others have not—certainly not the privy councillors who followed. It is vital because, if this incentive is removed, I do not think there will be any further reform, even though we have been talking about it for years.
I will support any Lords reform that is comprehensive and I will willingly go. We have heard several very good ideas for further reform from various noble Lords. There is no point in going through them again. I like especially those with a strong democratic element, because we need to retain that in order to retain our legitimacy to change laws in this Chamber. Otherwise, the remaining powers will be taken away and we will become just a talking shop. If that happens, there will be no point to noble Lords being here; they will join just for the honour but not really take part. We will not get the great and wise that we do at the moment. For instance, among the hereditaries is our only nuclear engineer and scientist. I am into IT, AI, age verification, ID and various boring things like that. These are not the sorts of things that MPs and politicians want to do—not if they have any common sense, anyway.
The point is that reform must not be piecemeal, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said. It will not happen if it is and that will just leave the Executive in control of both Houses. We are here to try to ensure that there is an incentive for further reform. That is what I am looking forward to seeing.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their recent success in the election. There are many areas to be welcomed in their priorities, going forward for the future. In the gracious Speech, they are looking to strengthen the union through collaboration between the devolved institutions and hopefully, through the council of the nations and regions, there will be greater collaboration and communication between different parts of this great union.
I agree that the Government must ensure that the focus is on delivering a more united and prosperous United Kingdom. I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments on ensuring that Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom is strengthened. Now and in the future, we must continue to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits and plays a full role alongside England, Scotland and Wales in the long-term future growth of this United Kingdom. Many noble Lords have referred to the Government’s “honeymoon period”, but they will be judged on all these issues over the next 18 months to two years by their actions rather than their words.
In the time I have left, I will dwell on public services in Northern Ireland. All the parties have been campaigning on the issue that public services are constrained by the Barnett formula. The Northern Ireland Fiscal Commission highlighted that funding for public services in Northern Ireland continues to fall well below the level of need. Therefore, year on year, public services are being reduced and we are not receiving the uplift we need to run them. In fact, the Treasury’s contribution to funding public services in Northern Ireland is going down rather than rising. For example, in England spending up to 2025 will increase by over 6%, but in Northern Ireland by only 3.6%. These funding problems are not new. They have been flagged up by the NI Fiscal Council over and over again. The Barnett formula is not working for Northern Ireland as it does not take account of need within Northern Ireland. The Government need to understand that, if public services in Northern Ireland are to be put on a sustainable footing, there needs to be real change in how Northern Ireland is funded into the future.
We need to see a review of the Barnett formula to ensure that Northern Ireland’s funding is based on need rather than on population size. There is an urgent piece of work to be done on a new funding model for Northern Ireland. We are £500 million to £600 million short of what other parts of the United Kingdom receive. When it held an inquiry looking at the funding model for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and all the parties on it were very much aware of addressing the urgency of this particular issue. In fact, all the members of that committee supported a new funding model for Northern Ireland urgently.
I hope this is an issue that this Government will focus on sooner rather than later. As a devolutionist, I want the devolved Government to succeed. Working alongside the Government, we can hopefully find the right funding model to reform our public services and deliver effective government in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and as a member of the Enforcement Decision Making Committee of the Bank of England. I will stick to my self-imposed convention of not commenting on affairs to do with either of those institutions.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, on his thought-provoking maiden speech. I will pick up some of his emphasis on fairness and the rule of law, but the points I really want to cover today relate to public appointments rather than having a direct bearing on the Government’s programme for other reforms on appointments, ethics and integrity.
Public appointments are a small but neglected part of our constitutional structure. I could not find any debate where I might be able to express some thoughts on this other than today, so I hope that noble Lords will be tolerant. There are approximately 4,500 public appointments where people serve on a range of institutions that make the country function—non-departmental public bodies in the jargon. In the single financial year 2021-22, there were just under 1,200 appointments signed off by Government Ministers. The competition is stringent, relatively transparent and usually run by civil servants.
Most public appointees I have met who serve on a board as a non-executive do so from a sense of public service. The remuneration is not generous given the time commitment—at least 50% more is always required than what is advertised. It is undertaken by people who have existing expertise in the given area and a desire to contribute to improving it. Most expect to do it selflessly—in keeping with the Nolan principles and other codes of conduct—and do it in honesty and good faith.
However, the system does not respond in the spirit of good faith. I emphasise that conduct has a specific meaning in regulatory and legal terms, and that is not the way I am using it here, although I am partially using it in that sense. If a public appointee, in other words a non-executive board member, faces allegations of having transgressed in their conduct or is alleged to have behaved improperly, the institution in which they serve has no parameters imposed by His Majesty’s Treasury or the Cabinet Office as to how it should expend public funds in that matter. There are no ceilings imposed, even as a proportion of a non-departmental public body’s budget that can be expended on a single matter for review or investigation. Expenditure running into hundreds of thousands of pounds can be spent when expensive lawyers are hired to review matters, irrespective of substantiation or gravity of allegations.
On the other side, the individual accused of misconduct is required to fund themselves entirely without support. This is a unique category. In the private sector, directors’ insurance is virtually compulsory; no one would work without it. It can run to many millions, especially since, in certain sectors, the fit and proper tests have become more stringent. Even third-sector organisations that have hybrid models, such as housing associations, also have directors’ insurance. Of course, in all cases it is contingent on the appointee having acted in good faith in discharging their responsibilities and in keeping with various codes of conduct and so on. So it is uniquely this category—government-appointed non-executive directors—that is entirely exposed. HM Treasury in its manual Managing Public Money explicitly considers providing some form of insurance and dismisses it as unwarranted expenditure, so bodies are, in effect, banned from procuring it for their boards.
What is to be done? Going forward, this Government will make some 6,000 appointments to different types of public bodies during this first term until 2029. One way to approach this would be to allow arm’s-length bodies the discretion to pay for insurance up to a maximum amount and under stringent conditions—for example, the need to have conducted an internal review of the allegations or to seek ACAS support or a Cabinet Office non-executive review. Ultimately, if expensive lawyers are to be engaged, in the interests of fairness, public appointees deserve some small level of insurance or public funding to obtain at least a preliminary amount of professional legal advice.
The Attorney-General has made a great deal of the importance of the rule of law—I agree with his sentiments—but the foundation of the rule of law is fairness. It is time that this group serving in the public interest was treated fairly, and I urge the Government to do something about this anomaly.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, we must all congratulate the Labour Party on a successful election campaign and welcome the new Government. But one cannot help but notice, looking at the share of the vote, that Labour won with fewer votes than at the previous election, when Jeremy Corbyn was its leader. It was clearly a vote against the failures of the last Government rather than a total endorsement of the Labour manifesto. That does not take away the overwhelming result for the Government, but it puts it into some perspective. The Conservative Party won a larger share of the vote than before; I am sure that this will renew the debate on PR—an issue on which I have changed my mind a number of times, and no doubt I will do so again many times in the future. I wish the new Administration well and welcome the Attorney-General to his place.
Governing is not easy. I see that, this evening, the Government have already had to suspend seven MPs in the House of Commons for voting against the Government. Unfortunately, they seem to have an awful lot of other MPs, so it will not make a great deal of difference in the short term—but it is a sign of how difficult it is to govern. To govern well, Ministers in another place, most of whom will have never served in government before, may be helped by looking at the mistakes made by our Government, the previous Administration—I am afraid that there were a few. The Prime Minister did much to clear up some of the difficult issues he inherited from his predecessors, but I am afraid that the Conservative Government were seen as a Government that failed to deliver on their promises and failed to deliver competent government. We were seen to lack vision and a clear narrative for our polices, resulting in a loss of confidence and trust and a lack of belief in our ability to deliver at Westminster. I think that was an unfair perception; we were the first to produce vaccines in large numbers during Covid, we led Europe in supporting Ukraine and our economic policy was succeeding.
The question we have to ask is: where do we go from here? The current Prime Minister rescued his party from a left-wing clique and oblivion, so I am sure that we will find a new leader who will do the same. We have the talent in our party. It is a question not of being either more on the left or the right but of having polices that clearly reflect Conservative values.
Turning to constitutional issues, I am an elected hereditary Peer. There are very few of us in this House who were elected—albeit by a rather small electorate. I see that my demise is on the cards, as well as those who are aged over 80. I have had a good run. I was rather horrified to look up that I am the fifth longest serving Peer in this House; it is 51 years since I made my maiden speech. On any basis, that must mean that I am due for the chop. I have long thought that retirement is perhaps a good idea but I wonder why the Government chose 80. Why not 75, which is the retirement age for senior judges? The problem with any age is that there are always a few one wishes could stay on, and a few for whom one would like to lower the age and get rid of. The Government’s proposal is that Peers over 80 can stay until the end of the Session, as far as I understand it. If the hereditary Peers’ by-elections are abolished and we are abolished, perhaps the same conditions should apply to hereditary Peers—or rather elected hereditary Peers—and we should be allowed to stay until the end of the current Session of Parliament.
The Government could go further in refreshing this House. Perhaps in addition to a retirement age there could be a limit of service—retirement after 35 years in this Chamber, or perhaps after 35 years counted between sitting here and in another place. When I joined this House, there were a small number of former MPs, a distinguished group, but now their numbers are at least four times greater. Many, of course, have had distinguished careers in another place. But one must ask the question: do the Government want this House to be a retirement Chamber for former Members of Parliament?
I will go quietly. I am happy to go, as long as the Government accept that proper constitutional reform is required. Otherwise, we will have a House where membership is created by the whim of the Prime Minister, or a statutory body where the elite recommend the elite—a House of retired quango chairmen or other such distinguished folks.
