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 ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we begin proceedings, I should advise the House that there is a fault with the Annunciator system that means it is slow to update. There may therefore be a delay before the current information is displayed. I hope that the fault will be rectified as soon as possible—I understand that the Clerk is already at work with his technical electrical skills as we speak.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
It is great to see the House so full for Northern Ireland questions, and I congratulate all colleagues recently elected in Northern Ireland.
I met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister twice in my first four days, during which we discussed a wide range of issues, including the Government’s commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. I plan to update the House shortly on how we will begin that process.
Adam Jogee
It is very good to see my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on the Government Benches. I am sure the commitment that the Secretary of State has just given us will be welcomed by many in Newcastle-under-Lyme and, indeed, in Northern Ireland, given the lack of support for the legacy Act. Can he undertake to consult widely on the Act’s repeal and replacement, and will he keep the House informed?
Hilary Benn
I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance, because the problem with the legacy Act is that it has almost no support in Northern Ireland among political parties and victims’ families. We have given a very clear commitment to consult on how the repeal and replacement will work: in the end, we hope to get a large measure of support for a new approach, which the current approach has failed to secure.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will recognise that Northern Ireland is represented in the Executive, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and now in this place by more than just the parties of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Will he give an assurance that he will deal openly and transparently with all those parties?
Hilary Benn
I will readily give the hon. Member that assurance. I have met with all the party leaders, and the commitment to consultation that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) will extend to all the parties in Northern Ireland.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I know he brings considerable qualities to his role, and I look forward to working with him on behalf of all the people in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Chris Heaton-Harris, who did such an excellent job and is much missed on the Conservative Benches.
I very much welcome the positive meetings that the Secretary of State has had with all parties since he was appointed. Following those meetings, may I ask him to reassure the House that on his watch, he will be an active supporter of the Union and an advocate for it?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing the House’s collective thanks to my predecessor, and congratulate him and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on their appointments. I look forward to working with both of them.
The Government are strongly committed to our United Kingdom, as was clearly set out in our manifesto. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that reflected in our work as we take it forward.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. The Government’s manifesto states that they are
“committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith”.
However, that manifesto did not mention the Command Paper, which was vital in getting Stormont back. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that Command Paper contained a number of measures to strengthen the Union—the East-West Council and InterTrade UK, to name but two. Will the Government faithfully implement all those commitments in the Command Paper, which are designed to strengthen the Union?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman knows, when we were in opposition, we supported the two statutory instruments and the Humble Address. We will set up the independent monitoring panel, and we have recently had a success in developing our relationship with the European Union over dental amalgam: the new Government have secured a 10-year derogation, which has been widely welcomed by the parties in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are committed to ensuring that Euro 2028 benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. We are working as quickly as possible with all partners to assess the options on the Casement Park project.
Sammy Wilson
Many people were surprised when the Secretary of State, on first being appointed, made it his priority to deliver on Casement Park. Committing £320 million for a stadium to host five matches at a time when there are huge waiting lists to be dealt with in the health service, and with special educational needs and social housing needing funding, is an indefensible use of public money. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government’s view has not been influenced by any personal interventions by the chief of staff of the Labour party, for whom this is a personal project, and can he confirm that such an intervention would be a breach of standards in public life?
Hilary Benn
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I said this was a priority because a decision needs to be made. The fact is that the Government have inherited a commitment to hosting the Euros at Casement Park. It is now a year and three quarters since UEFA awarded that right to Northern Ireland, and to the United Kingdom and Ireland, but nothing has happened during the year and three quarters since then to progress the project. We are left with a situation in which the cost has gone through the roof, and even if we had the money, we do not know if we could build it in time. That is why the Government are looking at it, and that is why I said it was a priority to make a decision.
Claire Hanna
The Gaelic Athletic Association is overwhelmingly a force for good across our island, and I was pleased to see so many in Britain enjoying the magic of the hurling final via the BBC on Sunday. GAA fans in Northern Ireland, like Northern Ireland football fans awaiting sub-regional stadium funding, have been let down by a decade of Stormont dither, by sniping such as we have just seen and by the last Government. Had they green-lit the project when they said they would, construction would have been well under way in time for the Euros. Can the Secretary of State assure us that Casement will ultimately be built, and that spectacles such as we will see for Armagh this Sunday will in time be hosted in Belfast?
Hilary Benn
I think we all wish Armagh well in the all-Ireland final. The Executive are committed to the Casement Park project—it has been a commitment for over a decade now—but it has not progressed. Windsor Park got an upgrade, Ravenhill got an upgrade and it is important that Casement Park is built. That is why I said on my recent visit that one way or another that project needs to be completed.
Jim Allister
Will the Secretary of State explain to the 356,000 citizens of Northern Ireland who await out-patient appointments and to the 94,000 who await in-patient admissions why, in the Government’s view, it seems to be a priority to pour hundreds of millions of pounds into a GAA sports stadium instead of fixing our health service? If the Government commit money and the Euros do not come to Belfast, will the Government not be in a position in which the rugby stadium and the football stadium did not get a penny of Treasury or Northern Ireland Office money, but the GAA did? How could that be fair and how could that be proportionate?
Hilary Benn
I hope very much that sport will be a force for unity in Northern Ireland, rather than a source of division. When it comes to the health service, the hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. The state of the NHS in Northern Ireland, with the longest waiting lists in the United Kingdom, is a function, if I may say so, of decisions that the Executive have failed to take over many years. The people of Northern Ireland want to have a better health service, and that needs the plan to which the new Health Minister is committed.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we would not be in the final minutes of extra time on whether Casement Park can be rebuilt in time for the Euros if the previous Government had actually done something about it after we were awarded host status a year and three quarters ago?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. The facts speak for themselves: a year and three quarters since we were awarded the wonderful opportunity to host the Euros, nothing has happened on the project.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The interim fiscal framework agreed earlier this year introduced a needs-based funding formula set at 124% of spending per head in England, based on the advice of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, and we are committed to taking forward these discussions with the Executive.
Sorcha Eastwood
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and look forward to working with him in his new role. Fixing Northern Ireland’s financial framework is crucial to ensuring that our public services are properly resourced, and indeed that impacts on my constituents in Lagan Valley. Will he ensure that any new arrangements are fully baselined and informed by independent expert analysis?
Hilary Benn
The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council was set up to help to answer the question about what the need is in Northern Ireland. It came up with a range of between 121% and 127%, and opted for 124% in the middle. The fact that that was in the interim fiscal framework that the previous Government negotiated is welcome, and was welcomed by the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland. We are committed to taking those discussions forward, and I understand that the Finance Minister in the Executive has already met the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Jim Shannon
May I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well in the role that he now plays? The Chancellor has indicated that there will be a 5% increase in wages for health workers and those in the education sector, but unfortunately, given the current Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland, that will not mean 5% for those workers in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State urgently look at that issue to ensure that health and education workers in Northern Ireland deserve the same increase in their wages as those on the mainland do because, quite clearly, I am here for them?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, decisions about pay in Northern Ireland are a matter for the Executive. Any additional spending in England will apply through the Barnett consequentials to Northern Ireland in the normal way.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to needs-based funding for Northern Ireland. Does he agree that how funding is allocated and how further revenue might be generated are matters for the devolved Administration and the Assembly?
Hilary Benn
I certainly do agree. All Governments, including the Northern Ireland Executive, have the money they have coming in, the money they can raise in addition, and how they will prioritise their spending. The Northern Ireland Executive have more funding per head of population than England, and it is for the Executive to take decisions about what their priorities are, and allocate funding accordingly.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to their positions, and thank them for their gracious phone call last week to welcome me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) to our positions. On Monday, the Business Secretary slipped out a written statement, rather than coming to this House, revealing that the Government have decided not to proceed with an export development guarantee, or emergency loans that would save Harland and Wolff, despite its unique role and outstanding defence contract. Will the Secretary of State use his position to continue the support that the previous Government gave to Northern Ireland, and make it clear to the Treasury that the people of Northern Ireland expect the Government to intervene in this case, and support Harland and Woolf, as is desperately needed?
Hilary Benn
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. The reasons for the Government’s decision about Harland and Wolff were clearly set out in the written ministerial statement that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary laid before the House. Harland and Wolff is now talking to its main supporters, Riverstone, about potential additional financial support. We are committed to shipbuilding across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, and as that written ministerial statement made clear, Harland and Wolff is an essential part of the £1.6 billion contract for the fleet solid support ships.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I am delighted to be appointed to this role, and I look forward to working closely with Executive Ministers to see public services transformed in Northern Ireland. I will be meeting the First and Deputy First Ministers tomorrow in Stormont, as well as the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt.
Gavin Robinson
I welcome the Minister of State and Secretary of State to their positions. I am delighted to see them in post, and I know they are committed to effective public services and stability of the institutions in Northern Ireland. May I caution that in a number of responses that we have received from the Front Bench, we are having a recurring conversation that the fiscal framework that was announced back in December on an interim basis does not solve the problems we have? Even the stabilisation money that was agreed back in December has already been forecast as necessary to sustain pay in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister of State engage earnestly not only with what the Government—both of this hue and the previous Government—have been saying for the past six months, and recognise that to provide good public services in Northern Ireland we need not only to sustain, but to transform?
Fleur Anderson
I agree with the right hon. Member. Money is allocated specifically for transformation of public services to improve service delivery outcomes. In Northern Ireland, three in 10 people are on an NHS waiting list; that number is one in 10 here in England. That figure needs to be transformed for health outcomes.
I will be talking about funding when I meet Executive Ministers, but I will also be talking about other ways in which our doors, and those of other Government Ministers, too, are open. We are determined to work together to transform public services.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
As set out in the King’s Speech, the Government are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. As well as scrapping conditional immunity, we will set out steps to allow troubles-era inquests and civil claims to resume. We will consult with all interested parties on a way forward that can obtain the support of victims and survivors, and comply with our human rights obligations.
Bob Blackman
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Clearly, any delays will in-build a legacy for the victims and their families, who have waited a long time for closure on these issues. I understand absolutely the need to create consensus across Northern Ireland for what will be proposed, but will he set out the timeline and the plan for achieving that and agree to come back to the House to update us when that plan is ready?
Hilary Benn
I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance about keeping the House informed and reporting to it on my plans. As far as the independent commission is concerned, the Government have decided that we will retain it. That is because the Stormont House agreement—we want to return to the principles that it set out—envisages both information recovery and continued investigation. Those two functions are in effect combined in the independent commission. I met Sir Declan Morgan yesterday to talk about how that work can be taken forward. The commission is now open for business and available for families to approach to find an answer, for which many of them have been looking for so long.
Mr Holden
The former Member for Plymouth Moor View was a strong advocate for veterans in Cabinet and in government. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure veterans in Basildon and Billericay and across the country that any future legislation will protect now-elderly veterans from vexatious legal action in the future?
Hilary Benn
I pay tribute to the work that veterans and members of the police and the security services did over many years during the troubles in trying to keep people safe from terrorism. I undertake, as part of the consultation that I have already set out to the House, to consult veterans’ organisations.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. Will he further outline what discussions he is having with groups and organisations who represent innocent victims? Will he assure the House that in repealing this legislation, there will be no pandering to those who were the victim makers? What meaningful engagement is he having with the Irish Government, who oppose the Act but have disgracefully refused to deal with the many allegations of state collusion with the Provisional IRA? I am thinking specifically about the long-awaited public inquiry into the Omagh bombing.
Hilary Benn
I discussed the matter with Micheál Martin when I saw him early after my appointment, and he has expressed the hope that a way forward can be found that might lead to the withdrawal of the interstate case that Ireland has brought. I will certainly engage with victims’ organisations—I met a number of them during my time as shadow Secretary of State—because I am committed to trying to find a way forward. In the end, if this is to work, it must work for the victims’ families, because they are the people who say, “What went before hasn’t given us what we were looking for.”
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
No. We are committed to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith in partnership with the EU, and to taking all steps necessary to protect the UK internal market. We are also looking to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement with the EU, which could help.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Will the Secretary of State commit to all the provisions of the “Safeguarding the Union” agreement?
Hilary Benn
I already set out my answer to that in response to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). We are taking forward those commitments, but we can make progress by working in partnership with the European Union. What was achieved recently on dental amalgam is a good example of precisely that.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I understand how important and urgent this issue is. I thank the hon Member for his contribution to the veterinary medicines working group, whose work we have committed to continuing. He will know that a grace period for veterinary medicines will remain in place until the end of 2025, which provides continuity of supply to Northern Ireland. The Government will make progress on this issue as quickly as possible.
Dr Hudson
I thank the Minister for her answer. The Windsor framework secured by the previous Government extended that grace period to veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland until the end of December 2025. That includes vaccines and anaesthetics, so it is vital for biosecurity and both animal and public health that access continues. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will strain every sinew to secure permanent access to veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland, and will they continue the Cabinet Office’s veterinary medicines working group, on which I sat, which was working so hard to find a solution?
Fleur Anderson
I can confirm again that the veterinary medicines working group will continue. We recognise its importance, and we will continue to work at pace on a long-term solution, because continuity of supply and knowing about it well in advance of next December is very important.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their place, and I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). I can only hope that the success of the hurling at the weekend means that the BBC will consider showing the shinty-hurling international that takes place every year.
I welcome attempts by the new Government to continue to rebuild trust with Northern Ireland political parties and to improve relations with the European Union, which offers the opportunity to reduce trade frictions between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Could the Secretary of State set out what he is doing with ministerial colleagues and other Departments to open the door to securing a veterinary agreement with the EU, which will further reduce those barriers to trade?
Fleur Anderson
The Government are committed to working at pace on a long-term solution, including a veterinary agreement. That might change the relationship with the EU and build more trust, and so a bespoke agreement may be needed, but we are working at pace to secure that.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
A fortnight ago, the Minister and I met the Tánaiste Micheál Martin in Hillsborough, where we discussed strengthening relations between our two Governments, given the importance of our relationship with Ireland. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach also held a bilateral meeting ahead of the European Political Community meeting last week.
Dr Gardner
Duchess China, which I believe are the suppliers of your excellent commemorative china service, Mr Speaker, is based in my constituency. The Republic of Ireland is an important export market for the company, and Northern Ireland is an important part of its domestic market. How will relations across the Irish sea and the Northern Ireland-Ireland border be enhanced for the benefit of companies such as Duchess China?
Hilary Benn
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the company that she mentioned and the products that it produces. We are committed to protecting the integrity of the UK internal market, so that great firms in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland are able to sell right across the United Kingdom and internationally. Northern Ireland in particular has extraordinary opportunities and so much potential, which we need to build on. One of the most important contributions that the Executive can make is to ensure stability, because that is what investors are looking for.
Emily Darlington
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his position, and I hope that he will be able to rebuild those relations that were strained through the Brexit process. Small and medium-sized business in Milton Keynes Central have gone under because of the additional paperwork and restrictions caused by our strained relations with the EU. Will he confirm that he is talking to the Irish Government and others about how to reduce those barriers to trade?
Hilary Benn
There is no doubt that the change in our trading relationship with the European Union has brought additional costs and paperwork for businesses, whether they are selling to the EU or into Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework is the means by which we are trying to manage that. I supported the Windsor framework, negotiated by the previous Government, because it represented an important and significant step forward. The reason why we have to continue to implement it is because if we are going to get the veterinary and SPS agreement, and other agreements we are seeking with the European Union—
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Anglo-Irish agreement is absolutely vital, and the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach is to be welcomed. Prime Ministers’ diaries become very full; will the Secretary of State use his good offices to ensure that that dialogue between Taoiseach and Prime Minister continues to build on that relationship to see it flourish still further?