The Labour Party manifesto committed to reform the appointments process to ensure quality of new appointments and to improve the national and regional balance of this second Chamber. We must have a second Chamber that does more than relate just to England; we need one that has a better relationship with all three devolved Administrations. Whether it is a Chamber elected on a PR basis or appointed, a greater emphasis on the devolved Administrations is required. This was a challenge that the Government of the previous Prime Minister Gordon Brown set, but which was somehow set aside rather quickly and not taken up. I hope that this issue will not be shirked again. Perhaps the answer is a constitutional convention involving all parties. Perhaps that is required to move proper second-stage reform forward.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I warmly extend my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, on their respective appointments, and wish them well in their roles. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his elegant and thought-provoking maiden speech. His comments about the rule of law and the protection of fundamental, universal values were music to my ears.
The agenda outlined in the gracious Speech is ambitious. This is necessary because the country is in need of national renewal. The task is enormous. However, achieving the ambitious objectives of national renewal will, above all, require urgent steps to restore trust and faith in politics and to strengthen our democratic processes. Without these, it will be difficult to achieve meaningful and sustainable national renewal.
The gracious Speech made some references to initiatives needed to restore trust and confidence in our political processes but these do not go far enough, given the scale of distrust and disengagement. I was, however, pleased that in his introductory remarks the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, mentioned the role of secondary legislation, ministerial standards and the ethics commissioner—matters not mentioned in the gracious Speech. The Speech mentioned, of course, the duty of candour for public servants, integrity of elections, a modernisation committee for the Commons to drive up standards, and the removal of hereditary Peers, but there is nothing about the reform of the appointments process and a cap on the size of the House of Lords. These were mentioned in the manifestos. Why were they omitted from the gracious Speech?
On the topic of standards in public life the gracious Speech was notably silent. I was a member of the governance commission chaired by the right honourable Dominic Grieve, which published its report earlier this year. This non-partisan commission made practical, implementable and pragmatic recommendations to address concerns about standards in ministerial and public office, the management of conflicts of interest, the way in which the House of Lords and other officeholders are appointed, weaknesses in Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the work of the Government—including the role of secondary legislation—and the relationship between the Government and civil servants, and the role of special advisers. We recommended relatively small changes and improvements, which we believed would go a long way to provide a framework of ethics and standards for proper conduct. There is no shortage of sensible and very easily implementable proposals which can be adopted at this early stage. Sadly, given the scale of distrust and disenchantment, it has now become necessary to embed standards in legislation. Self-regulation is not sufficient. Can the Minister assure the House that questions of ethics and standards in public life will be given the priority they deserve, particularly when the Prime Minister has said:
“The fight for trust is the battle that defines our political era”?—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/24; col. 56.]
Then there is the question of strengthening our democratic processes to engage and encourage the participation of citizens. Confidence in democratic politics is very low, as shown by the low turnout at the election. This has left the ground fertile for demagogues and the radical alternatives offered by extremists. The gracious Speech recognises that we have become one of the most centralised democracies, reliant on unaccountable bodies, which has led to the disengagement of citizens.
The English devolution Bill is an opportunity to rebuild faith in democracy, building communities based on shared experiences and values and not narrow sectarian interests. Devolution is a real opportunity to engage citizens in the democratic processes and build cohesive local communities that are not pulled apart by narrow sectarian interests. It is imperative that we develop innovative strategies, involving citizens, to reinvigorate local democracy, bind communities, enhance a sense of belonging and create a foundation for resilience, opportunity and prosperity for all. Will the Government consider a devolution Bill which puts a duty on devolved bodies to ensure the participation of citizens, enrich decision-making and build a culture of participation, making citizens meaningful partners with government in the same way that we want to make the private sector?
I am aware that the Prime Minister is fully committed to the strengthening of our democracy and to driving high standards. I am very encouraged by the comments made by our new Attorney-General, so I live in hope.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will not talk about House of Lords reform—I think there will be plenty of time to discuss that. I want to talk about the question of constitutional reform more generally.
The gracious Speech is quite modest in its aspirations, but a new Government, particularly one with a huge majority, can make constitutional changes without too much difficulty. History shows that this is not always a good idea. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was a mistake. Without it, we would not have had the unlawful prorogation of Parliament and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller case. A decision to change our relationship with Europe would have commanded much more widespread support if it had required a two-thirds majority. No party even put down an amendment to the referendum Bill, even in your Lordships’ House, to that effect.
Following the landslide in 1997, the previous Labour Government brought in the Human Rights Act. Its implications were not properly scrutinised in White or Green Papers or by pre-legislative scrutiny. I and other part-time judges attended lectures from academics and practising lawyers. The message was that the Act would make little difference. In fact, it had huge implications for the distribution of power away from the Executive and into the hands of the judiciary—not that it was necessarily anxious to exercise such additional power. The attractive invitation to “bring rights home” disguised what was, in fact a significant subcontracting of the law to the European Court of Human Rights and an invitation to our courts to follow the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which was often inconsistent and not easily transferable.
The Labour Government soon found their own legislation thwarting their policy initiatives, particularly in relation to counterterrorism. It resulted in the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, disparaging judges. Sitting on a committee of your Lordships’ House, I heard three former Labour Home Secretaries say that they were so frustrated by the decisions of our courts that they thought they would seek the judges’ advice before drafting legislation to counter terrorism—an invitation that was refused.
In 14 years, the Conservatives huffed and puffed about the HRA and did nothing. Recent decisions of the European court in Strasbourg have included the unsatisfactory use of Rule 39 orders, which broke every principle of natural justice, and a major incursion into national environmental policies based on Article 8. I hasten to add that the British judge dissented. A low point for me was the Government’s arguments, in the dying days, as to the effect of A1P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights—which apparently prevented them from sufficiently penalising big tech for exercising monopoly powers because of their human rights. You can be passionately in favour of the protection of human rights and still consider that the HRA needs, at the very least, amendment.
On asylum, it is goodbye Rwanda, welcome border security command. We will see how that goes. The Home Secretary has said that she will approach the problem using a counterterrorism approach. She should bear in mind the experience of the last Labour Government. How will the reform of planning laws deal with the Article 8 arguments, and will tax reform run into difficulties with A1P1? We have a Government led by a human rights lawyer whom I greatly respect. Would he consider amending the HRA or is it now an article of faith? We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that you cannot have too many lawyers. I would not go quite that far. Lawyers should not dominate the debate. We are legislating for the benefit of the population. It should not be judges who are making many of these decisions.
While speaking of human rights lawyers, I welcome the appointment of the new Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. We have been opponents only in the forensic sense in the past. On one occasion, I was opposed not only by the noble and learned Lord but by the Prime Minister. We lost 3-2 —is it any surprise? I am sure that he will give dispassionate advice to the Government without fear or favour. He may find problems with the elusive question of what international law actually provides in any situation and how we should respond, given that we have a dualist rather than a monist system. I am confident that his approach will reflect a lifelong respect for the rule of law but, echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, what is the Government’s position on the non-binding advisory opinion of the ICJ in respect of the Israel-Palestine debate?
A number of issues will have to be seized in the future. I am confident that your Lordships’ House will continue to play a very important part.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, a key test of this Government in five years’ time will be whether we are a more civilised country, a more tolerant society and a healthier democracy, with greater public confidence and engagement in it and less divisive rhetoric. In the previous Parliament, we saw many measures introduced by a Conservative Government who were constantly seeking to change in their favour the rules by which elections are conducted to try and assist their return to office—to which I might say, “A fat lot of good it did them”.
The Conservatives introduced the most restrictive form of photo ID without any evidence that it was necessary, despite overwhelming evidence that it was not and with a scheme that went far beyond what either the Electoral Commission or the election review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, had suggested. We need to scrap or replace the photo ID rules. If ID is deemed necessary, the official polling card should suffice. Using it would save £180 million over the next decade.
The photo ID did not save the Government but there were many close results where these very restrictive ID rules may have made a difference. They include the Basildon and Billericay constituency, where the former chairman of the Conservative Party, Richard Holden, scraped in by just 20 votes, having been parachuted into a seat that was supposed to have had a 20,000-plus majority.
A post-election survey by More in Common suggested that 400,000 voters were turned away at polling stations never to return, because they did not have the requisite ID. For each one of them, there were probably several people on the registers who did not go in the first place, because of the new rules. This must have been a factor in the lowest turnout for 20 years.
An even bigger scandal is that, according to the Electoral Commission, as many as 8 million people were incorrectly not included on the voting registers. Almost all of them would have been unable to vote, even though they were legally entitled to do so. Most people think that the process of voter registration is automatic. It is not, but it should be, so I welcome the announcement that we will move to automatic voter registration.
To help make changes fairly, we need to restore and strengthen the independence of the Electoral Commission. The strategy and policy statement foisted on it by the last Government should be withdrawn, never to be replaced.
As for the voting system, it is a scandal that, in so many constituencies, people did not really have a choice of MP, as the real choice lay with a party machine that can foist MPs upon them. Only 30% of those who voted on 4 July got the MP that they voted for, and many of the 30% were voting tactically against another party.
While I welcome the Ministers to the Front Bench opposite, I ask them to consider that the single biggest mistake of the Blair Government in 1997 was to think that they would never lose another election. This meant that those around Tony Blair saw no need to move to a fairer voting system providing real choices for voters. After two full terms in office, they considered that winning again in 2005 with 35% of the vote was good enough, but it was not and they lost. This Government start with having received just 34% of the vote.
The failure of those Labour Governments from 1997 to make progress on voting reform led directly to what was frequently referred to in the campaign, by the then Labour Opposition, as a “decade of chaos.” With the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the soon to be Baroness May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, it could not possibly be said that we had the stable government that was supposed to be the main justification for the first past the post system. We need to do everything we can to make sure that every vote counts.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on an excellent maiden speech. I welcome him and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to their new responsibilities.