Hilary Benn
I can indeed give that assurance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has agreed there will be an annual summit.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is important that, in discussions with the Irish Government, they understand that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, whether they consider themselves to be British, Irish or Northern Irish, can see that it is the United Kingdom context that allows them that diversity, and that improving the lives of present generations is the best way to preserve the lives of everyone for the future?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Gentleman in that commitment to improving the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. As a Government, we are committed to working on that with him and all his colleagues in Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
I welcome the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all new Members to the first questions to the Prime Minister in this Parliament.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I know the whole House will be shocked by the news that a soldier has been attacked in Kent. Our thoughts are with him, his family and our armed forces who serve to keep us safe. We wish him a swift recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
The whole House will also want to join me in wishing Team GB good luck as they travel to Paris for the Olympic games.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, discussing how this Government will bring about the change the country has decisively voted for. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings today.
Calum Miller
May I begin by welcoming the Prime Minister to his first questions as Prime Minister? I associate myself with his remarks about the soldier in Kent, and, of course, send my wishes to the British Olympians.
At Combe in my constituency, Thames Water pumped sewage into the River Evenlode for over 2,600 hours last year. Thames Water was allowed by Ofwat to withdraw £7 billion in dividends, yet now wants to jack up my constituents’ bills. I welcome the water Bill in the King’s Speech, but does the Prime Minister agree with my constituents and me that the system is broken, and will he now commit to scrapping Ofwat and replacing it with a tougher regulator that will finally put people and planet ahead of water company profits?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Member to his place and thank him for raising this important issue in relation to water. Customers should not pay the price for mismanagement by water companies. We have already announced immediate steps to put water companies under a tougher regime. The Minister responsible for water, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), will meet the bosses of failing companies to hold them to account for their performance. After 14 years of failure with our rivers and beaches, it falls to this Government of service to fix the mess of that failure.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place. Our guiding principle must be the wellbeing of children. This is a serious Government, and we will approach that question with care, not with inflammatory dividing lines. The Cass review was clear that there is not enough evidence on the long-term impact of puberty blockers to know whether they are safe. The Health Secretary will consult organisations supporting young people and families, and I will ensure that there is a meeting with my hon. Friend and the relevant Minister as soon as that can be arranged.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I join the Prime Minister in expressing my shock at the attack on a British soldier. Our thoughts are with him and his family as we wish him a speedy recovery.
I also join the Prime Minister in his warm words about our Olympic athletes. I have no doubt that after years of training, focus and dedication they will bring back many gold medals—although, to be honest, I am probably not the first person they want to hear advice from on how to win. [Interruption.]
I am glad that in our exchanges so far we have maintained a cross-party consensus on important matters of foreign policy, and in that spirit I wanted to focus our exchange today on Ukraine and national security. The UK has consistently been the first country to provide Ukraine with new capabilities, such as the long-range weapons that have been used so effectively in the Black sea. Those decisions are not easy, and I was grateful to the Prime Minister for his support as I made those decisions in government. In opposition, I offer that same support to him. Will he continue to be responsive to Ukraine’s new requests, so that it does not just stand still but can decisively win out against Russian aggression?
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for not only raising the question of Ukraine, but doing so in a way that can maintain the unity across the House that has been so important to the Ukrainian people. I can assure him that we are, of course, talking to Ukraine about how it deals with the Russian aggression that it is facing and has been facing for many, many months. I will continue to try to do that in the way that he did, which is to reach out across the House to share such information as we can to maintain the unity that is so important.
Rishi Sunak
I thank the Prime Minister for that response. I also found that one of the United Kingdom’s key roles as Ukraine’s closest ally was to encourage other countries to follow our lead in providing new military capabilities. In that vein, I am sure that when the Prime Minister saw Chancellor Scholz recently he thanked him for the considerable air defence that the Germans are providing to the Ukrainians, but did he also raise with him the issue of the Germans perhaps providing long-range missiles, just as the UK, America and France have now done?
The Prime Minister
I had the opportunity in Washington, at the NATO council, to talk to our German counterparts. There was a strong theme there on Ukraine, discussed with all our allies, and part of my message was to urge all our allies to provide further support for the Ukrainian people where they can. That was well received, and there was unity coming out of the NATO council that that is what we must all do.
Rishi Sunak
I am glad to hear the Prime Minister raise the NATO summit, because I very much welcome the message that came out loud and clear from that summit, and indeed in the Prime Minister’s words from the Dispatch Box on Monday, about Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership. Does he agree that fatuous Russian claims on Ukrainian territory must not act as a block to Ukraine’s joining the NATO defensive alliance?
The Prime Minister
I wholeheartedly agree. It is for NATO allies to decide who is a member of NATO—formed 75 years ago, a proud alliance, and probably the most successful alliance that has ever been formed. That is why it was so important that at the summit we were able to say that there is now that irreversible path to membership. It is a step forward from a year ago, and President Zelensky was very pleased that we have been able to make that successful transition.
Rishi Sunak
Thanks to the complex legal and diplomatic work that the UK has led over the past several months, together with our allies Canada and America, I hope the Prime Minister will now find that there is a sound and established legal basis to go further on sanctions, seize Russian assets and use them to fund Ukrainian reconstruction. That work has taken time, but I hope he is able to take a look at it. Can he confirm to the House that this work is something that he will take forward? If he does, I can assure him that the Opposition will support him in doing so.
The Prime Minister
Again, I am grateful for this opportunity to say how united we were on the question of sanctions across this House. The use now made of what has been seized and frozen is an important issue on which I think we can move forward, and I know the Chancellor is already beginning to have some discussions about how we can take more effective measures. Again, I will seek to reach out across the House as we do this important work together.
Rishi Sunak
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s response. I also welcome both his and the Defence Secretary’s recent emphasis on the importance of the Tempest fighter jet programme. It is a crucial sovereign capability, as he mentioned, and important for our alliances with Italy and Japan. Furthermore, however, other countries also wish to participate. In government, we had begun initial productive discussions with our friend and ally Saudi Arabia about its desire potentially to join the programme, so could the Prime Minister confirm that he will continue those initial positive conversations with Saudi Arabia? Again, I can assure him that he will have our support in doing so.
The Prime Minister
Let me make this absolutely clear: this is a really important programme. Significant progress has already been made, and we want to build on that progress. I have had some initial discussions, not least in Farnborough, where I was just a few days ago.
Rishi Sunak
Finally, in the dangerous and uncertain world in which we now sadly live, I know at first hand how important it is that our Prime Minister can use his prerogative power to respond quickly militarily to protect British national security, sometimes without giving this House prior notice. These are perhaps the most difficult decisions that a Prime Minister can take, and I welcomed his support when I made them. I want to take this opportunity to assure him of the Opposition’s support if he deems it necessary to take similar action in the future. Does he agree that while the use of the prerogative power is sometimes politically controversial, it is essential to ensure the safety and security of the British people?
The Prime Minister
I agree that it is essential, and our security is the first duty of government. I was grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for reaching out to me personally when action had to be taken, to ensure that I was briefed on the sensitive issues that lay behind the decisions that he had to take. As I mentioned to him last week, I will endeavour to ensure that we proceed in the same way so that he has access to all the information that he needs to come to a determination, which I hope will be to support the position that this Government take.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course I wish them good luck. I admire them; I am not sure I envy them—it is 280 miles—but it is a brilliant cause. The whole House misses our dear friend Jo, and I know that she would have been incredibly proud to have seen this Government in place and would have played a big part it in. I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place, and I know that she will continue in Jo’s spirit, with the same dedication and determination. I think I am right in saying that her parents—and, of course, Jo’s parents—are in the Gallery today to see this first PMQs. We will always have more in common than that which divides us.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place for his first Prime Minister’s questions. I associate myself and my party with the comments he made about the appalling attack on the soldier in Kent. Our thoughts are with his family, friends and comrades. I also associate my party with his comments on Team GB—we want them to succeed in Paris.
The Prime Minister has inherited many messes, and one is the scandal of the carer’s allowance repayments. An example is my constituent Andrea, who is a full-time carer for her elderly mum. She went back to work part time—mainly for her mental health, she tells me—and was earning less than £7,000 a year. She has been hit by a bill from the Department for Work and Pensions for £4,600. Andrea is just one of the tens of thousands of carers facing these repayments. They are being punished for working and earning just a few pounds more than the earnings limit. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and other family carers to try to resolve this matter?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this matter. He of course has been a tireless advocate for carers, and I do not think any of us could have been other than moved when we saw the video of him and his son that was put out during the election campaign. He talks about Team GB. I am glad that he is in a suit today, because we are more used to seeing him in a wetsuit.
In relation to this issue, we have a more severe crisis than we thought as we go through the books of the last 14 years and we must review—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t like it, but there is a reason the electorate rejected them so profoundly. We will review the challenges that we face. We want to work with the sector and, where we can, across the House to create a national care service covering all these aspects, and we will start with a fair pay agreement for carers and those who work in the care sector. I am very happy to work across the House with all the people that care so passionately about this issue.
Ed Davey
I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s response. I hope he will look at the matter of carer’s allowance. Family carers save the taxpayer £162 billion a year. If we get this right, many could go back into work. But there is another care crisis that is even bigger, and that is the crisis in social care. I am sure that, like me, he has heard about the millions of people around the country for whom this is their biggest issue, as it has been for decades. After a once-in-a-century election, does he not think there is a once-in-a-century chance to fix social care and thus help our NHS? I ask him to set up a cross-party commission on social care so that we can address this urgent matter.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right. It is a crisis, and I am sorry to have to report to the House that it is not the only crisis that we have inherited. There is crisis and failure absolutely everywhere, after 14 years of failure, that this Government of service will begin the hard yards of fixing, including in social care. We will work across the House, and we do endeavour to create a national care service. That will not be easy, but we can begin the first steps and we will share that across the House where we can.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Can I first express my gratitude to the service personnel who participated in the British nuclear testing programme? It is right that, I think, nearly 5,000 have now got their nuclear test medals in recognition of their service and that the veterans have the right to apply for no-fault compensation under the war pension scheme. I will ensure that a meeting on this issue is arranged for my hon. Friend with the relevant Minister.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
May I again warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on ending Tory rule? In his campaign to do so, he was of course—[Interruption.] The Tories are too close for comfort now. In his campaign to do so, he was joined by Gordon Brown. Just five days before the general election, on the front page of the Daily Record, Gordon Brown instructed voters in Scotland to vote Labour to end child poverty, yet last night Labour MPs from Scotland were instructed to retain the two-child cap, which forces children into poverty. So, Prime Minister, what changed?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentions Gordon Brown, because the last Labour Government lifted millions of children out of poverty, which is something we are very proud of. This Government will approach the question with the same vigour, with our new taskforce. We have already taken steps, including introducing breakfast clubs, abolishing no-fault evictions and reviewing the decent homes standard—
Mr Speaker
Order. Props are not allowed—put it down. We do not need any more.
The Prime Minister
We have already set up a taskforce to put that vigour in place, as well as introducing free breakfast clubs in every primary school, abolishing no-fault evictions, reviewing the decent homes standard, adopting Awaab’s law and having a plan to make work pay. Before the right hon. Gentleman lectures everyone else, he should explain why, since the SNP came to power, there are 30,000 more children in poverty in Scotland.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Both the Foreign Secretary and I have set out the urgent need for a ceasefire to Prime Minister Netanyahu. We want a pathway to a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. I used my first overseas trip as Prime Minister, particularly at NATO, to raise this subject with world leaders. Under a Labour Government, it will be discussed, negotiated on and fought for at the highest levels on the world stage. The alternative is protesting on street corners. Ultimately, only one of those will deliver change.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, I understand the aspiration that parents who work hard and save hard have for the children they send to private school, but every parent has that aspiration, whichever school their children go to. I am determined that we will have the right teachers in place in our state secondary schools to ensure that every child, wherever they come from and whatever their background, has the same opportunity, and I do not apologise for that.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that Great British Energy will be owned by and for the British people, to invest in the energy systems of the future. That means cheaper bills as renewables are cheaper, it means security so that Putin cannot put his boot on our throat, and it means the next generation of jobs for years to come.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The SNP left for the election campaign with a significant number of Members and have come back with a small handful, so I do not think we need these lectures on what the electorate in Scotland are thinking. I am very proud of our Scottish Labour MPs. I simply repeat the point that I made to the SNP leader, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), that perhaps the SNP needs to account for the 30,000 extra children in poverty in Scotland.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He is the first ever Labour MP for Chipping Barnet, and I know that he will serve his constituency with pride.
Our guarantee will put 13,000 extra neighbourhood officers and police community support officers back on Britain’s streets, and that is a fully funded plan. My hon. Friend is right to say that the last Government absolutely hammered police numbers and he will have seen the impact of that in his constituency. It is telling that the former Justice Secretary said at the weekend that that could perhaps have been done differently. I am glad to see that the people of Chipping Barnet agreed with that assessment and returned my hon. Friend for that constituency.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member’s numbers, but I do think that it is serious that the previous Government lost control of our borders. Record numbers have crossed the channel. When the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister for 18 months, 50,000 people crossed the channel. It is a serious issue that requires a serious answer, which is why we will set up our border security command to take down the gangs that are running this vile trade. What we will not do is waste further time on a gimmick that cost a fortune and removed just four volunteers.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Clean energy is at the heart of this mission-driven Government. Boosting home-grown renewable energy is the best way to create new jobs and give us energy independence and lower bills for good. That is why we will change the planning rules to make sure that we can get Britain building again—not just the houses, but everything we need, including prisons, to make sure that we can deal with the mess we have inherited. I am pleased to hear of the viable projects that are being advanced, such as the Mersey tidal project, and we will look at them carefully.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Member to his place. Let me be clear: we intend to get Britain building. We will change the planning regime in order to do so; it has held us back for far too long. Young people have not been able to own a home until they are way past the age of 35, denying them the basic dream of home ownership. Of course we will work with communities, but we will take the tough decisions that the last Government ran away from.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and congratulate Ipswich on their promotion. I think it is on Boxing day that they will visit Arsenal. I am going to resist the temptation that he puts in front of me to choose between Ipswich and Norwich, but on town centres, he is right that we need vibrant high streets. We need to make the change that we were voted in to bring about. That is why we will replace the business rates system to level the playing field, and we will absolutely address regional inequality through our local growth plans.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Prime Minister
We are committed to nature recovery; it is a really important issue that this Government will tackle. The hon. Member talks about leadership. I would ask him to show some, because it is extraordinary that having been elected to this House as a Green politician, he is opposing vital clean energy infrastructure in his own constituency. We will put the plans before this House. I ask him to back those plans.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
On Sunday night, at a community event in north Kensington attended by hundreds of people, 15-year-old Rene Graham was shot and killed in a senseless act of violence. My heart goes out to his family and the wider community, who are feeling anxious, frightened and shocked. Can the Prime Minister ensure that north Kensington gets support from the Government at this difficult time, and can he outline what measures the Government will take to tackle gun violence and prevent young lives like Rene’s from being taken in the future?
The Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and thank him for raising this awful case. The loss of a teenage boy in west London is shocking, and our thoughts—I am sure I speak for the whole House—are with his family and friends. I urge the public to support the Metropolitan police with any information that could help in their investigation, which is ongoing. Making streets safer is one of the five central missions of this Government, and this is a shocking reminder of just how important that mission is. We have an ambition to drive down this sort of violence in our communities. We do not want interventions like this, as we have had over the last few years. It is shocking to hear of this particular incident.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about Labour turning its back; I think he is the sole remaining Tory MP in the north-east or Teesside. I have already taken an early opportunity to make our commitment clear to the plans that we need for economic growth across the country. We will be working with all the mayors who are in place, including those who wear a different rosette. That is the way we will take this forward.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
In a week when the National Police Chiefs’ Council declared violence against women and girls a national emergency, Sky News has today published appalling accounts of sexual harassment and violence against women paramedics. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on progress towards the mission board to finally tackle this scourge in our society?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this; it is such a serious issue. We have made a commitment—a mission—to halve violence against women and girls. I know from my experience dealing with these cases, as a prosecutor and subsequently, just how hard that will be to achieve. We will have to deliver in a different way; we will have to roll up our sleeves and do difficult things that have not been done in the past. In answer to the specific question, we have already started work on the delivery board, and I look forward to updating my hon. Friend and the House on our progress on this really important issue.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Another Freudian slip! The old dog is off the leash.
May I first thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their supportive policies in relation to Ukraine? Their expressions today will have been of great comfort to the thousands of Ukrainian residents in the United Kingdom who simply wish to return to their lawful home.
Further to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), can the Prime Minister tell the House how his planning reforms, which will smother with houses fields in east Kent that currently yield wheat for bread, are compatible with the desire of his own Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to achieve sustainability?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We have to get economic growth in this country. We have had failure over the last 14 years to build the infrastructure, the houses and the prisons we need, and the failure on economic growth has been central to that. There has been failure, and I think the whole House can see the consequences. We have prison overcrowding; emergency measures have had to be taken because the building of prisons has not kept pace with the sentencing of people to prison. We have a housing crisis; for most young people, the dream of home ownership was simply gone under the previous Government. For someone to be over the age of 35 before they can get a secure roof of their own over their head is a huge dashing of dreams. [Interruption.] We are not going to listen to the Conservatives. They put their case to the electorate, and the electorate rejected them profoundly. Having stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box for four and a half long years, my advice is that when you get rejected that profoundly by the electorate, it is best not to go back to them and tell them that they were wrong; it is best to reflect, and change your approach and your party.
Point of Order
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his question to the Prime Minister, the newly elected hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) made what was, I am sure—I am certain—an inadvertent inaccuracy in his claims about the funding of the Metropolitan police, which is the best-funded force, both in absolute terms and per capita. The Mayor of London was offered £62 million with which to fund it, which he failed to use because of lack of recruitment. My broader point is whether advice can be given to new and, indeed, returning Members about how to correct the record when they make an erroneous claim on the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
First, the right hon. Gentleman has put on record his views. We are not going to continue the debate, and it is up to individual Members to correct the record if there has been an error in what has been said.
International Immunities and Privileges
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
I beg to move,
That the draft Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 23 May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
It is my pleasure as the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to speak on behalf of the Government. In December 2022, the UK, Japan and Italy launched the global combat air programme, known as GCAP, to deliver a next-generation aircraft by 2035. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to promoting co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Italy on 5 July with the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, and between the UK and Japan on 6 July with the Japanese Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida. In the call to Japan, our Prime Minister concurred that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are indivisible.
His Majesty’s Government are committed to ensuring the security of the Indo-Pacific, working closely with our allies. For the UK, the aircraft will sit at the heart of a wider system; it will be networked and will collaborate with a range of wider air capabilities, including the F-35, and broader military capabilities. It will use information systems, weapons and uncrewed collaborative combat air platforms to complete the capability. Replacing the capability provided by Typhoon, this system will sustain the UK’s operational advantage.
In addition, GCAP will attract investment in research and development on digital design and advanced manufacture processes, providing opportunities for our next generation of highly skilled engineers and technicians.
Catherine West
I will continue, if the right hon. Gentleman allows.
The signing of the convention on the establishment of the GCAP international government organisation, commonly known as the GIGO, by the parties of the UK, Japan and Italy took place in December 2023 and was conducted by the Defence Secretaries of those three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive body, with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners engaged in GCAP. Through the GIGO, the UK will lead on the development of an innovative stealth fighter jet with supersonic capability and equipped with cutting-edge technology, and will facilitate collaboration with key international partners that raise the profile of the UK’s combat air industrial capacity.
The GIGO headquarters will be based in the UK, employing personnel from the UK, Italy and Japan. The chief executive and director posts shall be filled by nationals of different parties according to a mechanism that shall preserve a balance between the parties. Given the nature of the GIGO as an international defence organisation, the Ministry of Defence, with support from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, has been leading on trilateral engagement and negotiations on its establishment. The convention, once in effect, will enable closer collaboration between the parties—the Governments of Japan, Italy and the UK—and support the development of His Majesty’s Government’s defence capabilities, stimulated by development of the UK-based headquarters. That will enable further collaboration with key industry partners, with the headquarters supporting hundreds of jobs, and working in close partnership with Rolls-Royce, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK, and hundreds of other companies across the UK in the supply chain, to deliver GCAP.
Catherine West
I am coming to an end, and then there are 90 minutes for debate.
This Order in Council is a statutory instrument and forms part of the secondary legislation needed to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on the GCAP international government organisation and accords certain privileges and immunities to the organisation’s personnel and the representatives of the parties to the convention. The order was laid in draft before Parliament on 23 May 2024—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. To clarify, it is not my decision whether to allow interventions; it is up to the Minister. I would say that normally the shadow Secretary of State would get in, but it is up to the Minister whether she gives way.
Catherine West
If the shadow Secretary of State wants to say something, I would be happy to allow him, following your advice, Mr Speaker.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister. Can she confirm that there will be no delay to the Ministry of Defence’s currently planned spending on GCAP this year?
Catherine West
To be clear to Members new and old, this instrument is the legal framework within which the programme will sit. It does not have specific funding recommendations attached to it because it is the scaffolding, or the nest, within which all the work will happen.
This order was laid before Parliament in draft on 23 May 2024. It is subject to the affirmative procedure and will be made by the Privy Council once it is approved by both Houses. Subject to approval and ratification, the treaty will enter into force on the deposit of the last instrument of ratification or acceptance of the parties. That is anticipated to be in autumn 2024 to meet the 2035 in-service date.
This order confers a bespoke set of privileges and immunities to enable the GIGO to operate effectively in the UK. The Government consider those privileges and immunities both necessary and appropriate to deliver on the interests and commitments that the UK has towards the organisation.
Mr Francois
I am not a Minister, but I was for three years. Will the Minister give way?
Catherine West
As the right hon. Gentleman has so much experience on the Defence Committee, I am happy to take his point.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for giving way. She is a Foreign Office Minister heading this up, I believe, not a Defence Minister, which is interesting, but it is an international agreement. Can she tell the House whether, because of the threat to the programme from the defence review, she has had any representations from the Japanese Government or the Italian Government, our two other major programme partners, to express their concern about any threat to GCAP?
Catherine West
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I can confirm that this is the legal framework around which the programme will sit. I can also confirm that the Defence Secretary yesterday met with his Japanese counterparts at the show and they were able to have further interesting discussions. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to continue his questioning when he is surely once again a member of the Defence Committee in the autumn.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Many jobs in our constituencies depend on contracts with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is also interested in GCAP. What conversations have been had with Saudi Arabia, particularly in the light of the procrastination by the Prime Minister on this programme—reaffirmed, if I am honest, by the Minister today in her remarks?
Catherine West
The right hon. Member asks an important question, but there has been no procrastination. Within a month of being elected, we have got the legal framework to the House of Commons for a debate, expediting all the important organisational arrangements so that the programme can proceed at pace. He talks of procrastination, and after 14 years, I am sure he is a master of procrastination as part of the last Government.
The privileges and immunities conferred on agency personnel and representatives are not for their personal advantage, but to ensure complete independence in the exercise of their functions in connection with GCAP. To be clear, agency personnel have no personal immunity if they commit a crime and there is a clear carve-out ensuring that they have no immunity in any vehicle incident.
The immunities in respect of the GIGO cover immunity from suit and legal process, inviolability of premises and archives, and appropriate tax exemptions and reliefs in relation to official activities. In respect of representatives of the parties and staff, the provisions cover functional immunity and an immunity waiver. Additionally, the order includes an exemption from the legal suit and process immunity in the case of a motor traffic offence or damage caused by a motor vehicle. That is a standard clause included in statutory instruments and treaties to provide for privileges and immunities.
The support for the GIGO’s establishment ensured through the order is a unique opportunity to showcase UK leadership and innovation in the air force defence industry on a global stage. Through the GIGO the UK will lead on the development of an innovative stealth fighter jet with supersonic capability and equipped with cutting-edge technology, and facilitate collaboration with key international partners that raise the profile of the UK’s combat air industrial capacity.
Jim Shannon
There is much to be welcomed in the Minister’s speech. At the very beginning, she referred to a number of aircraft companies that will be involved across the whole of the United Kingdom. My understanding—maybe she can confirm this—is that Spirit AeroSystems will also be involved. If that is the case, it means that everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great and Britain and Northern Ireland will benefit from the jobs and opportunities.
Catherine West
Obviously the specifics of the supply chain and so on are not really part of the order, but we are aware that that is an important part of our industrial puzzle, and I am sure that there will be some knock-on benefits for Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is a fierce defender of jobs and opportunities in that wonderful place.
The first duty of Government is to keep the country safe. Under this Government, defence will be central both to the UK’s security and to our economic prosperity and growth, including by harnessing the strength of our well-established defence industry. The GIGO is key to GCAP, and the UK Government continues to make positive progress with our partners Japan and Italy. I commend the order to the House.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I associate the shadow Defence team with the remarks from the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition about the terrible attack on a British solider in Kent? Our thoughts are with his family.
I can confirm that we support the measures before us and recognise that they are necessary to deliver into law the administrative governance of the global combat air programme. Although this is a Foreign Office measure, the statutory instrument was prepared with strong input from the Ministry of Defence—it certainly crossed my desk when I was Minister for Defence Procurement. May I put on the record that it was a great honour to serve in that role—with significant responsibility in relation to GCAP—alongside the two previous Secretaries of State, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps.
It was a privilege to engage with our international GCAP partners from Italy and Japan, whom I had the pleasure of hosting last September in Lancaster House for trilateral discussions. This is not just about delivering UK military capability in the crucial area of combat air, but about doing so to the benefit of two great partners, and, in the case of Japan, one that faces the threat of China and Russia right on its doorstep. Since that trilateral, the project has achieved significant goals, not least the signing of the international treaty last December that we are legislating for today. The treaty establishes the legal basis for the formation of a new GCAP international organisation, the GIGO. I am delighted that we are able to agree that the international HQ of the GIGO will be in the UK, but that, in keeping with the spirit of equal partnership that underpins GCAP, the first chief executives of the GCAP agency and joint venture are from Italy and Japan. As such, the SI before us effectively enables this international treaty to enter into effect, with further important measures on immunity and privileges that are necessary for the effective operation of the GIGO.
All that said, although the SI is necessary to deliver GCAP’s governance arrangements, it will not directly deliver a single aircraft. Alongside this SI, we need the Government to back the GCAP programme wholeheartedly by ensuring that it has the funding necessary to deliver our sixth-generation fighter capability. Indeed, it would be quite extraordinary for the Government to ask us as a House to approve the regulations if they were at the same time seriously contemplating scrapping UK involvement in GCAP. Yet that prospect has figured prominently in the press in recent days. While the best of British defence aviation has been gathered at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough, incredibly the Government have not been able to repeat the wholehearted backing of GCAP that they gave prior to the general election.
In responding to the statement from his predecessor Grant Shapps on 18 December last year, when he confirmed the trilateral agreement for the GCAP treaty, the now Defence Secretary said:
“Developing a sixth-generation fighter will ensure that we can continue to safeguard our UK skies and those of our NATO allies for decades to come. It will inspire innovation, strengthen UK industry and keep Britain at the cutting edge of defence technology.”
I totally agree with his remarks. Yet fast-forward to the present, and, as we have just heard at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister is only able to say that the programme is “important.” Meanwhile, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is on the Front Bench and for whom I have great personal respect, said:
“It's not right for me to prejudge what might happen in the defence review”.
He thus implied that the defence review might not continue the UK’s commitment to GCAP. We now need clarity from the Government for Parliament, industry and our international partners. We are being asked to approve this SI to deliver a key stepping-stone to the GCAP project, so are the Government still committed to it?
This is my guess about what is currently happening. I would be truly staggered if the Government were to withdraw from a programme that they have previously given such full support—not because theirs is a party that does not know a good U-turn, but because it would bring international ramifications that do not bear thinking about either for the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence. Rather, in my view, we need to have in mind another Department—one that I have also had the pleasure of serving in—the Treasury. I suspect that the overall question of whether the Government are committed to GCAP is a red herring. What really matters is whether they are committed to funding it this year, with important spending decisions to be made right now. They will be in the inbox of the Secretary of State, under “Funding decisions on GCAP.” We want the Government to continue that funding in the years beyond, and we want to know whether they are using the review as a chance to shift spending decisions to the right.
It is not unprecedented in the history of the Treasury for it to work in that way under successive Governments, probably. It might offer illusory short-term savings, but it would cause immediate and lasting pain to the most important conventional defence programme of our time. To be clear—and I mean this—I have the greatest respect for the way the Treasury has to balance the books and be responsible for the nation’s finances. I was delighted that the previous Government proposed moving to 2.5% once it was affordable—we were prepared to make difficult decisions to fund that 2.5% by reducing the size of the civil service to pre-pandemic levels—and once it was sustainable. Far from this Government inheriting what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has described as the “worst economic inheritance” since world war two, we did what we promised and moved to 2.5% only once the economic conditions allowed—namely, when inflation was back to target, with healthy economic growth and a deficit heading towards a little over 1% over the forecast period. That is our clear pathway to 2.5% versus Labour’s uncertainty and delay, which makes the real difference.
To understand the direct short-term importance of 2.5% and its relevance to GCAP and this statutory instrument, we need only go back to what the Secretary of State said the response to the statement from his predecessor Grant Shapps in December. He said:
“This month, the National Audit Office reported on the MOD’s equipment plan. It exposed a £17 billion black hole in Britain’s defence plans and showed that Ministers have lost control of the defence budget.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 1137.]
It is not so much that we lost control of the defence budget; rather, Putin invaded Ukraine and sent inflation soaring all around the world. In a world that was then in a rush to rearm, that context caused an inevitable hit to the costs of major defence projects and matériel. I have never pretended otherwise.
Bearing in mind that the equipment plan—the MOD’s forward inventory—accounts for over 10 years, the NAO’s assessment of a black hole did not take account of one thing: moving to 2.5% by 2030. As I said in my wind up to the Thursday’s debate on the Gracious Speech, by setting out a fully costed and clearly timetabled pathway to 2.5%, we were able to deal with those funding pressures head on, and ensure that our largest two programmes—the nuclear deterrent and GCAP—would be stabilised, and, as a result, properly funded into the future. I asked the Foreign Office Minister who responded to my to confirm that the Government’s timetable would not put funding of either programme at risk. There was no answer, and we have had no answer today, either. That is the problem. The Government can afford to bring forward this SI and to continue building the administrative apparatus for GCAP, but we fear that they cannot afford to approve the funding requirements for the next stage of building the actual aircraft, because of their vacillation on reaching 2.5%.