In its manifesto, the Labour Party said:
“The Legacy Act denies justice to the families and victims… Labour will repeal and replace it, by returning to the principles of the Stormont House Agreement”.
His Majesty, in the gracious Speech, said that:
“In consultation with all parties, measures will be brought forward to begin the process of repealing and replacing the”
legacy Act. That clear commitment to repeal and replacement is very welcome. I hope that the repeal of the Act will lead to a reduction in the suffering of victims caused by the Act, the cessation of the Irish Government’s proceedings against the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights and a period of greater co-operation with the Irish Government, which is surely in the interests of everyone.
As noble Lords know, the Act was challenged immediately in the High Court, which found many of its sections to be incompatible with existing rights and obligations, including its provisions for immunity and the abolition of the right to bring civil actions. The Conservative Government appealed that judgment and a decision is expected from the Court of Appeal in early autumn. A new system must provide for the restoration of full independent criminal investigation powers and the right to report independently to those families who wish to know why what happened happened and where responsibility for the many atrocities lay.
Under the Act, the Secretary of State has extraordinary, unnecessary powers which fetter the independence of the ICRIR in many respects. Normal processes for investigations and reporting must be restored, as provided for in the Stormont House agreement. Above all, there must be an unqualified right of access to information from statutory agencies, rather than the current provision that the ICRIR can get only information that it reasonably requires. No such restriction was imposed on the police, nor on me as Police Ombudsman. Access to information has always been a challenge for investigators and, regrettably, there is ample evidence of the refusal by state agencies to supply information and material, even when its production has been ordered by judges and coroners. There must be no scope for arguments about whether materials are reasonably required; if required, they must be provided.
Inquests must be established. There are some 38 legacy cases—a very small number—awaiting inquests. Eighteen coroners were hearing legacy cases last November. These inquests do not represent an insuperable burden on the coronial system. Effective inquests such as the Ballymurphy inquest can be massively important, because what is disclosed informs understanding, and understanding, particularly across the community, is fundamental to trust in policing and security.
The right to bring civil actions, abolished under the Act, must be re-established. Evidence which would normally be available to a plaintiff must be made available and not subjected to the restrictions imposed by the Act.
Most recently, the very experienced new chief constable of the PSNI sought to provide evidence in gist, or summary, to a court. The Northern Ireland Secretary of State initiated legal proceedings to stop him doing so. This is not indicative of any desire to help families access information. It is immensely damaging to victims’ confidence in government when it sees the Government seeking to stop the chief constable providing information.
There is no justification for withholding much of the information which is available. Yes, information is often distressing for families and victims, but the torture of being unable to find out what happened and the suspicions to which it gives rise are equally, or indeed more, distressing. National security needs to be protected, but there needs to be clarity about exactly what is to be protected and why it is necessary to protect it.
Under the Act, the ICRIR was established with a range of functions, including case reviews. A few families seem to be using its services—they have nowhere else to go. We do not know how many families; the ICRIR has not released any information despite requests.
The Government have said that they will consult on options to strengthen the independence of the ICRIR. Much public money has been spent establishing it, providing premises and recruiting staff. However, the ICRIR will have to become a fundamentally different body with a different name, given the problems that have been identified and the distrust generated in the passing of the legacy Act.
Parliament must now create a new set of obligations and responsibilities to enable both impartial and effective investigation and fair and accurate memorialisation. I look forward to the Government delivering on their promise to repeal the Act and to give families the access to justice which, as the Government have said, is currently denied. As the Minister has said, the rule of law is paramount and fundamental to the building of society. Can the Minister provide some information on when the legislation will be introduced?
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, as a budding geneticist when I first came into the House of Lords in 1995, I looked around the Chamber and I could tell the hereditary Peers. They were taller, more confident, had louder voices and were much more knowledgeable. Some of them were larger, all of them were well fed, and without exception they shot game and talked about it at the tea table at 4 o’clock in the afternoon.
It was only when I chaired the Science and Technology Select Committee—which was then a much larger committee than it is now—with everybody around that table being larger, more experienced and far more knowledgeable than me, that I suddenly realised that I could not tell which party people came from, nor indeed whether they were hereditaries. In fact, they were completely indistinguishable, and I have to say that the hereditaries were certainly not indefensible in their presence there.
Without going into the detail of the number of that committee’s reports, they became nationally and internationally well known. This was a really important committee, respected by scientists all over the world. On antibiotic resistance, for example, 25 years later I remember Beryl, Baroness Platt, putting up a clawed hand—she must have been about 80—challenging the speaker who was giving us a seminar on antibiotic resistance. She said to him, “Forgive me, I see that you have just contradicted what you say on page 139 of the document you’ve just circulated”. She was not a medic; she was an engineer. That was the quality of the people around that table.
I also remember with great fondness the fact that we had Nobel Prize winners, among whom was George Porter, who won the Nobel Prize in 1967 for chemistry. I remember that we had a very controversial report, and he suddenly realised that it was going to be very controversial because it was about cannabis usage. We were talking about this and suddenly, in a loud stage whisper—a hoarse voice—he said to me, “Robert, I’ve never had cannabis. What’s it like?”
Anyway, the point is that this was an extraordinary group of people, and it showed the quality of the House of Lords. We boast that we are an expert Chamber and we talk about our expertise, but the question is: really are we, and can we do a lot better about this?
It was therefore a great pleasure, after two years’ dearth of having any new scientists or medics in the Chamber, to see the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, make his maiden speech this week, and what a fine speech it was. It was a bit of a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave him rather a hard time. That seemed to me to be against the conventions with a maiden speaker, but the noble Lord held his own very well with a most extraordinary maiden speech—in fact, one of the best I have heard. We have to remember that when people like him do great public service, often publicly, they face a great deal of unpleasantness. He certainly did during his recent career during the plague. He did exceptionally well.
Months ago, I was almost a lone voice in this Chamber when I opposed the so-called precision editing Bill, which would have modified animals and plants to make them able to be released into the environment. The genetics were poor, and I believe the scientific advice the Government got was well below what it should have been. I think it was, in fact, what the Government wanted to hear rather than what should have been said. Indeed, we have not done this yet but we can now, by law, release organisms into the environment that are either mutant plants or mutant animals. Nobody in the Chamber really had the expertise—apart, I suppose, from the Green Party, which was prepared to join me in opposing this. It is important because there is no doubt that we might have done some damage.
What was extraordinary was a letter I got from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, after this had passed for Royal Assent. He wrote to me saying this: “Thank you so much for your work on the Bill. I learned a great deal during these interventions. I hope we did not make too many mistakes”. That was an extraordinary letter to write, and it was greatly impressive. It is nice to see that collaboration between parties that are often opposed in this Chamber.
The key thing that we have to remember is that this has to be an appointed Chamber of some kind. To my mind, that appointment needs to be much more carefully regulated. We have been reluctant to accept regulation, but we need statutory regulation to make sure that we really get the expertise we need. We have to ask ourselves: who do we actually need in the Chamber? What expertise are we missing that we could have? We could then do it that way, both for the Select Committees and in particular with the membership. Once we have done that, we will have a House of Lords that will be respected and will be really effective in helping the Government by challenging legislation when it is not quite right.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, I approach today’s debate from an unusual and perhaps even unique perspective: as a life Peer of working-class origins who has been sitting on the Conservative Benches since 23 July 1999, precisely 25 years ago today; an entrepreneur who has enjoyed modest success in the now highly fashionable field of wealth creation; and a lifelong resident of South Yorkshire, to which the Government promise the devolution of more power.
Not long after I joined this House, I took part in a team photograph with my Conservative colleagues. Very shortly afterwards, most of them disappeared from this Chamber as a result of the House of Lords Act 1999. As someone who grew up in a pit village rented terraced house with no bathroom or indoor lavatory, I am hardly a natural chum or ally of, or advocate for, the landed gentry and nobility, yet I find myself driven by fairness, natural justice and common sense to passionately remind noble Lords of the important and assiduous contribution of the hereditary Peers who were allowed to remain in the House after 1999—a most positive contribution out of all proportion to their numbers that should not be underestimated. In fact, I am frankly staggered at the dedication and diligence with which the hereditary Peers consistently apply their efforts, and at the scale and value of their contribution to the work of this House. Perhaps this should be no surprise, given that they are the only Members who have arrived here by election—albeit on a highly restricted franchise.
Most of us sympathise with the aim of reducing the overall size of the Chamber, but surely it is so very wrong and irresponsible to expel some of the most active, respected and effective contributors because of bias and a dogmatic belief that the means of their arrival here cannot be justified. Similarly, I do not believe that the suggested imposition of an arbitrary retirement age could do anything but reduce the capabilities of this House as a specialist revising Chamber.
As the writer Ian Dunt—who I think I can safely say is not a fellow Conservative—reluctantly observed in his book How Westminster Works, published last year, this House is
“one of the best-functioning institutions in Westminster”.
Why are the Government trying to fix something that is not broken, through actions that will actually make it less effective?
The same question can be asked, I fear, of their commitment to further devolution. Devolution to the nations of Scotland and Wales was sold to us by the previous Labour Government as a way to suppress separatism and put the power to improve public services closer to the people who use them. Can anybody honestly claim that either of these aims has been realised? Why will the devolution of yet more power now make things better rather than even worse? The one time the people of England were directly consulted about whether they wanted devolution, in the north-east assembly referendum of 2004, they voted no by an overwhelming majority of 78% to 22%. Regardless, the people of the north-east have now been blessed with a metro mayor, because Whitehall continues to believe that it knows best.
The local government map of England is a total mess, with district and county councils, unitary authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors, and every incremental change the Government make seems to draw power away from the historic counties and communities with which people identify and to which they relate. Surely it is time that central government recognised where people’s loyalties truly lie—with the historic counties and the society where they actually live, rather than with arbitrarily assigned groups of local authorities.
With devolution, as with House of Lords reform, I humbly suggest that the answer is to draw breath, stop tinkering, consider what works, remember the lessons of history and, above all, consult the people directly and actually listen to what they say.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on his appointment and to the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we enjoyed both the maiden speeches today, which made us realise how lucky we are to have these people join us.
I have worked as a Cross-Bench so-called hereditary Peer for all my 10 years here, but time moves on and, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General reminded us, we need to reflect and move on as things move on around us. The Prime Minister said last week in relation to the King’s Speech that his Government were not going to do things that were easy and populist. But booting out the so-called hereditaries as a group would be exactly that—easy, crude and populist—and flies in the face of the participation requirement trailed in the Labour manifesto.
Before I turn to a solution, I will remind the House of five brief points about so-called hereditaries. First, they do not, as is often wrongly suggested, have an inherited right to sit in this House. They may stand for election, but competition and our interview process, at least on the Cross Benches, is fierce. Imperfect? Certainly. But it is better than party leaders just appointing their mates.
Secondly, much is made of the ancient patronage in return for personal loyalty or treasure, but a good number of today’s life Peers—and their loyalties—are here for exactly those reasons.
Thirdly, the so-called hereditaries are the only Peers to whom reform has already come, with numbers capped and selection formalised. If they are to be sent down the plughole, nothing will have been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us, to close the patronage taps open at the other end. It is this modern patronage that is the really pernicious anachronism. It is a seemingly irresistible temptation for leaders to influence or reward their friends.
Fourthly, the pantomime stereotype of Cross-Bench hereditaries as Conservative-voting hoorays is simply not accurate. They are a diverse bunch of professional people who more often than not in this House have supported Labour and Lib Dem positions. Indeed, we have been pilloried by some Conservatives for doing just that.
Finally, it is widely acknowledged across this House that many hereditaries work well above the proportion their numbers would suggest. In fact, in the House of Lords in our daily practice the “H” tag is very quickly forgotten, as others have mentioned. What matters is that all Peers are equal public servants. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to service—a slightly old-fashioned word, perhaps, but it is certainly the reason that I work here.
I very much support the overdue strengthening of HOLAC, albeit in the dread phrase “in due course”, but, alongside the focus on how people get here, there is far too little on how they contribute when they do. Even in such a courteous place as the House of Lords, we need a proper participation-based appraisal system for Members rather than blanket dismissals on a single criterion such as heritage or indeed age—or, if that is something we cannot stomach in this place, a 15-year term, which I supported when giving evidence to the excellent committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, some time back. If this is not dealt with now, the reputation of this House and this reforming Government will be tarnished.
I am also worried to hear from several sources that, in throwing out the so-called hereditaries, the Government are principally seeking to remove some 40 Conservative hereditary Members in order to reduce the numbers on those Benches and to create in their place a swathe of new Labour Peers. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to clarify in winding up from the Front Bench whether this is indeed the case. If it is true, it would be manifestly unjust to visit such a party-politically driven strategy on the independent Cross Benchers.
While on the subject of size, sacking the hereditaries would get rid of 92 Members, but removing Members across the House of any type who turn up and participate no more than 10% of the time would reduce numbers by well over 100. Would it not be not only more effective numerically but more logical and, indeed, more just to address the numbers not on the basis of an individual’s family but on the basis of their work?
There is a simple solution to make the hereditary element and issue simply disappear, and I believe it is one that would not be obstructed. Labour has used it for its own hereditary on the Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—credit where it is due—has made several attempts, with wide support across the House, to bring this solution into play. It is to convert those hereditaries who are committed to the service of this House into life Peers and at the same time end the by-elections.
At a stroke, this would mean that all Peers would henceforth be life Peers, thereby removing a divisive distraction, and no new hereditary Peers would come in. The remaining, by then former, hereditaries, like me, would simply die out over time. This would be a landmark change indeed, and a manifesto commitment achieved and a transition completed. Despite the temptation of party-political manoeuvrings, I hope that the Government will consider this rather than a populist purge.
I add one final, personal note. While it may perhaps be well intentioned, describing as a “sweetener”—as it has been repeatedly—the idea that we might, after being sacked, be allowed to wander the corridors like impotent ghosts, read the newspapers or use the facilities is a total misunderstanding of why I have served here for a decade.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, and others referred last week to the words of John Smith MP, who said:
“The opportunity to serve … is all we ask”.
I hope that those of us who have followed that mantra will continue to serve this House as life Peers.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I begin by congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on a speech full of wisdom and the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on a remarkable and thoughtful maiden speech. I say that as also the son of a shopkeeper and having fought Houghton-le-Spring, unsuccessfully, in the 1992 general election, and I know where he grew up quite well.
I put in to speak today because I was struck by something that the Leader of the House said last Wednesday. As she put it, we need to
“re-establish the confidence in our democratic and political system”.—[Official Report, 17/7/24; col. 24.]
I strongly agree. Parliament has a major role to play in reversing the collapse of trust, the corrosion of truth in political discourse, and the perception that the national interest has been subordinated at times to the personal interests of our leaders. I am thinking of the Cameron-Johnson rivalry and what appeared at times to be Bullingdon Club government. All that was wholly unacceptable. Rishi Sunak started a repair job, but there is a lot more for this Government to do.
We have another major constitutional challenge to address. I am not an electoral reformer, but I note the concern that has been expressed that our democracy is put at risk by Labour’s majority of 172 on a vote share of 34%. This House can play a major role in bolstering the trust of the electorate on both these concerns but, to do that, we need to be capable of playing a full role as a second Chamber of Parliament. That means having the courage to deploy the tools available to us under the Parliament Acts.
A good deal of valuable work is done by this House, but the truth is that we are now moving perilously close to the point where we have only the trappings of bicameralism and the reality of almost none. We are little more than an advisory body, a Conseil d’Etat, too often and too easily ignored. The incoming Government are not intending to do much about this either.
I agreed with what both the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, had to say about the current proposals. The removal of the hereditary peerage is of course long overdue, but the introduction of a retirement age is an unnecessary and probably unjustifiable distraction. The truth is that the current Chamber, which bolsters prime ministerial patronage, suits the Executive.
If we are to address the trust deficit, this House now needs much more moral authority to speak for those for whom we legislate. In the 21st century, in my view, only the ballot box can provide that. I know that is not a popular view here. I note none the less that all three major parties came to the same conclusion as I have just come to in 2010 but have done very little about it since then. That is why I strongly disagreed with the invocation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, of the doctrine of unripe time earlier, when he argued against more fundamental Lords reform than the Government are currently proposing.
I do not think we are going to get much progress on electoral reform from this Government, but there is something more modest that we could do now: when this House speaks truth to power, it can at least do much more to ensure that it has an audience. Our current committee system is relatively weak, and the other place has stolen a march with some thoroughgoing reforms of its committees. For example, we can and should find better ways of taking advantage of the accumulated wisdom and public service experience available here to boost our committees. We need elected committee chairmen and on longer terms. We need to devise penalties for failure to supply papers to committees or to appear before them. We need to target the issues that the electorate most want us to examine.
If we do those things in the Committee Corridor, at least we can avoid becoming Mr Starmer’s poodle, just as after 1997 the Commons narrowly avoided becoming Mr Blair’s by succeeding with some reforms of the committee system. If more of us could at least signal support for election to this House in principle, that in itself might improve the terms of trade with the other place a little.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday I had the deep honour and privilege of introducing into your Lordships’ House my dear friend and colleague, my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer, our new Attorney-General. We are very fortunate because the Government have chosen a brilliant, serious and charming lawyer for this role, as the House saw from his maiden speech. In fact, the trio of lawyers—the new Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General—provide a ferociously clever bank of legal skill and integrity.
I wish my noble and learned friend well in his endeavours to reform the House of Lords, but this House is deeply resistant to change, though change is desperately needed. Personally, like the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I think the best test for reducing numbers—if we want to do that in a fair way, and fast—would be on the basis of participation. Does the Peer participate? Anyone who has not made a speech in this House, participated in a committee, pressed an amendment or taken part in some way, not just turning up like Lobby fodder but actually doing the stuff of public service, should be asked to step down, and the examination can be over the previous five years prior to this election. Arbitrary ways of doing it are unjust. We should be clear that real reform will take a greater time, but if we want to reduce the numbers fast then that is the way to do it fairly.
Today we are discussing matters constitutional, and there is no more profound constitutional issue than our commitment to the rule of law. I want to reflect on the words that the Attorney-General used when he was taking his oath of office—he said something similar in his maiden speech today. He said that
“the rule of law will be the lodestar for this government”.
The truth is that it should be the lodestar for any Government. It is a timely commitment for government to be making now for this most British of values, because it acts a badge of honour for us in a world that in many places is retreating from the rule of law, even in mature democracies. We see, and have seen for some time, the capture of the judiciary for political purposes in the United States, and we have seen it more recently in Hungary as well as the attempt that was made prior to the horrors that we see just now in Israel. We have seen it happening in places where attacks on the higher courts and the judiciary have been taking place.
Before we look ahead, we have to cast an eye backwards and consider the journey that this country has been on in recent years. It is clear that we have started to lose our way. That is a hard truth but one that is necessary for us to internalise. Our standing has been diminished because the rule of law has been degraded fulsomely in recent years. The whole purpose of the rule of law is to prevent abuse of power, as Lord Bingham explained so cogently, but I am afraid we have seen many abuses of power.
Justice, the cross-party law reform and human rights organisation—I should declare that I am the current president—set out clearly the ways in which our lawmaking had become less transparent, less accountable, less inclusive and less democratic. It did that in a report published last September, The State We’re In, which addressed threats and challenges to the rule of law. I have to tell your Lordships that it was sobering reading.