We Conservatives are clear that we support the SI on the basis that we are also supporting GCAP as a whole, including by putting in place the funding necessary to deliver its requirements over the urgent timescale that all three member nations require. That is a key point: for all three nations, GCAP is all about pace and timetable. For the UK and Italy, that means replacing the Typhoon before it is withdrawn from service towards 2040; for Japan, with equal urgency, it means replacing the Mitsubishi F-2. That is why any delay or deferment, whether caused by the lack of a clear timetable to 2.5% or otherwise, is so important and critical.
Overall, it is my view that withdrawing from GCAP now would be the equivalent of scrapping the Spitfire programme in the 1930s. It is that serious. However, if such an outcome is seriously under consideration—and we know that there are those in government who are hugely sceptical—I will explain why we are ultimately supporting this SI. It is because we on the Conservative Benches believe that GCAP is a military necessity that will bring enormous economic and strategic benefits to the United Kingdom.
To start with the military capability argument, if there is one key lesson from Ukraine, it is that in the absence of air superiority we face the prospect of terrible attritional warfare with huge casualties, reminiscent of the worst battles of world war two.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know it is thinking very far into the future, but does my hon. Friend accept that one of the lessons from the Ukraine conflict, where we have had to give indirect support, is the importance of maintaining aircraft that we have withdrawn from service—in mothballs, if necessary—so that they can be made available to allies, should they ever face a crisis such as this one? When the happy day comes that we have these great sixth-generation aircraft, can we be certain that we have not unduly disposed of their predecessors, in case someone else needs them in future?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend’s question is an interesting one. Whenever I was in front of the Select Committee—it was always a great joy and privilege to be cross-examined, particularly by my colleagues on the Conservative Benches—there was always a debate about when we withdraw platforms and when we bring in their replacements. That will never go away, and I wish the Armed Forces Minister well when he has the unique privilege and experience of going in front of the Committee. What I would say to my right hon. Friend is that we have to accept that, as a matter of avionic reality, the Typhoon will reach the end of its service life, and we as a country have to replace it. GCAP is key to that, with the construction of the new core platform.
While investing in the best combat air capability does not guarantee air superiority in the future, it offers us the chance to deny adversaries such potentially deadly freedom of operation by maintaining technological competitiveness. However, there are those who ask, “Why don’t we simply go off-the-shelf and buy more F-35s?” I noticed similar views being expressed in The Daily Telegraph this very day, and there is even a rumour that some Government Departments, such as those I mentioned earlier, may take a view along those lines. We must be clear that the F-35, while a brilliant and highly capable aircraft, is a fifth-generation platform, not a sixth-generation one. It is not optimised for the battle space that is likely to pertain by the late 2030s, and the United States—which, after all, possesses and manufactures the F-35—is itself investing in a sixth-generation programme, as are our adversaries.
Jim Shannon
I commend the shadow Minister for what he is saying: his great focus on the issues of modern technology, our companies and what they are involved with. I know that he has a tremendous interest in Northern Ireland—he visited there regularly in his former role in government. Can he give us some suggestions about the role that aerospace in Northern Ireland could, and will, play in finding a way forward?
James Cartlidge
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is an absolute champion of the defence industry in Northern Ireland. He is right: one of my last visits was to the Thales factory in Belfast, which of course is home to the next-generation light anti-tank weapon, the lightweight multirole missile, and other key munitions. In terms of aerospace, the first small and medium-sized enterprise forum that I held as Defence Procurement Minister was in Larne in Northern Ireland, on Armed Forces Day last year. Spirit was one of the attendees, and I am confident that it has a strong place in the future of British aviation in the defence sector, as long as we put the funding in place and keep with the programmes.
Having said all that, there must obviously be debate when we are spending this amount of money on a capability, and I understand why there are those who question the sums of money involved, the timeframes and so on. To be clear, as a former Defence Procurement Minister, I would not support a programme that was purely about spending such a vast amount of money just on a new core platform to replace Typhoon. That brings us to what GCAP is really about, which the Minister mentioned in her opening remarks, to her credit. On one of my last visits to a land company—a company manufacturing armoured vehicles for this country—the chief executive I spoke to referred to the GCAP of land. The point is that, although the “A” stands for air, when we talk about GCAP in military capability terms, it is equally about how we work with autonomous and uncrewed systems. That is the key to the sixth-generation concept.
I am very passionate about this issue—I was proud to bring forward the first defence drone strategy at the Ministry of Defence—and although there are those who are concerned about the timeframe, I would just make the following points. First, the timescale for delivering GCAP is very ambitious compared with that of Typhoon; secondly, we can gain capability benefits from GCAP on a much shorter timescale. We have heard the Chief of the General Staff talking about the need for the Army to be able to fight a war within three years, and when I was Defence Procurement Minister, I was keen to ensure that all the services were looking at what they could do to boost lethality and survivability in the near term. Surely, the key to that is how we make use of uncrewed systems.
The United Kingdom is incredibly well placed in that regard: we jointly lead the maritime coalition in respect of Ukraine alongside Norway. Of course, Ukraine’s greatest military success has been naval, having pushed back the Russian fleet using what we might describe as innovative weapons rather than traditional naval deployments. Likewise on land, the incredible importance of drones cannot be overstated, including the psychological impact on those who are fighting out there.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I totally agree with what the former Minister is saying about the requirement for and necessity of sixth-generation aircraft, as well as about maintaining sovereign capability. However, does he agree that it seems peculiar that the Americans are developing their own sixth-generation aircraft with Lockheed Martin, the French and the Germans are developing their own sixth-generation aircraft as well, and we have forged this strange partnership with the Italians and the Japanese to develop GCAP? Does the Minister think that makes sense, in terms of pooling effort and making sure that our allies have at least one good sixth-generation fighter aircraft?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not regard it as a strange partnership. All my experience of dealing with GCAP and meeting my Italian and Japanese counterparts, particularly industry representatives from all three countries, and working so closely together—there is already so much work going on—tells me that this is about developing a brilliant platform that is needed by all three nations. There will always be a multiplicity of platforms from different countries, which I think is perfectly healthy. What is good about the hon. Gentleman’s question is that he has opened up the debate about sovereign capability, which I will come to shortly. I just wanted to finish my point about the uncrewed domain, and what it means to be sixth-generation.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend was a very good Defence Procurement Minister, and we on the Committee liked him because, crikey, he actually answered the questions. He will know from that experience that even the Americans, who have a new thing called the next generation air dominance fighter, are struggling to afford it; there have been media reports in the US that they may even cancel that programme, because even the Americans cannot afford to do everything unilaterally anymore. In the light of that, does my hon. Friend believe that a three-way programme represents good value for money?
James Cartlidge
My right hon. Friend, who not only served on the Committee but was an Armed Forces Minister, makes an excellent point. There are those who argue that we should go beyond 2.5%; I would argue that 2.5% is still a significant jump for this country. We had a funded plan, and that 2.5%—crucially and critically, with the pathway we set out, which became an accumulation of significant additional billions of pounds for the MOD—enabled us to afford GCAP and stabilise that programme.
I want to make one crucial point about the uncrewed domain. To be frank, for the uncrewed side of the Navy, Army and Air Force, those programmes are not funded: hitherto, the funding has come primarily from support for Ukraine. That is entirely logical because, under the defence drone strategy, we were very clear that there is no point in the Army, for example, ordering large-scale drones now; it might order them to train with, but the technology is changing so fast. What we as a country need to build, as I set out in the drone strategy, is the ecosystem to develop those drones, and we are doing that.
I have always said—I said it during my statement on the integrated procurement model—that my most inspiring moment as Defence Procurement Minister was visiting a UK SME that was building a drone for use in Ukraine. It was a highly capable platform, but brilliantly, it was getting feedback and spiralling it—as we call it—the very next day. On GCAP, it should be a technology for the whole of defence—it should be a pan-defence technology of how we team with uncrewed systems, how the Navy fights with an uncrewed fleet above and below the surface, for the Army and of course for the Air Force.
I have two final points on military capability, as a couple of points have been floating around in the press. The first is that the Army is putting out its opposition to GCAP. I find that idea impossible to believe. Of course, if the Army wants to succeed, it needs the support of the Air Force and so on. That is why an integrated approach to procurement is so important, not single service competition. There has also been the point that we should choose between GCAP and AUKUS, as if, when the next war comes, the Russians will step into our dressing room and ask if we would like to bowl or bat: would we like to fight on land or sea—what is our preference? The fact is that we do not know where the threat will come from, but we know that it is growing, so we should support both GCAP and AUKUS, not least for the enormous economic benefit they bring.
You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that that brings me to the last part of my speech, on the economic benefits of GCAP. There are those who say we should buy off the shelf. We would stress how, in a state of ever greater war readiness, it pays to have operational independence and sovereignty. In particular, investing in the great tradition of UK combat air offers huge economic gains for every part of the country.
In 2020, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the Tempest programme alone would support an average of 20,000 jobs every year from 2026 until 2050. Those are well-paid jobs in every constituency up and down the country—including many in Lancashire, as you will know, Mr Speaker. Scrapping GCAP would hit our economy hard. Even delaying or deferring GCAP expenditure would undermine our brilliant aerospace industry, which was on display this past week at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Farnborough, and cast doubt over the vast sums of private investment that are waiting, from which hundreds of UK SMEs stand to benefit.
An interesting point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition when asking the Prime Minister about exports and discussions with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is an incredibly important point. I was clear that, in reforming procurement, we have to have exportability at the heart of it because otherwise industrial supply chains wither. It is as simple as that. The demand from this country is not big enough. This has been the French lesson for many years, which is why they have put so much effort into export, and we need to do the same—whether it is GCAP, or any other platforms or capability manufactured by the United Kingdom.
To undermine GCAP is to undermine our economy, our future war-fighting capability and relations with our closest international partners. The Government should instead embrace GCAP wholeheartedly and confirm that they stand by their previous position of steadfast support. Then they should commit to a clear timetable on 2.5%, so that we can turbocharge the programme by investing not only in the core platform, but in the associated technology of autonomous collaboration and a digital system of systems approach, enabling the mass and rapid absorption of battlespace data.
To conclude, the best way to win the next war is to deter it from happening in the first place. Part of our overall deterrence posture is to signal to our adversaries our preparedness to always be ready to out-compete their technology. How can we send that deterrent signal if we have such mixed messages on our largest conventional military programme? We support this statutory instrument, we support GCAP and we support the powerful gains it will give to the United Kingdom’s economic and military strength.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I gently say that I welcome the very thorough response from the Opposition, but the shadow Minister did take twice as long as the Minister? I do have other speakers on his own side who also want to get in, so please just work to make sure we can get everybody in.
We now come to a maiden speech—I call Calvin Bailey.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for his speech.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. It appears that for once my sense of timing has been impeccable. Having completed 24 years and seven months of service in the Royal Air Force, I have arrived on time, uniquely placed as the only person who could sequence their maiden speech in amongst a debate about military aircraft. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) suggested in his riposte to the King’s Speech, I will not be wearing a silk smoking jacket.
It is a life of service to this House that also characterises my predecessor’s career. A loved politician, John Cryer gave 14 years of service to the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, and nine years as Member for Hornchurch before that. He is a fine parliamentarian and, more importantly, a fine socialist, like his mother and father before him. His incredible commitment to the parliamentary Labour party as its chair for the past nine years was instrumental in helping us get to where we are today. While he now moves on to the other place, I am certain that his children, and his family’s legacy, will follow in his footsteps in years to come.
This sentiment of service is something that resonates deeply with me. Service is fundamental to who I am, and it is fundamental to the Government and to my commitment to the wonderful constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. I am here because my constituents placed their trust in me, a trust for which I am grateful, and will repay with service and a commitment to ensuring they are represented in this place to the fullest of my abilities.
At the centre of my constituency is Leytonstone, at the heart of which is our beloved Whipps Cross hospital. Whipps has served our constituency for 121 years, during which time its NHS staff—quiet professionals—have given selflessly for those in need within our community. Yet this hospital is emblematic of 14 years of failed Tory commitments and lack of investment. Its rebuilding is central to my tenure as an MP.
Leytonstone is also a cradle for talent, having been home to notable figures such as my namesake David Bailey and Cartrain, and sports stars Jo Fenn, Andros Townsend and David Beckham. Leytonstone was the home, of RAF pedigree, of Douglas Webb DFM, the front gunner in the famous dam busters raid, and more lately, of James Sjoberg, Officer Commanding 47 Squadron. Leveraging this rich heritage to inspire our youth and give them pathways to success is a personal commitment of mine. Opportunities like these were scarce for young people like me. Creating similar pathways for our youth will be central to my service.
Leytonstone is also home to one of the most financially deprived areas in the country, but it is a spirited community that seeks to heal itself. Community leadership from Cann Hall mosque ensures the provision to all local people of a much-needed food bank and a youth group. Similarly, at St Margaret with St Columba, others gather to preserve a sense of community despite their obvious hardships.
Community spirit is also strong in South Woodford and Wanstead. If Whipps is the heart of our constituency, Wanstead park is its lungs and the River Roding its veins. Wanstead park is part of our historic Epping forest, which was saved by campaigners such as Octavia Hill, founder of the National Trust, and the spirit of activism and preservation continues in the Wanstead Community Gardeners, the South Woodford Society and the ever popular Wanstead fringe festival.
To the south is Leyton, home of Leyton Orient football club. The O’s and their trust embody the best of our community. From their sacrifices in the pal regiment in the first world war to their work with Waltham Forest Age UK, they support our vulnerable veterans. The club is also proud to celebrate our diverse communities, epitomised by Laurie Cunningham, the club’s first black player. His legacy continues to inspire, as does the leadership of Omar Beckles in improving representation in football. Such leadership is reflective of the club’s leadership in the establishment of governance for our footballing world.
Efforts such as these are key to me. Visible role models and leadership are essential for diverse communities. Without these inspirational characters, young black people like me will not see themselves in places of power. I reflect on the very low number of black men in our politics, despite an increase in representation across all ethnic groups. Addressing this is key to fixing the inequalities that face young people, particularly in the area of knife crime.
A pivotal moment in my upbringing was the murder of Stephen Lawrence. While we are aware of the continuing failure to provide justice to my friend Stuart’s family, we all know of the institutional failings that have led to this. I want to point all Members to a number of things surrounding this that were formative for me. First, the absence of representation inhibits our ability to hear voices and understand the challenges faced by others like us. I reflected during the campaign that when I was young I carried a knife, not because I wished to attack anyone, but because I was scared and felt that the fate that had befallen my friend’s brother could happen to me and others like me. Mistakenly, I assumed that I could look after myself similarly, but sadly, we know that is not the case, and that those who carry knives are more likely to be killed themselves. We need people like me to translate those experiences into policy.
Secondly, and in some ways most importantly, I look back with great upset and anger on how this matter was politicised by extreme groups. Our anger and upset was channelled by populists who manipulated us for their own political ends. Those voices are present in our House and vocal in our politics, and we must challenge them openly to prevent those actors from fostering anger, hate and division within our communities. I fear it is our greatest threat to democracy, and we must be fundamental in our moderation. We must challenge those behaviours without fear, openly, separating them from the underlying issues.
Finally, what saw me through that period in my life, and through a highly decorated flying career in the Royal Air Force, are the two things I value most: first, my friends; and secondly, my family. My mother and father instilled in me the values and virtues of service and humanity; my sisters shaped me and helped me to see the world through the eyes of a woman. My friends shepherded me through school, college and university, and through every difficult challenge in my life. But it is my wife who has supported me steadfastly through a military career and grown our wonderful family. I love her deeply and will never be able to thank her enough.
The reason I am here is my service not just as a Member of this House but to our nation in the RAF. I have chosen to speak in this debate because as a young engineering student I recall learning of the failings of the Duncan Sandys defence review, which did deep and lasting damage to our aerospace industry and industrial base. Already we have heard voices state that our commitment to this programme is a fallacy, but acceptance of that is merely acceptance of a failure to manage defence programmes and the companies contracted to deliver them. It is not GCAP that is a fallacy, but the way we contract and manage such programmes. Our interaction with defence primes must change. We must encourage risk taking, because without it there is no innovation. We must not allow the customer to set the demand for technologies that the customer itself cannot conceive.
We must be a Government who better understand science, and we need an industry that is incentivised with accountability. We have the sixth largest defence budget in the world. We must get our money’s worth, and we must make sure that our money leads to our security and not to excess corporate bonuses. For that reason, the remarks by the Minister for the Armed Forces about the sanctity of the defence review are key. We cannot allow defence simply to be bought out of its overspend. This is an exciting programme with two close and valued partners, and the Government’s defence review is critical to it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an absolute honour to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). He has delivered an excellent maiden speech, and it is an example to every new, and old, Member of this House that he should set out his love and affection for the place where he lives and where he has clearly spent many happy years. It is obviously a custom in this House to use the term “honourable and gallant” for somebody who has served, but in the case of the hon. Member it has particular resonance, because he received an MBE a decade ago in recognition of meritorious, gallant, and distinguished services. He made a tremendous speech, and the whole House will have heard him talk about the importance of a new hospital to his constituency, and about the scourge of knife crime, and his own personal reflections on why young people carry knives. We will all reflect on his thoughts and comments as he makes them in the months and years to come.
I welcome the Minister of State to her place, and congratulate her on her new role at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Given that she shadowed that role for some time, I feel hopeful that she has a good understanding of our partnerships not just in Europe but in east and south-east Asia, and that they are safe with her.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I welcome the Government’s announcement that they remain committed to the global combat air programme. I also welcome the presence in the King’s Speech of the strategic defence review. Reflecting on the speech that we have just heard, it is essential that we go through a strategic defence review every time we have a serious change of Government, as we have had after 14 years. It was encouraging to hear that the review will be published soon, within the first half of next year.
Professor Michael Clarke points out that this is the 12th defence review to have taken place since the end of the cold war, and that most have “not been very strategic”. He says that most reviews have been cost-cutting exercises, and that only a couple of them could be described as genuinely strategic. He goes on:
“I think this one has an ambition to be more genuinely strategic.”
Sir Julian Lewis
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of past strategic defence reviews, and I particularly remember the 1998 SDR, which was after a Labour landslide. It was strategic and outlined concepts that stood the test of time. One reason for that was that it gave other people the opportunity to contribute to the review. I am hoping that Labour Ministers might pay a little attention to the idea that if they want their strategic defence and security review to do well, they should open up the process so that people on a non-partisan basis can have serious input to it—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see my friend the Minister for the Armed Forces nodding his agreement.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention, and so far I gather that the Government are prepared to listen to external expertise. I was encouraged to hear that Fiona Hill will be very much at the pinnacle of this review, and I know as an example that she has a great deal of insight into matters Europe, and in particular in relation to Russia. The defence review will need to look not only at means, which is what we are discussing today, but at ends and ways, so that it comes to thinking about means only after thinking about ends and ways. The problem with pre-empting a review and leaping straight into talking about particular procurement programmes is that it only serves, at this stage at least, to start to raise questions about what programmes have not been confirmed so far.
In this, the week of the Farnborough airshow, lots of questions have been raised about GCAP, or “Tempest” as the fighter aircraft will be known in the UK. On Saturday, one headline warned:
“RAF jet may never get off the ground”
and on Monday a subheading read
“questions are being asked about whether it should be scrapped to save money.”
On Tuesday an opinion column warned:
“The Government’s silence over the future of the Tempest fighter is deeply concerning.”
Sometimes the question is not as simple as whether to spend, but whether to spend in the near term or the long term, or on procuring equipment today or in the future. There is a trade-off in combat power between the near term and the long term.
I appreciate that the Government will be seeking to confirm to our allies that GCAP will proceed, and they will want to reassure Italy and Japan, as well as offer reassurance to commercial partners. Those of us from the west country need look no further than Yeovil to see what a success Leonardo has been for industry in our region. Defence exports from Yeovil amounted to £1.6 billion in 18 months. This issue clearly does matter a great deal to UK industry, but we must think about what else is happening in the commercial space.
We have heard about the European future combat air system—SCAF—consortium made up of France, Germany and Spain, which is developing a fighter jet in parallel. I urge the Government to consider whether the two systems can be as interoperable as possible. The pyramid open systems architecture that we anticipate will be part of GCAP would do well to be able to speak with whatever the SCAF comes up with.
Aside from GCAP, the strategic defence review should consider the UK’s existing capabilities, and existing combat air in particular. Twenty-six tranche 1 Typhoon fighter aircraft are due to be retired from service at the end of next March. The option remains for those tranche 1 aircraft to be brought up to the standard of tranche 2 or tranche 3. BAE systems provided the previous Government with the structural and avionic modifications that would be required, but they chose not to take that up. Instead, they intended to put the 26 tranche 1 aircraft on to a so-called reduce to produce programme to strip them of usable parts for the Typhoon fleet’s inventory of spares. I wonder whether consideration also could be given to whether they could become tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft instead.
An initial order of 150 F-35 Lightning aircraft has already been scaled back to 138, in part to release funding to GCAP. We can see that there is always a trade-off between thinking about future combat air in 2035 versus what we might need today. Upgrading the 26 tranche 1 fighter aircraft would grow the UK’s Typhoon fleet from 107 to 133. Of course, they will not have the latest air-to-ground capabilities of the F-35, and they certainly will not have the range, payload or stealth capabilities that we will expect of GCAP and Tempest, but they would be available soon. In recent months we have seen Typhoon intercept Russian long-range maritime patrol bombers north of the Shetland islands within NATO’s northern air policing area. Now does not seem to be the time to cannibalise Typhoon tranche 1 for spare parts.
I recall from my own service the phrase used in the armed forces that we should “deal with the crocodile nearest the boat.” In announcing that GCAP will go ahead, I trust that the defence review will also appraise those near-term risks in our near abroad rather than simply carrying on with existing programmes because they are already in train.
In closing, I will pose three questions to the ministerial team. First, is GCAP still too linked to the assumptions about geopolitics from the 2021 integrated review? Is it taking into full account the integrated review refresh of 2023, and particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Secondly, if there is to be a parallel development of GCAP and SCAF by other European allies, will the Government reassure us that consideration is being given to interoperability such as in relation to open systems architecture? Thirdly, if there is not enough money in the pot to upgrade Typhoon tranche 1, buy more F-35s and develop GCAP, which of those three initiatives is the UK unlikely to do?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on your election and welcoming you to the Chair? I am sure that you will chair our proceedings excellently. We wish you all good luck.
May I also thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for a fine, fluent and—if I may say so—at times poignant maiden speech? He spoke well on behalf of his constituents. I have it on good authority that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was the procurement Minister, the hon. Member took him on a tour of Brize Norton and helped to brief him on the A400M. My hon. Friend has asked me to pass on his thanks. As a former Army officer, may I say to a former RAF officer what a great pleasure it is to see the RAF turn up on time? There is indeed a first time for everything. [Laughter.]
The purpose of the order is laid out clearly in paragraph 4.1 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that it
“gives effect to the Convention between the Government of the Italian Republic, the Government of Japan and the Government of the United Kingdom…establishing the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation signed on 14 December 2023”.
It points out that
“The Convention was negotiated by the Ministry of Defence.”
My third welcome is to the Minister; it is good to see her in her place. However, as the convention was nominated by the Ministry of Defence, could she explain for clarity why the FCDO and not the MOD is handling this statutory instrument?
The Minister kindly nominated me for a place on the House of Commons Defence Committee. As today appears to be a day for people taking up nominations, I will gladly accept that and announce that I am going to run—for that Committee.
I also point out that in the explanatory memorandum the policy context for the order—this is important—is described as follows:
“In December 2022, the Prime Ministers of UK, Japan and Italy launched GCAP to deliver a next generation aircraft by 2035. The signing of the GCAP Convention between the partners took place in December 2023 and was conducted by the respective Defence Secretaries of the three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive body with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners engaged in the GCAP.”
So far, so good. The debate takes on some additional resonance, however, because we now have a defence review, which some people have interpreted as a sword of Damocles hanging over this important programme. My fourth welcome is to the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who represents a military constituency; it is good to see him in his place, too.
A few minutes ago at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister described GCAP as a “really important programme”. It is. It is good that he was able to go to Farnborough, see the mock-up of the aircraft for himself and receive a briefing.
When I served on the Defence Committee in the last Parliament, in March 2024 we travelled to Japan to examine the programme as best we could from the Japanese perspective. We spoke to politicians, civil servants, industrialists and the Japanese air self-defence force—its military. We were going to write what I believe would have been a very positive report, and then someone went and called a general election. We cannot blame the Minister for that, but she and some of her colleagues did somehow appear to benefit from it.
I would like to stress three themes from that trip, which came out strongly. The first was the absolute unanimity of purpose among the Japanese to deliver the programme. As one politician put it to us,
“We live in a tough neighbourhood, including three autocracies with nuclear weapons. We need to strengthen our defences, and this programme is fundamental to that.”
I think that is a very good summary of the Japanese perspective.
Secondly, we were struck by the willingness of the Japanese to consider third party exports of GCAP to make the aircraft affordable by increasing its production run. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was always hot on that when he was the procurement Minister. For various historical reasons, I do not think that the Japanese would necessarily have taken that view even a few years ago; that is important.
Thirdly, the Japanese have an absolute determination to achieve the in-service date of 2035, which is referred to directly in the memorandum. The Japanese air self-defence force uses a mixture of F-15J Eagle aircraft and the F-2, which is sort of a souped-up version of the American F-16. They are both good and capable aircraft, but they are getting rather long in the tooth. The Japanese have to plan forward against a threat from the Chinese J-20 or the Russian Su-57. The risk is that by the mid-2030s those aircraft will be outmatched by those two powerful new combat aircraft.
Reference has been made to the F-35. It is a fine aircraft, but it is expensive to buy and very expensive to run. The Americans have found that to their cost—the F-35 was nicknamed by the American media
“the plane that ate the Pentagon”.
It might not necessarily be the answer to the Treasury’s dream. Moreover, for the record, deliveries of the F-35 to the United States forces were suspended for nearly a year—they have only just been resumed—because of problems in upgrading the computers and the software. If we are to talk about the realities, the F-35 has been quite a troubled programme and, to some extent, continues to be so.
What would be the implications of cancellation of GCAP? This is an international agreement and, as it says in paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum:
“No external consultation was undertaken as the instrument implements provisions of an international agreement to which the United Kingdom will be obliged to give effect as a matter of international law once it enters into force.”
The first implication were we to cancel it is that it would put back Anglo-Japanese relations and Anglo-Italian relations, arguably for decades. I would not want to be the CEO of a British company trying to sell something to the Japanese Government in the aftermath of the cancellation of GCAP. Secondly, given the scale and the prominence of the programme, there would be a serious risk that we in the United Kingdom would achieve a reputation as an unreliable partner in major military collaborative programmes—everything from AUKUS through to collaboration in space. In an era when things such as a sixth-generation combat aircraft are so expensive that, as I intimated earlier, even the Americans are struggling to afford one on their own, the reality for us as a medium power is that we need to collaborate. We would find it very difficult to find future partners if we suddenly cancelled such an important and sizeable programme for financial reasons.
Thirdly, it would make a nonsense of the UK’s so-called tilt to the Pacific, which was inherent to the so-called integrated review and was reinforced when the review was refreshed before the general election. How can we tilt to the Pacific if we then cancel a major collaborative programme with a critical Pacific partner, which faces challenges from Russia and China even more immediately than we do? Bluntly, our name would be mud in that theatre of operations if we were to do that.
Fourthly, there is what one might call the prosperity agenda. As they said in the King’s Speech, the Government are very committed to growth—let us not debate building and the green belt now, but focus on this issue. In the last few years, about 80% of the UK’s defence exports have come from combat air—mainly sales of Typhoon or our 15% workshare on the F-35. That has averaged roughly £6 billion a year. Again, what would be the threat to our exports and our reputation as a reliable supplier if we were to cancel the programme?
What should we do? The GIGO, which this memorandum establishes, will incorporate prominent representatives from all three countries—the UK, Japan and Italy—and it will be headquartered here. If the programme is to survive, which I strongly believe it should, the GIGO has a vital role to play as the management organisation. It will have to be leaner and less bureaucratic than its predecessor organisations, which oversaw the Tornado and Typhoon programmes—two wonderful aircraft with a proud heritage in the Royal Air Force. I think everyone in the industry would admit that those organisations were a bit too bureaucratic.
The GIGO will have to be a lot leaner and meaner to get the job done. The principal industrial partners—BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Leonardo, among others—will have a real challenge. Historically, the answer to such a dilemma might have been, “Look, it’s a very complicated programme. It will take years to achieve, and it all depends on how many countries join, how many aircraft they buy and what configuration they go for. Will the Saudis participate? Will they want it built in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia if they do participate? There are lots of imponderables, so we will come back to you in about five years’ time with a unit price.” That will not wash. I would submit that one of the first tasks of the GIGO, working with those industrial partners and the three Governments, is to come up with at least a realistic pricing envelope for the programme, which the Treasury can look at and, hopefully, take a positive view on. If they do not do that, there can be no blank cheque, even for this.
To conclude, there is no such thing as an uncancellable defence programme—although I still hope for Ajax—but this comes close. To cancel this programme for short-term financial reasons would be a disaster militarily, politically, diplomatically and industrially. If it comes down to GCAP, AUKUS or Ajax, for me, Ajax has to go, and I say that as a former soldier. We need to understand how extremely serious the implications are of cancelling this programme.
I was a soldier, but the Royal Air Force has a proud tradition in the defence of this country and its interests, going back to the Battle of Britain and the first world war—when it grew out of the Army, I hasten to say.
Mr Francois
And the Navy, in which my father served, for completeness. The Royal Air Force needs this aircraft. We need it. The Japanese, the Italians and the west need it. By all means, let us control the costs, but let us keep it. We are not going to scrap the Spitfire of the future.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to you extending your authority to unruly fourth parties, even if they are new to that role.