The last Parliament saw many ills fester. We saw a growing legislative disregard, indeed contempt, for human rights. We saw disgraceful laws being passed through this place only months ago: the safety of Rwanda Act falls into that category, in my view. We saw disregard for international treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the refugee convention. Even the Brexit treaty was being contravened within a year of it being signed. These are commitments to international law.
We had a Prime Minister during Covid who thought that the law was only for the little people and did not apply to him. We had visceral attacks being made on the judiciary and a Conservative Lord Chancellor failing to speedily condemn those attacks in the press. The health of our democracy has undoubtedly come under great strain. The overarching diagnosis of the report from Justice, made by lawyers not including myself, was that accountability and legal restraint were seen as oppositional to the business of government, as opposed to being the core and a central feature of good governance.
This Parliament serves the people of the United Kingdom as custodian of democracy and of the rule of law. As such, it is vital that Members of both Houses do their utmost to defend those principles tooth and nail. I am pleased that Justice is publishing a new guide, Law for Lawmakers, to equip MPs, and perhaps people in this House, to understand what the rule of law really means.
When I sat in the Royal Courts of Justice, I heard the Attorney-General affirm his commitment to the rule of law. My heart sang as I heard him say that it was his duty to speak truth to power. That is sometimes hard for a Law Officer but when our fundamental values come under challenge, it is what has to be done. I hope we can all agree that Members in this House will commit to doing our utmost in helping this Government stay true to the rule of law, whatever may lie ahead.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on his maiden speech, and the noble Lords, Lord Booth and Lord Warner, on their speeches. I welcome the noble and learned Lord to the Front Bench as Attorney-General, as I do the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. I hope that despite his heavy responsibilities the noble Lord, Lord Khan, will continue to spread good cheer across the House.
Today’s debate on the King’s Speech raises fundamental questions about Britain’s constitution, on the role of two of its three pillars—the Executive and the legislature —and on the arrangements for our democracy. Although the gracious Speech is made by the monarch, it expresses the wish of his Government. Executive power is no longer exercised by kings and queens, but by Governments elected by the people of this country. This illustrates the evolutionary nature of constitutional change in this country: without bloodshed, the guillotine or the reign of terror; without dictatorships or any of the horrors that have marked other countries’ moves to democratic government.
Political matters were central to the lives and discussions of British people long before they had the power to vote. Their involvement in debate preceded the 19th century laws on the great issues of the time. Home rule, the Corn Laws and extending the franchise were debated in coffee houses, pamphlets and leaflets, the assembly rooms, the hustings and Parliament. Likewise, the extension of the vote between 1832 and 1928 reflected changes across national life that pre-dated the law. What followed was not imposed by decree or by the ideological aim of modernising, which smacks more of the rhetoric of Stalin’s 1920s or Mao’s four modernisations than it does of our evolutionary tradition.
Just a century ago, the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the radical contender to take on the mantle of government. It won trust because it ruled in line with constitutional tradition. As a result, the country settled down effortlessly to acquiescing in the new two-party system. However, this Labour Government appear, in so far as we can judge from the gracious Speech, to intend modernisation by rupture, by diktat, by committee and commission; in fact, everything but evolutionary constitutional change.
Pursuing modernisation by decree to remove the bits of the constitutional jigsaw that a regime finds uncongenial overlooks the fundamental nature of the British constitution: an evolutionary process over time, reflecting longer developments and following national discussion. Rather than impose a symbolic victory for the forces of the left wing in the ways announced in the King’s Speech—to modernise the practices of the House of Commons by committee and those of this House by eliminating hereditary Peers, despite the composition, powers and, yes, practices of both being a testimony to their evolutionary nature—I ask the Government not to press their advantage. Will they think again before they embark on their piecemeal but aggressive modernisation?
In some places, what is needed is not modernisation but a return to the principles on which constitutional arrangements are based. The Government promise to
“strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process”.
I support this. One practical place to start would be restoring the secrecy of the ballot and the principle of universal suffrage, to ensure that those women—whom I have met—who are entitled to vote can do so privately, so their vote is not used by someone else. I have been told on the doorstep by women in some communities that they are not allowed out to vote. When I ask, I find that the general right to a postal vote does not help, because their husbands or fathers vote for them. I therefore support the wish to promote the integrity of the election system, and I suggest that one way to do it would be to end the automatic right to a postal vote and reserve it for those serving in an official capacity overseas, the elderly or the incapacitated.
In general, the best approach to the constitution, especially to Britain’s slowly evolved one, is caution. Professor Sir John Baker, the Downing Professor of the Laws of England at Cambridge, told the Constitution Committee of this House that
“a constitution … should stand above government and should define and limit what a government can do … If a government takes over the constitution and manages it by making piecemeal reforms at its own behest, … we no longer have a constitution, because it is doing precisely what a constitution is supposed to stop … There really is no case for pressing forward reforms simply because they happen to be government policy and there is a majority of one. A constitution ought to have a consensus of people generally”.
In this country, the lively political debate among people has, over many epochs, led Parliaments to reflect this in the laws they made. I will end with that reference to a very distinguished legal historian, and I hope the Government will listen.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on an excellent maiden speech. The content was deeply refreshing and the tone was hugely appreciated. I heard him say he would be an active listener, and I look forward to both his listening and his speaking. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to the Front Bench, and I note the excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Booth, and the good valedictory of the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
There is a great deal in this King’s Speech that I warmly welcome. I think my colleagues on these Benches and I will find ourselves able to vote in favour of quite a lot of it, although I suspect that, in good Liberal fashion, we will find a number of points of detail that we feel need to be explored and that we are able to object to in one way or another. But we look forward to a period of stability and competence.
I start by saying a brief word about devolution, before going on to an area of the constitution. I was greatly encouraged by the word “reset” in looking at how the devolution settlement is conducted, particularly in respect of Scotland. The trench warfare that has sometimes characterised the relationship between Westminster and the devolved Parliaments over some recent years has been deeply unhelpful. As somebody who, in my first incarnation in this place, fought very hard for the Scotland Bill and took part in it, I am one who wants to see devolution flourish. It will flourish only when it is a system that allows for opposing Governments in the different parts of the constitution and allows them to work together in a workmanlike if not always amicable way, but with confidence in each other. I greatly welcome what the Government are doing there, and I hope that we will have a chance to speak more on that on a latter occasion.
Before preparing for this debate I took an educated guess that it would have a large number of speakers, and took a further educated guess that I would be very near the bottom of the list. I therefore came into this Chamber with nothing written down, but I spent the weekend reading Hansards, not simply from our debates on the composition of your Lordships’ House in this place but from the many debates in the other place that I took part in. There was one in 2003, and a wonderful one on 6 March 2007—and one or two other of those who took part in that debate are here now, in this Chamber.
I do not have the time or the will, frankly, to go through all the detailed arguments, but let me say that, through all that process, I have become more and more convinced that the upper Chamber needs to be elected. It needs to be elected because to have a strong Parliament you need a robust second House, and to have a robust second House you have to have moral authority. While in some ways and in some constitutions that may come from appointment, the history of this place means that the only way in which it will have true legitimacy will be through the ballot box. Therefore, throughout my many discussions on the subject, I have pushed that forward. The House is too large and it is composed by patronage and heredity. It does superb work, and I have huge respect for everybody in the House, but it does not command the respect of those in the other place, the media or people in the country.
The lack of aspiration in what the Government are proposing for the constitution is the lack of will to do something proper with this House. We need that strong Parliament, and we need a robust second Chamber, and it cannot be achieved without democratic selection. To me, it is unthinkable that we arrive at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century with a Chamber that is still left in the time warp of heredity and patronage. It really is time that we trust the people. If we want the people to trust us, we need to trust them, and the ballot box is the way to do it.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, to the Government Front Bench. In the limited time available, I can focus on only one aspect of the gracious Speech, the plan to remove the remaining 92 hereditary Peers from the House, eliminating many centuries of tradition and generational wisdom and thus a golden thread going back to the 13th century—although I note that the Labour Front Bench has a hereditary Peer among their number, albeit restored as a life Peer.
On 30 March 1999, in front of a packed House of Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the 1999 Bill to abolish the majority of hereditary Peers reflected
“a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.
The noble and learned Lord continued, in the most carefully worded statement, saying that
“the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
The words could not have been more unequivocal.
It is the responsibility of the 92, and those colleagues who believe that the former Lord Chancellor’s promise should be adhered to, to help the Government make sure that proposed legislation includes provision to move to the stage 2 promise, and I will highlight areas that need to be discussed further.
First, there should be measures to restrict the size of the House. It cannot be right that the number of Peers keeps increasing so that only the National People’s Congress of China has more members. The correct number should reflect the voting turnout in recent years, and the political balance should be adjusted according to the percentage of votes for each party at the general election.
There should be a retirement age of 80, as has been proposed. However, this should not be mandatory; it would be fairer to have a secret ballot of the whole House once a year to decide whether a Peer over 80 should continue. The current retirement procedure works well, but unfortunately its effect is totally negated by the more-than-compensating appointment of new Peers. Slightly confusingly, the Prime Minister has already authorised the appointment of an 81 year-old Baroness. The only Prime Minister to limit appointments was Theresa May. More should follow her example. The Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis and firmly applied to all new appointments—political ones included—thus controlling the quality of prime ministerial patronage.
In addition, amendments should be considered on the composition of the membership of the House. First, we should debate whether the House should be elected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, opined in the interesting TV programme “The Lady and the Lords”, this is what the general public would expect. Do we need to rebalance the 26 Bishops of the religious element of the House to insert representatives of all faiths? Should the name of the House change to “the Senate”, as it will not allow hereditary Peers to be Members?