I welcome this statutory instrument, which gives effect to the convention on the establishment of GCAP. GCAP is not important but vital to a range of different priorities, to which I urge the new Government to pay very close attention. It is vital to the United Kingdom’s ability to play its role in defending our values against peer or near-peer adversaries and the threats that they present to our way of life. We will not do that in the very near future if we cannot command a sixth-generation capability. It is vital to developing and maintaining sovereign air capability. If we had no legacy of manufacturing complex combat air systems, we could not start it. That enterprise cannot be begun from nothing.
The flipside of that inevitable truth is that if we neglect what we have developed, at great cost to the public purse over the past 100 years, we defeat the legacy of world-leading extraordinary aircraft, civil and military, that have come out of the United Kingdom over the past 100 years. We also create an extraordinary gap in our ability to defend the realm—the first duty of any Government. The programme is vital for the 600 stakeholders in the UK alone who have been engaged with GCAP to date, and it has not even got up to speed yet. Those are just a few elements of why this is vital. In a geographical sense, it is extraordinarily important to defence manufacturers in the central belt of Scotland and the north-west of England, but I see no reason to disbelieve the claim that it has positive effects for constituencies all across the United Kingdom.
I seek to impress on the Minister for the Armed Forces—who I know gets it, and I am glad that he is here today—that he should challenge any rise in Treasury dogma when it comes to GCAP. It is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to repeat the world-leading performance of Harrier and the Blackburn Buccaneer, the extraordinary capabilities of the Panavia Tornado and the exceptional abilities of the BAE Typhoon. That is what it can do. What it expressly must not do is repeat the incredibly self-defeating cost to the public purse and defence capability of the TSR-2 fiasco in the 1960s. Unfortunately, an incoming Labour Government scrapped that at huge cost to our defence capability and huge cost to the public purse. It was a demonstrable exercise in a Treasury obsessed with the price of everything and myopic about the value of everything. I repeat, in case I sound political, that I know the Minister for the Armed Forces gets it. We trust him to do the right thing.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight what happened to TSR-2, which was a generation ahead of its time and a world beater. It was scrapped because the Treasury wanted to buy the F-111 instead, which was an American aircraft, and then it did not end up buying it. There is a lesson from history there too, is there not?
Dave Doogan
If we take, as the United Kingdom has, an extraordinarily complex programme somewhere down the road, then the opportunity cost, much less the financial and operability cost, of turning back on that must be well set out. I am afraid that those are the details the Treasury has a history of not being that interested in. It is more focused on the number at the bottom right-hand side of the balance sheet, but this is far too important to yield to that level of priority.
It is much to be regretted that the future combat air system and GCAP are proceeding in the European theatre in parallel. That is a grossly expensive duplication. I greatly fear that there is nothing we can do about it now. Nevertheless, it is much to be regretted. I am not certain that the partners in the competing French-led FCAS programme will be happy partners throughout, but that remains to be seen. The Minister for the Armed Forces must ensure that the door is left open for any latecomers or laggards who want to get on board with GCAP. I would appreciate his assurance, either today or at a later date, on that willing acceptability and acceptance.
As it is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister who is leading today, let me say that the one thing the extraordinary aircraft I listed did not enjoy was particularly healthy export success. GCAP must have exceptional export success because, quite apart from the standard avionics engines and air frames that we have to deal with in conventional traditional aircraft, this aircraft is a breed apart in terms of its electronic warfare capability. It is a combat system, which happens to be in an aircraft, that is extraordinarily expensive. If the price of that is left to the Italians, the UK and the Japanese, we will face no small measure of difficulty.
On the statutory instrument itself, article 34(2) of the convention makes provision for host countries experiencing “serious balance of payment” issues. I draw Members’ attention to the sovereign debt liabilities of both Japan and Italy—and the UK itself, although it would be the third of that list. But the convention merely seeks—to inform the Minister—to “consult” in such circumstances. It would be appreciated if we could know what type of consultation that would involve. Further, article 19(1)(c) clarifies that funding from each party will
“be set out in a further arrangement”.
However, the convention does set out that the steering committee will have equal representation from each of the parties. How will the convention decide what the funding will be based on? Will it be based on orders, or on the number of national employees employed in the steering committee? How will that work? It is unclear.
In closing, Leonardo in Edinburgh is the brain and nerve centre of GCAP; it is the central nervous system of this world-leading capability. The system is being designed and finalised in Edinburgh, and it will be built in Edinburgh at Leonardo. That brings me on to the final provision in the SI, which states that the headquarters of GIGO will be established at a later date, but that it will be in the UK. It is really important that wherever it is established, it has close connectivity with the key prime manufacturers of GCAP: Rolls-Royce, Thales, BAE and Leonardo. It must be in a part of this island where an outstanding quality of life can be enjoyed, with access to good schools, good quality of life, transport infrastructure, an international airport and good links with London. That place is Edinburgh.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your victory. You will be brilliant and I look forward to serving under your chairmanship in the three or four years ahead.
May I say how very much I support the statutory instrument? I do not support the Prime Minister’s lukewarm words at Farnborough. I think the concerns we have on the Conservative Benches are to do with the hares he set running not by what he said, but by what did not say. My advice to Ministers would be, “For goodness’ sake, up the rhetoric around this.” No Government in their right mind would cancel this project. This project is not only essential to our defence; it is the bridge to the unmanned future of defence that will come by mid-century. Kick away that bridge and we are left with very little: we undermine fundamentally the defence of these islands; we destroy the reputation of this country not just with the Japanese and the Italians, but with practically any partner in defence, present and future, that we can imagine, not least the Saudis; and it means that we will not be able to successfully translate our defence industrial base to the future, which we all appreciate is largely unmanned in each of the four domains that defence these days has to consider. Words mean what words say, except when they trip from the lips of politicians. Then, it is very often what is not said that influences the conversation, particularly in the media.
My plea, in the very short time available to me, is for Ministers, senior Ministers and the Prime Minister to correct what was said this week and, in particular, to ramp up the rhetoric on our support for this fundamentally important programme that is vital to our defence and our defence base. I appreciate that the Prime Minister has a problem, in that he has failed to commit to 2.5% of GDP within a recognisable timeframe, which is no commitment at all, and he has launched a largely unnecessary defence review, which will be a distraction for at least 12 months. I am confident in the sound good sense of Lord Robertson and Richard Barrons. I cannot image that they will be party to the cancellation or delay of this programme.
Catherine West
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you, on behalf of the Government, on your accession to the throne—not literally, but to the Speaker’s Chair, which was actually a gift of the country of Australia to the House of Commons following the 1940s.
I thank my opposite number, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), in particular for his comments regarding the dreadful attack on a soldier outside the Kent barracks this week. I thank him for putting that on the record. I also thank all Members across the House for supporting the SI without a vote.
I will conclude briefly on some of the very important points that have been raised. If I do not cover them all, it is because I will be sending a copy of Hansard to those in charge of the review, including the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). All the points that have been raised are crucial in thinking through the next five years of defence spending. As I said at the beginning, this debate is about the international treaty part of the programme, so I will be very brief.
First of all, I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his recommendations from his visit to Japan. There is nothing like visiting a country and getting to know the whole team there to give really good feedback, so I will be passing that on. We also had very supportive comments from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). There was a big plea from Edinburgh by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for some defence jobs. That has been heard.
I praise fulsomely the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). He has enormously big shoes to fill. Our friend has left the green Benches and will probably go the red Benches at some future point—who knows?—so he has very big shoes to fill. Perhaps his predecessor has already been ennobled. I loved my hon. Friend’s description of growing up with the challenges of knife crime and how he came through that. What an excellent role model he is for so many people who are watching our debates today! I also admired his commitment to value for money; that could prove very useful, given his particular area of interest.
A question arose in the debate relating to the role of other partners. The order names the United Kingdom, Japan and Italy because we needed to get on with this. We are the first to deal with this at this level in our parliamentary process. Japan and Italy will then engage in their own processes because of the reciprocity involved, and I am sure that after that, when we are all up to speed, discussions about further partnerships will be ongoing. In granting these privileges and immunities we will be able to bring the GIGO into force, and in doing so, we will be better positioned to support the achievement of GCAP’s aims and the fulfilment of the Government’s objectives. We will also be better placed to work with international partners and to influence the air combat industry as a result. I hope that the House will support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 23 May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Education and Opportunity
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered education and opportunity.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your election.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the Labour Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. We are bringing change to this nation. However, I know that any change we deliver will be brought about in partnership with our wonderful workforces, so let me take this opportunity, at the end of the academic year, to thank them for all that they do for our children, our young people and our country.
Let me begin by saying two things. First, I welcome my new opposite number, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to his place. In the previous Government he stood out for his commitment to his brief, his passion and dedication, and the collegiate and effective way in which he worked with colleagues in all parts of the House. We have disagreed on many things, and I am sure that we will go on to disagree on many things, but I hope that whenever we can, we will work together to build a country where children come first.
Secondly, I want to make an announcement, here and now, because our mission is urgent. I am pleased to announce that the Department will undertake a short pause and review of post-16 qualification reform at level 3 and below, concluding before the end of the year. This means that the defunding scheduled for next week will be paused. The coming year will see further developments in the roll-out of new T-levels, which will ensure that young people continue to benefit from high-quality technical qualifications that help them to thrive. I will update the House with more detail tomorrow.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement; I know it will also be welcomed by colleges throughout the country. Teachers in my constituency, like teachers everywhere else, do an extraordinary job in supporting our young people, but it is vital for them to be paid properly for it. Can the Secretary of State update us on the work of the independent pay body and the Government’s response to it?
Bridget Phillipson
We take the work of the pay review body extremely seriously, but the previous Government did not act responsibly in that regard. They sat on the report, and then they called an election. I understand the frustrations that school leaders and teachers are experiencing, but as my hon. Friend knows, we are moving as quickly as we can on this important issue, and the Chancellor will set out our position before the end of the month. We understand the importance of getting this right. Let me reiterate, once more, our thanks to our brilliant teachers and support staff for their work during this academic year.
We are putting education back where it belongs, at the heart of change. After years at the margins under the Conservatives, after years of ministerial merry-go-rounds, after years of opportunity for our children being treated as an afterthought, education is back at the forefront of national life. I know the power of education to transform lives, because I lived it. Standards were my story, and now I want standards to be the story for every child in the country, not just in some of our schools but in all our schools. I want high and rising standards for each and every child, but for 14 long years that has not been the story in our education system.
I think often of children born in the months after the Labour party last won an election, some 19 years ago. They entered school in September 2010, in the first autumn in which Conservative Members served as Ministers. By then the damage had already begun. Labour’s ambitious Building Schools for the Future programme had already been cancelled, and that was storing up problems for the decades ahead. As the years went by, those children saw opportunity stripped away. They saw not just resources drained from their childhood, but also hope. They saw the children’s centres they had attended being closed by the hundred. They saw falling investment in the school buildings in which they learned, and in the staff who taught and supported them. They saw a change in the support for children with special educational needs—a situation that, in a moment of unusual candour, my predecessor, the former MP for Chichester, described as “lose-lose-lose”, though she did almost nothing about it. A generation of children in social care were falling further and further out of sight.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the inequalities experienced by children with special educational needs and disabilities. What is she able to say about what we will do, and the difference that we will make to their lives?
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, and by Members throughout the House, about that important issue. I will say more about it later in my speech, but let me say now that not for a second do I underestimate the challenge that we face. I give my hon. Friend this commitment: I want to ensure that we deliver a better system for children, families and schools—one that is a long way from the broken and adversarial system that too many people experience at the moment.
Young people in unregistered schools were missing out on not just the education but the childhood that they should have had, and as that generation grew older, the Government response to a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic made it clear to them that they were, quite simply, an afterthought. Pubs were reopening to punters before schools welcomed back children. Examination grading was first a farce and then a fiasco. We had a Government who forgot almost altogether about further education, and saw apprenticeship starts tumble year after year.
Earlier this month, the people of this country turned the page on that Government and that era. They turned to Labour, and to the hope, which drives us and so many who work in education, that tomorrow can be better than today, and that our best days lie not behind us but ahead of us. They turned to Labour in the belief—today a distinctively Labour belief—that the role of Government is not merely to administer, but to transform, and to deliver for all our children the freedom to achieve, thrive, succeed and flourish, which has been withheld from so many of them for so long.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has talked about turning a page, and about opportunity. She will be aware that young people today have fewer opportunities than our generation enjoyed, owing to disastrous Tory policies that removed their freedom of movement as well as Erasmus, which included apprenticeships. Will she turn the page on that disastrous Tory policy?
Bridget Phillipson
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I welcomed the opportunity to meet my opposite number in Scotland recently, and I want to find areas on which we can reach agreement constructively and collaboratively. As for his specific question, I am afraid I cannot give him that commitment, but I want to ensure that all young people have the chance to travel, learn and study.
The hope that I want for our young people comes from the opportunity that this Government will deliver. As Members know, opportunity is a journey that lasts a lifetime, and the first steps are in early years education, because the barriers to opportunity appear early in a child’s life. We will bring about a sea change in our early years system, beginning right now.
I am fully committed to rolling out the childcare entitlements promised to parents, but I need to be frank with the House: the challenges are considerable, and the last Government did not have a proper plan. The irresponsibility that we inherited was shocking. I acted immediately to get to grips with the task at hand, but I must be honest: the disparities across the country are severe, which means that some parents will, sadly, miss out on their first-choice place. They and their children deserve better, and I am determined to get this right. We will create 3,000 nurseries in primary schools to better connect early years with our wider education system. By the time we are done, we will have thriving children, strong families, and parents who are able to work the hours they want.
The foundations for a love of learning are laid early, in primary school, but child poverty puts up barriers at every turn. It is a scar on our society. The need to eradicate child poverty is why I came into politics, and it is why the Prime Minister has appointed me and the Work and Pensions Secretary to jointly lead the new child poverty taskforce. Together, we will set out an ambitious child poverty strategy, and I will introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school. They are about more than just breakfast; they are important for driving up standards, improving behaviour, increasing attendance and boosting achievement.
What children are taught once they are in the classroom matters, too. We must start early with maths, and inspire a love of numbers in our youngest learners, and this Government are committed to fully evidence-based early language interventions in primary schools, so that all children can find their voice.
I want high and rising standards across all our schools and for all our children, but I mean that in the broadest and most ambitious of terms. We should be growing a love of learning, and encouraging children to explore the world around them, to be bold, to dream and to discover their power. Our curriculum must reflect that. That is why I have announced the Government’s expert-led review of the curriculum and assessment at all key stages, in order to support our children and young people, so that they succeed tomorrow and thrive today. By working with teachers, parents and employers, we will deliver a framework for learning that is innovative, inclusive, supportive and challenging, that drives up standards in our schools, and ensures that every child has access to a broad and rich curriculum.
However, any curriculum is only as strong as the teachers who teach it. Today, those teachers are leaving the classroom, not in dribs and drabs but in their droves—and too often, opportunity follows them out the door. I am working tirelessly to turn that around. We will back our teachers and support staff, and we will partner with the profession to ensure that workloads are manageable. We have already begun recruiting 6,500 more expert teachers. Together, we will restore teaching as the career of choice for our very best graduates, and we will invest in our schools and services by ending the tax breaks that private schools enjoy.
Accountability is vital and non-negotiable, but Ofsted must change, and change it will. Our reform will start with ending one-word judgments. We will bring in a new report card system. That is part of our plan to support schools and challenge them when needed in order to deliver high and rising standards for every child.
I have spoken to colleagues from across the House about their concerns about how the system is failing learners with special educational needs and disabilities. I share those concerns; the system is broken. I am delighted to see on the Government Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), with whom I worked so closely on this issue in opposition, and who shares entirely my focus and concern. All families want the best for their children, but parents of children with special educational needs often face a slow struggle to get the right support. They are bogged down by bureaucracy and an adversarial system, and entangled by complexity. It is not good enough, and we will work relentlessly to put that right. We are committed to taking a community-wide approach in which we improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as ensure that special schools cater to those with the most complex needs. I have already restructured my Department to start delivering on this commitment. There can be no goal more important and more urgent than extending opportunities to our most vulnerable children, which also means reforming children’s social care.
Young people and adults deserve high-quality routes to building the skills that they need to seize opportunity, and businesses need staff with the skills to help them grow. Those are two sides of the same coin, and the key to our future prosperity and growth. We need a skills system fit for the future, but we have a fragmented system that frustrates businesses, lets down learners and grinds growth into the ground. It is time for a comprehensive strategy, and for our country to take skills seriously, so this week, alongside the Prime Minister, I announced Skills England, a new body that will unify the fractured landscape. It will bring together central Government, combined authorities, businesses, training providers, unions and experts. Businesses have told us that they need more flexibility to deliver the training that works for them, so we will introduce a new growth and skills levy to replace the failing apprenticeship levy.
Post-16 education is all about giving learners the power to make choices that are right for them. For many, that choice will be university, and I am immensely proud of our world-leading universities. They are shining lights of learning, but their future has been left in darkness for too long. This must and will change. There will be no more talking down our country’s strongest exports. Under this Government, universities will be valued as a public good, not treated as a political battleground. We will move decisively to establish certainty and sustainability, securing our universities as engines of growth, excellence and opportunity.
This Government will break the link between background and success. We will create opportunities for children and learners to succeed. We will give them the freedom to chase their ambitions, and the freedom to hope. This Labour Government are returning hope to our country after 14 long years, and there can be no greater work than building a country where background is no barrier to opportunity. That work of change has already begun.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first welcome you to the big Chair on behalf of the Opposition? It is great to see you there, and may you have much success. We will no doubt all enjoy serving under you.
May I also welcome the Secretary of State and her entire team to their places? They have among the most important jobs in government and, without doubt, the best jobs in government. While their colleagues will be out visiting wind turbines and distribution sheds, they will be spending time with children and the inspirational adults who teach them, which is a much better way to spend a day. Although we have our differences, we do not for a moment doubt the ministerial team’s commitment to this crucial endeavour, and our exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes will always be in the spirit of seeking the very best for children, and for our society and country. We want the Government to succeed, because the success of the British Government is the success of Britain. That is true in every discipline, but it is especially true in education, where the effects of what happens are felt for many years to come and over the course of multiple changes of Government. We will scrutinise and hold them to account, as they know, but we will also support them where they look to build on what has been achieved.
Listening to the Secretary of State, I was wondering from which country or era she was drawing her material, because what has been achieved is that we now have nine in 10 schools in this country rated good or outstanding—up from just over two thirds when there was last a change of Government—with 27,000 more teachers, 60,000 more teaching assistants, a major upgrade in technical and vocational education through T-levels, higher-level technicals and reformed apprenticeships with employer-set standards, minimum lengths weeks and minimum off-the-job training time. We have also been rising up the international results table. At secondary school, England’s young people have risen from 27th in the world to 11th in mathematics, and from 25th to 13th in reading. At primary school, England’s children are the best readers in the western world.
Debbie Abrahams
Does the shadow Education Secretary accept the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ recent report? It says that although we have seen an improvement in average attainment, there remain educational inequalities, particularly for children on free school meals, children from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled children. We have not seen any improvements, and the educational inequalities are stark
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady, as ever, makes important points. It was the mission of Conservative Governments from 2010 onwards always to pursue two goals: first, to raise attainment overall and, secondly, to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor—between the advantaged and the disadvantaged or those with particular needs. Although those gaps are still too big, there was a decade of progress, as she knows. I think the IFS report that she mentions will almost certainly have said that there was a decade of progress right up until covid. I am afraid that covid struck a blow—[Interruption.] Labour Members may shake their heads, but believe me, covid struck a blow to education right throughout the world, including in our country, and there is yet more—[Interruption.] I think my point stands. There is yet more work to do.
The point I was making before the hon. Lady made her important intervention was that a great deal has been achieved but there are still challenges. In the aftermath of covid, we know that there are particular challenges on the attainment gap and attendance—by the way, those two things are related—but a great deal has been achieved. So my ask of the Government is that, while we acknowledge that they have just won the election with a big majority, we nevertheless ask them to be mindful and careful not to change things just because they can.
Of course, Ministers do not educate children. It is the teachers who educate children, and those great achievements are their achievements, but teachers exist within a framework and a system. There are dedicated teachers not just in England but in Scotland and Wales, but in those two countries we have not seen the same advances that we have seen in England. Indeed, in Wales, with a Labour Administration running education, we have seen declines. We have long had dedicated teachers in England, too, but the fact is that in the Labour years before 2010, England’s results actually declined relative to other countries, even though—some Labour Members may remember this—in new Labour’s target-rich but I am afraid highly gameable environment, it was made to look like the results were all getting better.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
First, may I congratulate you on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Further to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, I think it is fair to boast that Scottish education used to be the envy of the world, yet we now have so many staff vacancies in four of our highland secondary schools—Ullapool, Kinlochbervie, Farr and Gairloch—that the kids simply are not being taught what they ought to be taught and are having to rely in some cases on online learning, which is scarcely satisfactory. That is why the parents have banded together to form the Save our Rural Schools campaign. Is that not a damning comment on the Scottish Government’s delivery of education north of the border?
Damian Hinds
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point incisively and speaks up powerfully for rural communities—he was here the other night talking about rural health services and the challenges that they face—but this is already going to be a wide-ranging debate and I think I might try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we moved into a debate about the Scottish education system and the SNP Administration, much as he and I would relish that opportunity. However, he is quite right to say that Scottish education has had massive historical strengths but has been let down by the SNP Administration.
When politicians on the left talk about a progressive agenda in education, I understand how that can sound beguiling and benign, but we must not forget that the legacy of the last Labour Government was for England to be the only country in the developed world where the generation approaching retirement was more literate and numerate than the youngest adults just entering the workforce and those who had just gone through their education under new Labour. But that is the past, and this team and this Government will be assessed and judged on the present and the future.
Damian Hinds
At the risk of widening the debate, I will very briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Gethins
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the Scottish success in having more children and students going on to positive destinations after school. Does he also acknowledge the damage that has been done by years and years of Tory austerity and by removing the rights and opportunities we had through freedom of movement following our withdrawal from the EU, which, according to Labour figures, has cost £140 billion? He should have some reflection on his own record.
Damian Hinds
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to turn everything into a discussion about Europe, but I have to tell him there are other things at play. If I were an SNP politician, I would not come to the Floor of this House boasting about the record of the SNP Government given their woeful performance on behalf of underprivileged children in Scotland. Nor, by the way, would I be complaining about the finances, when the Scottish Government are well financed for the things that they should and must do. Until recently it was us sitting on the Government Benches making these points, but now it will be Labour Members.
This is a debate about opportunity, and the point of greatest leverage in spreading opportunity is what happens in the very earliest years, as the Secretary of State said. Since 2010, we have had five major extensions in early years and childcare entitlements, and a sixth is now on its way. I think I heard the Secretary of State say that she was committing fully to our plan in each of its phases. Unless she corrects me now, that is certainly how I will interpret it. She then went on to say there were some difficulties and so on—[Interruption.] I can assure the Secretary of State, who speaks from a sedentary position, that there was indeed such a plan, and we look now to the Government to see that plan through. I would also like to hear from her colleague the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), when she sums up, about the 3,000 nurseries to be established in primary schools. It is important for us to know what proportion of those she expects to be full-time, year-round nurseries as opposed to term-time only.
We know that however much time young children spend in nursery or in childcare, they will spend more time at home, and the social mobility literature is clear that what happens at home makes a big difference to opportunity later in life. This is a difficult area for Governments and requires great care, but I hope that this new Government will look to build on the home learning environment programme—Hungry Little Minds—that we put in place and then reprised during covid, and do so in a supportive and non-invasive way.
I also hope that the Government will continue with the family hubs, recognising that while they are vital for the 0 to 2 age group, many issues go on right through childhood and adolescence. The supporting families programme is actually a cross-party story because it was brought in during the Cameron Government from 2012 following a pilot under the previous Labour Government. With its key worker approach it has so much potential, and it now covers 300,000 families, not the original 120,000. Bringing it into the Department for Education presents a great opportunity for the Secretary of State, and I hope she will make the most of it.
In schools, the success story we have been discussing, which can be seen in the results in the programme for international student assessment, the progress in international reading literacy study and other studies, has been based on three legs of a stool. The first is school autonomy, with transparency and accountability. The second is a knowledge-rich curriculum and proven learning methods such as phonics and maths mastery, with the Education Endowment Foundation evaluating and accrediting programmes. The third is the spreading of good practice through academy trusts and through schools learning laterally from other schools, with teachers learning from teachers rather than things being imposed top down, through a nationwide network of hubs in key subjects and in key areas such as behaviour. It is not yet clear exactly what the new Government’s plans are in each of those three areas, but if they seek to undo what has worked and what does work, we will argue the counter case robustly.
The Government have, as the Secretary of State said, announced a review of the curriculum, as of course they can, and as we did in the past. But again, I would urge them to reflect on what has worked and what does work, and in particular not to see a conflict between skills and knowledge. Clearly, when children are growing up, developing and being educated, they need both, but it is through having a depth of knowledge that they best develop skills. As to what knowledge, I hope the review will also acknowledge that a strength of our national curriculum is that, unlike what a lot of people think, it is not in fact a detailed specification of everything a pupil will learn in history or literature. Rather, it is a framework. That guards against political interference, and that is a principle that absolutely must be maintained. I hope that Labour did learn the lesson of the literacy hour and the numeracy hour—that seeking to set out to schools in 10 or 15-minute segments exactly what should be taught to children is a Bad Idea, with a capital B and a capital I.
On behaviour, a calm and ordered environment is a basic requirement for learning, and that is what children tell us they want. Of course, no one wants pupils to be suspended, still less expelled, but that option needs to be available as a last resort. Yes, we must think of the child’s wellbeing, but we also need to think of the wellbeing and life chances of the other 27 children in the class.
Having school leaders in the driving seat is essential, but that also brings a need for transparency so we can see whether children in some areas are not getting as strong an education as children in others. Progress 8, which we brought in, measures the progress of all children equally and is far better than the blunt and much-gamed approach of measuring how many children got over the five-plus C-plus at GCSE hurdle. It is also materially better than the old contextual value added measure, which effectively lowered expectations for entire groups of children.
We also need a threshold to trigger intervention, so that underperforming schools can be moved into a strong trust that can better support them. That is standing up for parents and children, who will get only one shot at schooling.
There are challenges to address and, as I said to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), high on that list post covid is attendance. It is much better than it was, but there is further to go. I hope the Government will keep and build on the measures that we put in place, together with schools and the wider education family.
We always need to strive to do more to support children with special educational needs and disabilities and enable them to maximise opportunity. I was encouraged by what the Secretary of State said. I call on her and the Government to keep and grow our capital programme for more special school places, as well as, as she rightly said, to strive to support inclusion in mainstream education, where that is possible and beneficial.
Today there is a greater prevalence of mental ill health in young people. Crucially, this issue is not specific to this country. We see it in most comparable countries, or at least those where there is data we can look at; we see a similar trend there. The Labour manifesto spoke about having mental health professionals in schools. When we were in government, with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS, we were already rolling out mental health support teams to clusters of schools and I urge the Government to look at that.
Of course, we and other countries must also ask why there is this increased prevalence of mental ill health in young people. Because it is international in nature, some of the ready answers that might otherwise be thrown about cannot be correct. We will work constructively with the Government as they work to build on the landmark Online Safety Act 2023, for example, and ensure its most effective implementation.
Schools are all about teachers and we welcome the Government’s plan to recruit 6,500 more. Of course, 6,500 is a large number, but it is not quite so large in the context of the total number of teachers, which is 468,000, and it should be noted that the increase in the number of teachers over the last Parliament was considerably more than 6,500—in fact, it was more like 15,000. However, it is true that it has been tough to recruit for some subjects, such as computer science, physics and modern foreign languages, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on that area.
Damian Hinds
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I had better press on, as I might be stretching Madam Deputy Speaker’s patience. Early in my time facing her in the Chair, I do not want to get off to a bad start.
We will be looking to see exactly what the 6,500 target covers, by when and, crucially, how it will be achieved.
The one subject in education that got a lot of coverage in the media and elsewhere during the election campaign was the taxation of independent schools. We recognise that that was in the Labour manifesto, but it is still wrong-headed. It will not hit the famous big-name schools, but it will hit small-town schools, families of children with special educational needs and certain religious faiths. Most of all, in the biggest way, it will hit state schools. We do not know how big the displacement effect will be of families who can no longer afford to send their children to their independent school, and we cannot know because there is no precedent, but we know that it will be a material number.
Mark Garnier
One thing that has not been discussed in this debate about extra taxation on private schools is that they generate £1 billion a year in export wins: this could have an effect on the country’s current account deficit.
Damian Hinds
We must not get into a long debate on this, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that export earnings is part it, as is multinationals’ choice of this country to site their headquarters. All these things are considerations, including the Ministry of Defence.
I inadvertently skipped over the hon. Member, so I give way to him now.
Chris Vince
I thank the right hon. Member for taking my question. His figures on teacher numbers are very interesting. Does he not recognise that, over the last Parliament, the teacher retention rate was at an all-time low, with a third of teachers leaving within five years of going into the profession?
Damian Hinds
Again, I must not get into too lengthy a debate on this—[Interruption.] But I can. In the last couple of years, we actually found that retention was better than had been anticipated. We want teachers to stay longer in the profession, which is one of the reasons why, during my first spell in the Department for Education, we brought in the early career framework specifically to address that issue. The Secretary of State has said that the Government will continue to evolve that, which I welcome too, but the fact of the matter is that we have 468,000 teachers in the profession. Part of that is to do with retention, and part of it is to do with people returning to the profession, which at times has been better than anticipated. It is also to do with the significant programme to get people into teaching in the first place through bursaries and scholarships.
Returning to taxation and independent education, I ask the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), at the very least today when she sums up, to confirm that the Government will not bring the measure further forward so that we end up with in-year disruption for families, and for state schools trying to cope with a potential influx of large numbers of children. Can she also guarantee that the large number of spending programmes that have been linked to this taxation income stream, including the 6,500 teachers, are protected, regardless of what happens on that VAT income?
I am close to the end. We set about a major upgrade in technical and vocational education. The Secretary of State said something important and, I think, new about what was going to happen. I hope the Government will see through T-levels and the reform of technical and vocational education on the blueprint—we always did this in government: we took a cross-party approach—of Lord Sainsbury. The Secretary of State mentioned that she will update the House tomorrow. Will the Minister of State confirm in summing up that that will be an oral statement, giving hon. and right hon. Members a chance to question the Minister on exactly what is proposed?