Another issue to be looked at is the powers of the House. Should we not be able to amend the reams of secondary legislation that come before us rather than just having the stark choice of agreeing or throwing it out? Also, I firmly believe that we should have the power to amend badly drafted finance Bills, particularly where, due to the guillotine procedure, the clauses are not even discussed in the other place.
Finally, how will some business mechanics work when the hereditaries are gone? Can there be an exemption for shadow Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench? Will there be enough noble Lords to sit on the Woolsack?
I understand that a key reason for the proposed Bill is to remove a number of Conservative Peers from the House, which means that the Government will not have to create the equivalent number of new Labour Peers. However, the Cross-Bench hereditaries have been caught in the cross-fire unnecessarily. Very often during the last Administration they supported Labour and Lib Dem amendments, so they are no major threat to the Government getting their business through. In particular, the convenor should be spared abolition.
What will happen to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? Are they also to be excluded from the House? This would seem to be a huge change of tradition to ceremonial offices of state.
I am sure that the proposed legislation will need thorough scrutiny so that it honours the promise made by the then Lord Chancellor in 1999. I am sure that the 92 would be less unhappy to leave when this has been fulfilled.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, when you are the 61st and last Back-Bench speaker, you can at least hope that some people will be pleased to see you—and I hope that noble Lords are. Building on that positive start, I add my welcome and congratulations to the Attorney-General and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, on the Front Bench. The noble and learned Lord gave a remarkable maiden speech, and it is wonderful to see a local mayor taking up a national office. It should happen more often.
I will pick up a theme that, surprisingly in some respects, has been focused on by a large number of Peers: the loss of trust in government and the state. I agree with them. It has become so severe a problem that it is beginning to threaten our democratic foundations. After all, why would you vote for, campaign for, lobby or influence a state that you do not trust or think can deliver?
I will touch on two reasons why this crisis has occurred. First, people feel increasingly distant from the decisions that affect their everyday lives due to the stifling centralism that has engulfed this country over the last 40 years.
Of course, that is why I welcome the proposal in the gracious Speech to introduce a devolution Bill. However, devolution should not just be seen in terms of the selective transfer of some statutory powers to more local levels of governance, or structural change. To help restore trust, devolution must be about creating stronger, more effective communities—that is what it is about—where people feel a sense of belonging; communities able to define their own needs and make choices about their own priorities; communities that can fully realise the potential which we all know they possess and which we already see in the contributions made by individuals, charities and voluntary sector groups; communities that can quickly respond to changing demands, innovate and build trust in ways that we saw so well during the pandemic.
To create those sorts of communities, we need a long-term vision for the future relationship between central and local governance, based upon greater financial stability and with localities given access to whole-place budgets. We need some credible form of local accountability which, frankly, we do not have at the moment, and we need to confront—yes, confront—the inevitable resistance of central government silos to ceding power. What about a mission-based approach, Minister? For me, the success of devolution a decade from now is not going to be measured by the number of powers transferred or bodies set up, but by whether we have created stronger communities, providing better services, improved growth, reduced waste and that critical sense of belonging.
The second reason why we have this crisis of trust is a profound disenchantment with the behaviour and standards of some who hold public office. I know more than most that we have vast numbers of dedicated public servants who have tried so hard to maintain services in the face of almost impossible challenges, but we cannot ignore any longer the failings exposed by the infected blood inquiry, the Post Office scandal, Windrush, Hillsborough, Grenfell and now the Covid report, and nor can we excuse them as isolated historic incidents. If we are going to regain trust, we need to show that we want to change that and address those failings. We need to show that we are determined to give the public what they have the right to expect, which is not least to be treated with respect and consideration.
Clearly, our current attempts to codify these expectations are not working. The Nolan principles, the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code proved insufficient, and their words will ring hollow with, for example, the victims of the infected blood scandal—many of whom I have met—for whom integrity, accountability, openness and honesty were sadly absent. We need a thorough review not just of the content of those codes but, even more importantly, of how they are enforced and how breaches are sanctioned, whether those breaches are by officials or by Ministers.
Surely the Ministerial Code must be made statutory, but what about giving Permanent Secretaries the power to seek a direction, not just on the grounds of value for money but, equally, on potential breaches of the codes of behaviour? If local government is required to appoint statutory monitoring officers—which it has had to do since 1989—then perhaps central government departments need something similar.
We have long boasted that our standards of governance in this country were beyond reproach, but recent inquiries tell a different story. They speak sometimes of a system which is excessively defensive and reluctant to learn the lessons of failure. That has to change.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for making such a powerful case for change. I shall read his speech in Hansard, because it is a cry to all Members of this House, particularly those on the Government Benches, for what we have to do to change the nature of governance in this country.
In a different tone, I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, particularly because he put such emphasis on upholding the rule of law. It was so powerful to hear that. I look forward to many exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Khan, in this House in the months, and maybe years, ahead.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford was right when he said that the Liberal tradition is always to want more reform. In the light of that comment, I say this: our creaking constitution and outmoded governance arrangements, at every level, are in urgent need of reform. The paltry offerings from the Government in this gracious Speech leave much to be desired. It would be good for them to make a bit more of a challenge.
It is not surprising that much of the time in this debate has been spent making different arguments about reforms to this House. On the one hand, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made a robust defence of the status quo; on the other, my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Thurso made the powerful case for fundamental reform and an elected House. We have heard lots of ideas in between, which I hope the Government will listen to and reflect on, because there were some good ideas in the huge array of what has been said today.
That moves me on to democracy—maybe—and elections. My noble friend Lord Rennard said that we hope that the Labour manifesto pledges to introduce automatic voter registration and to remove voter ID will be enacted in the lifetime of this Parliament. He is right to make the case for doing it more promptly than perhaps is suggested in the gracious Speech.
As my noble friend stated, the Liberal Democrats want fairness in all our electoral system and an equal voice for all in making the decisions that affect them at the most local level possible. Therefore, we welcome the principle of devolution to all parts of England. However, what is not clear is whether this will just be further delegation of resources with many Whitehall strings attached—which has been the nature of it so far—or something more meaningful. As my noble friend Lord Scriven argued, fiscal devolution, as well as policy devolution, will be very important. If that is unleashed, it will result in the economic growth that this Government want and that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, pointed to.
Unfortunately, it seems that the model adopted will continue to be that of a single elected mayor. That creates a whole new democratic deficit whereby key strategic decisions will be made by an elected mayor, but without the proper accountability provided by democratically elected members of different political persuasions. That arrangement will not do and will not stand the test of time.
I move on to devolution to the nations of our country. We have heard calls from noble Lords who have direct experience of devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and my noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lord Bruce referenced the importance of change within those devolution settlements and that a more comprehensive settlement is long overdue. A piecemeal approach to nationwide devolution is in no one’s best interests, least of all those of the people it is meant to serve. We on these Benches will always press for a constitutional settlement that includes a federal settlement for all the nations of our country.
Meanwhile, in the great regions of England, we are still waiting for real devolution. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for what he said about Yorkshire, and remind Members opposite that my home county of Yorkshire has a similar population to that of Scotland, and double those of Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet that great county of Yorkshire has had only fragmented and limited devolution, and it is singularly lacking in its democracy. Give us devolution, so that we in Yorkshire can get on and make our county thriving again.
That leads me to talk about what I regard as the appalling lack of reference to local government in this gracious Speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, talked about that, as did my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The one positive announcement that has been made is to restore “local government” to the title of the department—thank you. All politics is local and all public service delivery is local, and I hope that the Government will be mindful of this. According to the LGA, almost one in five councils is teetering on the verge of issuing Section 114 notices. In unitary councils, including metropolitans in big urban centres, about 80% of their budgets will be spent on adult social care, support for vulnerable children and SEND. A steeply declining resource is left for all other local services, which may explain the state of our roads. This is not sustainable, even in the short term. The Government have ambitious targets for housebuilding and planning reform, but these services cannot be divorced from the rest of local government. Planning applications require assessments by many local services, including highways and the environment. I sincerely hope that the Government understand the predicament facing local government, and that that understanding will lead to desperately needed further resources.
This wide-ranging and fascinating debate has demonstrated that many in this House are urging the new Government to use their huge majority to transform our politics and governance. Unfortunately, the meagre offerings in this gracious Speech leave room for much more. Having said that, it is at least positive that the changes proposed will make a small progressive step in the right direction.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition let me first put on record my congratulations to Labour on its comprehensive victory in the general election, and my special congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, on their places on the Front Bench. I wish them all success.
For those of us who previously sat on the Front Bench, it is rather disorientating to come into the other side of the House. But in scanning the Opposition Benches calibration came to my aid when I saw my main protagonist in constitutional matters, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, in exactly the same place on the Government Benches as he sat when on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps it is business as usual—or perhaps not.
Being relatively new to this House, with a tenure of three years and not yet aged 60, I will not divert into the matters of hereditary Peers or age but will focus on devolution. Given that I previously served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, noble Lords will forgive me if I focus on Scottish matters, but for Welsh and Northern Irish Peers there will be many similarities in the remarks I wish to make about devolution. This year, 2024, is the 25th anniversary of devolution in the UK. Surely, therefore, it would not be unreasonable to ask the Labour Party, which invented devolution, to undertake a 25-year review to see where it has worked well and where it has not worked so well.
In the numerous exchanges I had with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when I was sitting on the Front Bench, he expressed frustration that His Majesty’s Government in Westminster were not doing more to police the activities of the Scottish Government when they continually diverged outside the jurisdiction of devolved matters into reserved matters. The noble Lord was particularly exercised, as he mentioned this evening, about the establishment of foreign Scottish embassies in eight overseas cities where the UK already has embassies, at a cost of £1 million each, and about the use of civil servant time in publishing a series of independence papers, as well as the indulging of new state planning at a cost of £20 million. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would berate me, the Scottish Under-Secretary of State, that I was not doing more to bring the Scottish Government into line.
My reply to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was consistent: His Majesty’s Government have to work within the architecture of the Scotland Act 1998, which was designed and implemented by the Labour Party. The reality is that the Labour Party, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did not envisage that the Scottish Government would, to use the noble Lord’s language, be weaponised against the United Kingdom Government, as the SNP has done these last 17 years. The result is that necessary checks and balances were not put in place to ensure good law-making, nor indeed were sanctions designed to discourage ultra vires behaviour. Surely now is the time for the new Labour Government to tidy up their previous work and review and improve the Scotland Act, as well as look at devolution across Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure greater co-operation between Westminster and the devolved Administrations.
The Scotland Act is basically very simple—you can put it on one piece of A4 paper. On the left-hand side of the paper you have reserved matters and on the right-hand side you have devolved matters. Harmony is ensured when His Majesty’s Government—the UK Government—focus on reserved matters and the Scottish Government focus on devolved matters. The sad reality is that, in the 17 years under an SNP Government, every single KPI in devolved matters in Scotland has gone backwards. Our education system, once the gold-plated education system in the United Kingdom—which allowed me to go from a tenement to this place—has been reduced from outstanding to average. Police numbers are now at a record 15-year low, and let us not talk about the A9, the single-track railways or the ferries. On health, one in seven Scots is currently on a waiting list, and local authorities are being denuded.
Interestingly, with local authorities there is a glimmer of hope in our 25-year review. One of the great privileges of my job in the Scotland Office was to work with DLUHC on the levelling-up agenda, where £3 billion of UK money went direct to Scotland—and direct to the 32 local authorities, much to the cries of foul play by the Scottish Government, who wanted it to come direct to them. In my role as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I had interactions with the 32 local authorities and had very meaningful conversations with them. Whichever colour of party ran the council, they said to us that this was the best level of engagement they had had with the UK in the 25 years since devolution began. They said that it came to them with enthusiasm and empowerment. It was their idea as to how to spend the money—there were city deals, freeports, a levelling-up fund and a community ownership fund. London was not telling them how to spend their money; they were telling us where they wanted to spend it. The one thing they said was that they wanted more of it, because they do not get any of that interaction, nor indeed money, from the Scottish Government.
On this idea of devolution being called for from London to Edinburgh, it does not seem to go from Edinburgh to Greenock, Falkirk or Bathgate. But I am very proud that, in my time in the Scotland Office over the last five years, we have made great strides on that. I will give your Lordships one little anecdote. Many noble Lords will know the Corran ferry, a small but very important link from Lochaber to Ardnamurchan. When it went down, the Scottish Government denied funding for it. The UK Government came to the rescue through the levelling-up fund. The leader of the Highland Council, being an SNP councillor, was so desperate for the money that he even agreed with me to put a union jack on the ferry. The message that came back was, “We don’t care where the money comes from; what we in local authorities want is to be listened to and funded adequately”.
So, when we look at the dismal Administration that we have had in Scotland—we can talk also about Wales and Northern Ireland another time—it is interesting that that is despite record funding that has come from His Majesty’s Treasury. How dishonest of the current First Minister, John Swinney, to claim in the recent general election that Scotland’s problems were all down to Westminster austerity when between 2018 and 2023, the five principal years of Nicola Sturgeon’s premiership, Scottish government spending went up from £40 billion to £55 billion. That is 6% per annum.
I do not know how many of my fellow noble Lords run businesses, but how many who do have organic revenue growth of 6% per annum? That does not look to me to be austerity at all. That money is sent north with no strings attached. London does not prescribe to Edinburgh how to spend the money. The reality is that the Scottish Government make their spending choices. They have prioritised in their period of power giving record welfare payments and record increases in public sector pay. They are entitled to do that. The three lowest-spending departments have been education, the police and local authorities. This should serve as a warning to any new Government and the new Labour Government. The SNP boasts that it has created a welfare economy. The harsh reality is that, without wealth creation, there will be no welfare.
I take this opportunity to urge the new Government to take a fresh look at and review the 25 years of devolution. There have been many good things achieved, but we must take the opportunity now to ensure that the Scottish Government get focused on doing the day job of running the police, the schools and the roads, which has been expressed in this Chamber this evening. On devolution, we all agree a consensus that it is about bringing power closer to the people in matters that matter in their local areas. We need to focus on this, rather than Parliament having fancy nation-building and looking at a land of milk and honey.
I leave noble Lords with this thought. Given that—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am flattered that the noble Lord is spending so much time dealing with one of the points that I raised. There were dozens of others, brilliant points raised by other noble Lords. Surely the Opposition spokesperson ought to be replying to those as well?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for continuing to joust with me. I did say that I would focus on Scottish issues, because I know Wales and Northern Ireland less, and that I would focus on devolution. My major point is that a 25-year review of devolution is required. Therefore, I suggest that we accept that all parts of the United Kingdom send their MPs to Westminster. The constitution is devolved to Westminster and that is where the debates should happen. If we want to debate further independence, perhaps we can invite “Lord Salmond” or “Lord Blackford” to join this Chamber. Then it would not just be “The Lord Offord versus Lord Foulkes Show”.
Anyway, in conclusion, I will finish by reprising the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Caine, who said earlier that the primary responsibility of the UK Government was first and foremost to preserve this most successful and lasting union for the benefit of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I would welcome that assurance today from the Government Front Bench.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to close this important debate on His Majesty’s gracious Speech. I thank your Lordships for your many learned contributions, not least among them the excellent opening speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General—his maiden address to this House. With his decades of legal expertise at the very highest level, I know that my noble and learned friend will make an enormous contribution to this place and I take this opportunity to welcome him.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for his maiden address to this House, and to the former Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Swinburne, Lady Penn and Lady Scott of Bybrook. Both my noble friend Lady Taylor and I thank them for their collegiate approach and work on this brief. We look forward to working with them in the future, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who is retiring after almost 26 years in this place. I thank him for his decades of devoted public service and for the important work he has done throughout his career—both as a parliamentarian and as a civil servant—to improve the delivery of public health, child protection and youth justice services in this country.
It is my personal privilege to stand before your Lordships today, for the first time as a Government Minister—an honour that not many working-class lads from Burnley grow up thinking they will achieve. I thank all those who have offered their kind congratulations following my appointment to this office. But we cannot ignore how Westminster, the very heart of our democracy, feels further away than ever for millions of people across our country living in towns like mine. Ordinary working people have seen the gap between the sacrifices that they have been asked to make and the service that they have received from politicians grow into a chasm in recent years. Builders, plumbers, nurses, taxi drivers, as my dad and I used to be—hard-working people are doing the right thing but struggling to make ends meet, because of decisions made here, in this place.
It is time to restore faith and trust in our democracy and bridge the divide that has grown between politics and the people, by delivering the change that this Government were elected so decisively to bring—a point that a number of noble Lords made this evening.
We will place public service at the heart of everything we do, as we fulfil our mission of national renewal. This begins with putting more power than ever before in the hands of local people, kickstarting a devolution revolution in England that will transfer more decisions from Westminster to those who know their communities best, putting local people in charge of shaping their future and delivering the progress that local communities want to see. As a former Mayor of Burnley, I know first hand the transformative change that strong local leaders can achieve if given the powers to do so.
This work has already begun. Within days of taking office, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister hosted combined authority mayors in Downing Street to discuss our plans for change. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to local leaders in devolution deserts across the country to set this political transformation in motion, encouraging them to take on new powers in areas such as transport, adult education and skills, housing and planning, and employment support. We are driving forward our national mission to boost economic growth.
We have seen the benefits of devolution in Greater Manchester. The city region has been one of the UK’s most spectacular success stories and fastest-growing areas over the last 20 years, and it is predicted to outpace national growth for years to come. This success has been led by Mayor Andy Burnham, who has used his powers to encourage investment, boost skills and integrate the local transport system.
We have seen the impact of devolution elsewhere in the country too, with mayors playing a crucial role in attracting new investment, such as Boeing and McLaren to South Yorkshire, creating good new jobs, and West Yorkshire becoming the UK’s fastest-growing digital hub outside London thanks to local leadership.
But, as we all know, these successes are the exception and not the rule. Regional growth has stagnated in recent years. The productivity of our major towns and cities still lags far behind. This is a lose-lose situation for us all. The Centre for Cities estimates a £180 billion boost to the economy if productivity in the north and Midlands matches that of London and the south-east. This is why we are encouraging local leaders to develop ambitious, long-term local growth plans that build on their area’s existing strengths, partnering with them to attract more business, create more jobs and deliver more opportunity for local people. We will join forces with major employers, universities, colleges and industry bodies to identify growth sectors and give them the support that they need to thrive.
Where there is a solid track record of sound financial management, we will simplify the funding process, giving local leaders the space and flexibility they need to progress. But the power of devolution does not stop at economic growth. We want to give people the tools to transform the look and feel of the neighbourhoods and high streets they love, too. Our English devolution Bill includes a new right-to-buy option, so that communities can purchase much-loved assets such as empty shops, pubs and community spaces, while helping to tackle the blight of empty premises, spruce up public spaces and give local communities greater power to shape services and influence regeneration.
Our mission to transfer more power to local leaders in England echoes the spirit of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 25 years ago. As we celebrate a quarter of a century since this landmark reform was made, we must reset and restore the strained relationship we have inherited between Westminster and the devolved Governments, rebuilding the partnership between us. We are a Government for the whole United Kingdom: a Government who work in the interests of people living in every corner of our four nations, so that we can stand together once again to face the challenges of an uncertain world.
The Prime Minister is leading this work to rebuild our country, work that began on day one of our new Government when he spoke with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, before travelling to meet them in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff within his first 48 hours in office.
We are committed to strengthening the structures and institutions of our partnership of Governments, so that we can lay the foundation for change and deliver the programme of reform and national renewal that our country so badly needs. A council of the nations and regions will be established to underpin this work, with the Prime Minister partnering directly with the elected heads of Government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with the mayors of the combined authorities of England, who will be working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that our national reforms deliver for people living across our United Kingdom.
But to restore faith in our democracy, we must first clean up our act here in Westminster, beginning with strengthening the enforcement of standards in public life. The Government are committed to establishing a new independent ethics and integrity commission with its own independent chair. This will ensure probity, restore confidence in government and make sure that Ministers are held to the highest standards, helping reset our public life.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to constitutional reform and modernising how Parliament works. As a first step, we will introduce a focused Bill that removes the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Noble lords will be aware that the measures put in place in the House of Lords Act 1999 were intended to last only for a short period before more substantial reforms were enacted. It has now been 25 years since the passage of that Act and, as a first step on the road to further reform, now is the time for this modernisation.
The Government recognise the good work of hereditary peers who scrutinise the Government of the day and improve the quality of legislation, but reform is essential and long overdue. Places in the second Chamber should not be reserved for individuals because of their family background. For this reason, the Government hope that noble Lords will support this measure when it comes before the House.
The Government will act to strengthen our democracy at its roots by making our electoral system fairer, more secure and more inclusive, improving participation and, in due course, extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, thoroughly reviewing and addressing the rules on voter ID, and tightening the rules around donations to political parties. These reforms will give more people a voice, and a stake, in our democracy. They will help us meet the threat posed by malign actors who seek to interfere in our elections and give us the tools we need to root them out and expel them from our political finance framework.
I turn to the contributions from noble Lords across the House. On the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and other noble Lords, the ongoing position, as has been stated in the House, is indefensible and can be addressed quickly through this hereditary Peers Bill. The manifesto is clear that the Government are committed to acting decisively to address the most pressing issues by bringing about immediate modernisation. The first step in this process is this Bill, and this will not preclude further reforms.
The Government are committed to other reforms to the House of Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, asked about this. We are in particular looking at introducing changes to the appointments process and at a mandatory retirement age, as well as a long-term commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Given the nature and potential scale of these reforms, the Government will conduct engagement and consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.
I listened to the ideas my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock presented. I will take them back to the department. I also pay tribute to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I thank him for his previous work on this area. I will look at the points he made and take them back, in particular in relation to the size of the House.
The Government have committed to improving the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. We are actively considering how this can best be achieved. I reject the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that this is a purge. The intention is to make sure that the House is fit for purpose, in line with modernising this House and politics generally.
The Government have set out a commitment to introduce a retirement age. As the Prime Minister said, the Lords has become too big. The manifesto also sets out other measures, including the introduction of a participation requirement. The Government recognise the good work of many Peers who scrutinise the Executive and improve the quality of legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that this was an unprecedented opportunity for reform and we should not need 30 years. That is why the work will start now. The House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising, as I mentioned, and we recognise the valuable contribution of many Peers. It is important that Members participate in support of this core function.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke about non-attendance. We are looking at how we can deliver the manifesto commitment to introduce this participation requirement, building on existing rules that require Members to attend once every parliamentary Session.
My noble friend Lord Grocott alluded to the by-elections. Abolishing the by-elections would run counter to our commitment to bring about immediate modernisation. The youngest hereditary Peer is in their 30s, so this approach would mean hereditary Peers could remain part of this House for generations. I take the point my noble friend made; had we dealt with this earlier, we would have had a much smaller House.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked whether the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain would remain as Peers. The Earl Marshal is responsible for the organisation of major ceremonial state occasions, such as the Coronation of the monarch and state funerals. The Lord Great Chamberlain has charge of many parts of the Palace of Westminster and is the sovereign’s representative in Parliament. The important ceremonial functions of both will not be impacted by this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked how long it would take to set up the modernisation committee he referred to. The Government are committed to bringing about a return to politics of service and, as a priority, intend to tighten the existing prohibition on MPs providing paid parliamentary advice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, talked about our approach to the Lords Spiritual. Some Peers, including the noble and learned Lord, asked why the Government were not planning to remove the Lords Spiritual from this House. The legislation announced in the King’s Speech is a focused Bill to bring about immediate modernisation by removing the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. In contrast to bishops, hereditary Peers gain their position as a birthright. As I said, we are committed to an alternative second Chamber that will be more representative of the regions and nations.
A number of noble Lords made contributions in relation to electoral reform. I will start with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The Government are clear that all legitimate voters should not only have the opportunity to vote in our vibrant democracy but be actively encouraged to participate. The Government will therefore act during this Parliament to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all elections, strengthening our democracy, empowering young people to participate and building an informed and empowered electorate. Alongside this, we will tackle the unacceptable participation gap in our elections by taking wider action to improve rates of electoral registration. My noble friend Lord Alli made that point eloquently.
While we act to encourage participation, we will also protect our democracy from malign actors who seek to interfere in UK elections through illegitimate political donations. We will act to strengthen the rules around donations to political parties, a point that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton alluded to.
Those aged 16 and 17 can work, pay tax and serve our country in the Armed Forces. It therefore stands that they should also be entitled to vote and have their say on issues that affect them and their future. The Government will act during this Parliament to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections, strengthening our democracy and empowering young people to participate in it. We are determined to do this right. This will be a major change to the electoral franchise, requiring careful planning and engagement with stakeholders in the electoral sector, devolved and local government, education and civil society and, importantly, young people themselves to ensure its success. By engaging voters early when they are young, we will build the foundations for their lifelong participation in our electoral process, as illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. Our Government will work with the electoral sector, as mentioned before, raise participation and make the electoral system more effective. We have a lot of progress to make ahead of primary legislation and will explore opportunities to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, talked in particular about voter ID. We have had concerns about the voter identification policy, and a long, vigorous debate has previously taken place in this House and the other place on this issue. The Government are committed to carefully and thoroughly reviewing the voter ID rules and evaluating how they impacted citizens during the general election, before bringing forward firm proposals in due course.
In relation to points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about automatic registration, we want to raise participation in our vibrant democracy and will explore options for achieving that objective. We will look at ways to use data and wider public services to encourage and support electoral registration. We will look to test different approaches and use experience from other countries to inform our decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, talked about the independence of the Electoral Commission. On the Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement, it is vital for public confidence in our democracy that the independence of the Electoral Commission is upheld. The existence of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission is inconsistent with the commission’s role as an independent regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, talked about first past the post. The voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. The first past the post system is a clear way of electing representatives, is well understood by voters, and provides strong and direct local accountability.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York talked about people being turned away at polling stations. We will conduct a thorough evaluation of the voter ID rules and evaluate how citizens during the general election were affected by the acceptance, or non-acceptance in some examples, of ID. Consideration of the evaluation will be given by the Electoral Commission before bringing forward firm proposals in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, talked about postal votes. The availability of postal voting supports many people who would not otherwise be able to participate in person due to disability or family commitments. It is illegal to use another’s vote, and there are serious sanctions, including fines and imprisonment.
In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cymgiedd, I recognise the points made on statutory instruments. I can confirm that the department will take the necessary steps to ensure that information is available to enable effective scrutiny, and that drafting quality is of utmost importance to this Government. He talked about the end of skeleton Bills, as did the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The Government recognise the vital importance of allowing Members of both Houses to scrutinise legislation effectively. There will be times where it is appropriate to have framework powers—in regulations in particular. However, we will make sure that there is flexibility, and will increase the minimum wage and uprate benefits in relation to this framework. This new Government will ensure that legislation is brought to this House in a state and manner befitting its importance to allow for effective scrutiny, implementation and improvement of Bills.
It has been a wide-ranging debate, but I will try to get through it in relation to the English devolution Bill. English devolution has been evolving for the past 10 years, with almost half of the English population now covered by devolution deals. However, to date, devolution deals have been struck with areas on a case-by-case basis, leaving a patchwork of institutions with different powers and governance arrangements which is difficult to navigate—these points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
This landmark devolution Bill will fix this problem by establishing a new, clear devolution framework which will enshrine the role of local leaders in statute, extend the benefits of devolution to more areas and guarantee all areas access to an ambitious set of new powers which will unlock economic growth.
In relation to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the Isles of Scilly, the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear her desire to see devolution extended to every corner of England, and she is inviting local areas to put forward proposals. I will take back the issues my noble friend Lord Berkeley raised.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the English devolution Bill will deliver on our commitments to move power out of Westminster and strengthen mayoral powers. We are committed to engaging with local leaders on this enhanced devolution framework as it is developed. A number of points were made in relation to devolution. I have covered as many as I possibly can. I believe I have up to 25 minutes.
I want to finish this point about ethics and integrity. We will establish an independent ethics commission, as I mentioned. The Government are committed to restoring confidence in government and ensuring that Ministers are held to the highest standards. The ethics and integrity commission will therefore have the powers and functions necessary to do that.
In relation to the points noble Lords made in relation to Northern Ireland, the Leader of the House is in her place listening to them. We will come back and are happy to write to noble Lords on these points.
The Government are determined to rebuild the bonds of trust between people and politicians in this country. We know the damage done can be mended only by actions, not words. This will take time, but the work of change has already begun. It is a privilege to stand here as a Minister. I assure noble Lords that I intended to be an engaged Minister with my door always open to discuss issues and concerns that your Lordships may have. I reiterate the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer that it is imperative that we respect the rule of law, and I am pleased that this commitment is explicitly included in the oath taken by law officers.
The reforms we have debated today demonstrate the Government’s fundamental commitment to public service as we change our country for the better, putting the interests of ordinary working people at the forefront of all we do, rebuilding respect for our politics, restoring faith in our democracy and reuniting our country.