We will also scrutinise the Government’s proposed changes to apprenticeships and the levy. I understand that businesses want more flexibility on what they can do with levy money, but the two crucial things about the apprenticeship levy is that, first, it dealt with what economists call the “free rider problem,” under which some businesses historically invested strongly in training their staff, while others did not, but benefited when staff left those businesses to join them after two or three years. Secondly, the levy ensured that human capital investment went into incremental training; it did not just rebadge training that would have happened anyway. In whatever reform the Government undertake, those two things will have to be delivered.
On Skills England, we just need to know what it is. We understand the desire of a Labour Government to say, “In an emergency, break glass, reach for quango” but what will it do that is different from what is done today by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, by local skills improvement plans and by the Unit for Future Skills?
I am proud that disadvantaged youngsters are now much more likely to go on to higher education than they were—despite of course predictions of the opposite at the time the student financing system was brought in. I remember very well that, when in opposition, Labour Members of Parliament said repeatedly that fees should never go as high as £9,000, or £9,250, and we will be watching for consistency in their approach in the months and years ahead.
We need to ensure high-quality provision for students. It does no favours to a young person to go to university if it is for a course where we know a high proportion of students do not even complete the course. We spoke during the election campaign of our plan to build on our foundation of the Office for Students to ensure that, in whatever subject it might be, students could be confident that their course was of high quality. The new Government need to set out how they, in their way, will ensure that that quality is guaranteed.
To conclude—[Hon. Members: “Hooray.”] Come on. It is often said—it was said earlier this afternoon—that the first duty of Government is to defend our country and our national security and to keep people safe. It is the most fundamental function of Government to have sound management of the economy and the finances. The noblest drive in government is to strive to spread opportunity as far and as equitably as possible. Ultimately, education is the key to almost everything. We wish the new Government and this team of Ministers well. We will work positively and constructively with them. We will scrutinise what they say, monitor what they do and hold them to account for what they deliver.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election, and say what a great pleasure it is to see you in your place? I also congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment. I know how deep her commitment is to increasing opportunity and adjusting disadvantage for children across our country.
Education from the early years through school and on to further and higher education is arguably the most important tool in the Government’s box for addressing disadvantage. I am therefore delighted to see that breaking down the barriers to opportunity at every stage is one of the core missions of this Labour Government.
Labour has always recognised the importance of education as a route to addressing poverty, disadvantage and inequality, as well as to driving economic growth. It is at the heart of what we believe in and at the heart of what we have always delivered in government—from comprehensive schools to the Open University, from Sure Start to the London Challenge for school improvement.
This new Labour Government will continue in that proud tradition of delivering for our children and young people with free breakfast clubs in every primary school; new nursery places across the country; open access mental health support in schools and communities; more teachers in our schools; a new fit-for-purpose curriculum; a further education sector to deliver the skills that young people need to thrive and our economy needs to grow; and new support to protect young people from serious violence.
I wish to highlight today, as we discuss the commitment of this new Government and also the mess that they have inherited after 14 years of Conservative cuts to children's services, some of the issues that are most pressing in my constituency. Services are now really stretched to the limit as they seek to support children, young people and their families.
The first issue is the funding crisis facing maintained nursery schools, which often provide a gold standard of early years education. Some 64 % of them are located in areas with the greatest deprivation. I have two in my constituency: Effra nursery school and children’s centre and Dulwich Wood nursery school. They are constituted as schools, and therefore have the additional expertise—and also the additional costs—of fully qualified headteachers and teaching staff. The number of maintained nurseries has already dropped dramatically and only 400 now remain, many of which face severe financial difficulties. I therefore urge the Government to bring forward measures in the Budget to ensure that the depth of knowledge, expertise and quality in our maintained nursery schools is not lost, and that they are put on a sustainable financial footing.
The second issue is special educational needs and disabilities support. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for mentioning the work that I did in this regard when we were in opposition. In the context of the decimation of local authority funding since 2010 and with increasing presentation of additional needs across the country, local councils and schools are simply buckling under the pressure of resources that they do not have and needs that they cannot meet, while families are suffering the consequences.
At a recent visit to an outstanding school in my constituency, the headteacher broke down as she described the conflict of seeking to be an inclusive school with the reality of simply not having the funding that she needed to deliver for children with additional needs. Increasingly, local authorities are being driven to the edge of financial viability by the costs of SEND support and SEND transport. I really welcome this Government’s focus on the inclusivity of mainstream schools, but they will need to work very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that there is a sustainable approach to funding SEND support, which schools cannot deliver in isolation.
Thirdly, the outcomes for care-experienced people after 14 years of Conservative Government are utterly disgraceful. The system is so broken that frequently the state takes the decision to remove a child from their family because they are not considered to be safe, and places them in an environment in which they are even less safe and secure. Care-experienced people are so over-represented in both the criminal justice system and the homeless population because they are being so badly failed. If the Government are serious about tackling these challenges, they must turn their attention to delivering better support and better outcomes for care-experienced people.
One way that this situation could be turned around is through the development of a new care experience covenant, placed on a statutory footing, requiring every part of the public sector to take the responsibilities of corporate parenting seriously, supported by a national care leaver offer. I wonder whether the Minister is able to make any commitments in that regard today.
Finally, the Conservative Government changed the schools funding formula to remove the disadvantage weighting. That had the effect of proactively funnelling funding away from schools in constituencies such as mine with high levels of deprivation to more affluent areas of the country, and my local schools are really feeling the impact as they seek to provide an excellent education for every child.
Will the Minister give an undertaking to look at the schools funding formula, to ensure both that schools in the most disadvantaged areas of the country have the resources they need to deliver for every child, and that the formula itself is no longer pitting different areas of the country against each other, but represents a genuine levelling up of the resources for our schools?
I know that this Government will transform the life chances of children and young people across our country and make sure that no child is left behind. I look forward to seeing further plans come to fruition, as children, young people and their life chances are once again placed where they should be—at the centre of our national life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
As we have many maiden speeches to enjoy and Back-Bench contributions, may I ask those on the Front Bench to keep their speeches short? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
May I warmly welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a pleasure to see you. I also warmly welcome the Education Secretary and all her Ministers to their posts. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, they absolutely have the best jobs in Government. I am very jealous indeed, but I am looking forward to working with them constructively over the course of this Parliament to deliver the best possible start for children and young people. I am delighted to be speaking today on behalf of the third party in the House from the vastly expanded Liberal Democrat Benches.
I am grateful for the Government making time today for a dedicated debate on education and opportunity. Over the past few years, children and young people’s education has frankly been sidelined in the political agenda. It was no surprise to me that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition did not seek to allocate specific time for this area during the King’s Speech debates, instead bundling all public services, welfare and the economy into a single evening’s debate. Today’s debate is therefore very welcome indeed. Education is the greatest investment that we can make to ensure that every child, no matter their background, has the opportunity to flourish to their full potential. As a result, it is also the greatest investment that we can make for our economy and our society.
The King’s Speech and Government announcements in the past three weeks have included some encouraging measures that the Liberal Democrats welcome. On that note, I very much welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement on the level 3 qualifications review. The Liberal Democrats have long been saying that BTecs should not be funded until T-levels have properly bedded in. Actually, T-levels are squeezing so many young people out of the system and leaving them without options that we need a good range of options, so the review is very welcome. I also welcome the curriculum review that she announced. The devil, of course, in all the announcements so far will be in the detail. I hope that Ministers will work collaboratively, cross-party, on the areas where we are in agreement, though there are areas where we are not in agreement.
One area where we are in violent agreement is the state in which the Conservative Government left our schools and colleges. Shortly before the election, I spoke to a school governor in my constituency who told me that their school is at rock bottom. Their school budget has been so squeezed that they are reliant on Amazon wish lists from which parents are asked to provide basic essentials such as whiteboard pens and glue sticks. That has become the reality for so many schools up and down the country. Not only are schools struggling to afford basic supplies, but they lack the resources to maintain their buildings. It is now well documented that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Chancellor, repeatedly refused to fund the investment in school buildings that the Department for Education made clear was needed. The result? Children are being taught in classrooms with leaky windows, broken heating and crumbling concrete.
Where even to start with special educational needs? We heard about this issue from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I suspect that every Member across this House, new and returning, has a bulging inbox of SEND casework. The system is in crisis. Local authorities are stretched to the limit and our most vulnerable children are struggling, with their parents stuck in an adversarial system, fighting day in and day out to ensure that their children can get an education and the support that they deserve to thrive. Inadequate support for SEND children in mainstream schools, coupled with a lack of specialist provision, means that too many children are languishing at home without proper access to education, or travelling huge distances at great cost to overstretched local authorities because there just is not enough local provision.
The lack of provision is having an impact on not only our pupils but our teachers. Many are being driven out of the profession because of the pressures that they face. They often tell me that they are acting as the fourth emergency service, because all the support services outside our schools are crumbling. Not enough new teachers are entering our classrooms, despite the figures that the shadow Secretary of State gave. The previous Conservative Government missed their own secondary schoolteacher training targets for 10 out of 11 years. That means not only that many children are not being taught by a specialist in their subject but that existing teachers are having to take on inordinate workloads due to the lack of staff. A study conducted this year found that 86% of teachers believe that their job has negatively impacted their mental health, with an increased workload being the main cause of stress. Over the past nine years, the Conservatives neglected our education system, and our children and young people are now paying the price. For the sake of our future generations, we must prioritise fixing it. [Interruption.] I will mention the coalition shortly, just to cheer up the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra).
The Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement in the King’s Speech of a children’s wellbeing Bill. We have long argued that wellbeing should be at the heart of our policymaking for children and young people. Hungry children struggling with their mental health will not be able to achieve their potential, either academically or socially. We know that poverty and mental ill health are significant contributors to the staggering numbers of children missing from school. We welcome the long-awaited introduction of the children-not-in-school register, a measure that has had cross-party support for several years and featured in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. This is particularly important given that last autumn term there were 33,000 children missing from education, with vulnerable children slipping under the radar. The change is long overdue, and I hope that the Government implement it without delay.
That register is very important for safeguarding, but we must address the underlying causes of school absence. We have seen an explosion of mental ill health among children and young people in recent years. It is estimated that one in five children have a probable mental health disorder—that is six in every classroom. A lack of available mental health support means that many children are left languishing at home, missing out on key learning time. It also has much more serious consequences. The day after the election was called, I spoke to a local secondary headteacher in my constituency; several children in recent months had ended up in A&E after attempted suicide. A broken mother, whose teenage daughter had tragically been successful in taking her own life earlier this year, approached me in a local park and spoke to me about how local services had let her daughter down.
Prevention is better than cure. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a mental health practitioner in every secondary school, but we must start at a younger age. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for the introduction of mental health practitioners in every primary and secondary school. I recognise the mental health support teams introduced by the previous Government, but they are shared across far too many schools. The average primary school gets half a day a week, and the average secondary school gets maybe one or two days a week. Those schools need full-time dedicated support, given the level of need in schools. We know that 50% of all lifetime mental health disorders develop by the age of 14. Putting mental health practitioners in every primary school would allow us to address those issues before they become permanent, ultimately saving our health services money in the long term.
Another underlying cause of absence from school, and pressure on school staff, is the growing number of children living in poverty. It is disappointing that the Government continue to refuse to lift the two-child cap on benefits. The Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign for that cruel policy to be removed, which would immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty. Children up and down the country cannot afford to eat, with some children being forced to pretend to eat out of empty lunchboxes, or reportedly even eating rubbers out of desperation. In a country as wealthy as ours, no child should be going hungry at school. That is why I am immensely proud that it was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced free school meals for every infant schoolchild. [Interruption.] It was a Liberal Democrat policy that we had to fight for in Government. The benefits of free school meals are immense. They save parents time and money, help children to eat more healthily, and have even been proven to boost educational outcomes.
Although Labour has proposed free breakfast clubs for children in primary school, which will be beneficial, often the children most in need are those living very far from school in temporary accommodation, who have extremely long journeys and simply cannot get to school in time for breakfast. Free school meals guarantee that those children have access to a hot, healthy meal in the middle of each school day to give them the energy that they need to learn. Most importantly, hunger does not stop at the age of 11. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, an estimated 900,000 children in poverty miss out on free school meals, and many of them are in secondary school. That is why the Liberal Democrats are committed to rolling out free school meals to every child in poverty, whether they are primary or secondary school age, in line with Henry Dimbleby’s recommendations to the previous Conservative Government, which they completely ignored.
Sadly, research shows that the inequalities within our education system are deepening. As we have heard, according to data published by the Education Policy Institute just last week, by the time students from a disadvantaged background leave secondary school they are 19.2 months behind their peers. That is the highest attainment gap in over 10 years. Established by the Liberal Democrats in Government, the pupil premium was once a vital fund to support disadvantaged children. Unfortunately, we have seen that value erode by some 14% in real terms since the Tories were left to their own devices in 2015. One proven method to tackle the attainment gap is tutoring in small groups and one to one. In fact, research conducted by the Education Endowment Foundation shows that over the course of a year an average four months of additional progress is made because of tutoring. Although flawed in its delivery, the national tutoring programme, which was introduced during covid, and the 16 to 19 tuition fund had a transformational impact for many pupils. Talking about his experience of tutoring, Aiden from London South East Colleges said that he was aiming only for a 4 the third time he retook his English GCSE—he just wanted to get it over and done with—but he now has a 6, and it is all thanks to his tutor. He is going on to do higher-level qualifications, and he hopes to go to university and become a paramedic.
It was not just Aiden whose grades improved; there were 62,000 additional passes in GCSE English and maths over the two years that Government-funded tutoring was in existence. Sadly, at the last Budget, the Conservative Government refused to continue funding for the national tutoring programme or the 16 to 19 tuition fund. The funding runs out today, pretty much, because it is the end of the academic year. Given the new Secretary of State’s stated commitment to extending opportunity to all and narrowing the attainment gap, will she look at the programme urgently and ensure that tutoring funding continues?
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Will my right hon. Friend allow an intervention?
Munira Wilson
I am not right honourable just yet, but I give way to my hon. Friend.
Susan Murray
Apologies. Given what my hon. Friend is talking about, it is important to note that applying VAT to independent schools will have a significant effect on their affordability for parents who make that choice. In my Mid Dunbartonshire constituency, not all parents will be able to afford the extra 20% per child. We hear about the pressure that the state is already under. Does she agree that there will be significant additional costs to the state in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales—
Munira Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. She pre-empts what I was about to say about the issue of VAT on private school fees and the pressures that it will create for some families and schools.
I have set out a range of targeted measures that I think would help tackle the disadvantage gap. They were part of an ambitious package that the Liberal Democrats put forward at the election to ensure that our education system enables every child to thrive and that the local state school is the school of choice for every family in this country. But as liberals, we champion choice, and it is important that parents can choose the best and most appropriate option for their children. Importantly, and fundamentally, we believe in the principle that education—whether we are talking about private schools, music tuition, private tutoring or childcare—should not be taxed, so we oppose the Labour Government’s policy to introduce VAT on independent school fees.
I do not think the policy will do much at all to boost our state schools. In fact, it risks reducing the brilliant partnership work—the sharing of staff time and facilities, for example—that we see between so many private schools and their local state schools. I have seen that vividly, with Hampton school and Lady Eleanor Holles school in my constituency working with the Reach academy in Feltham, in a very deprived area. They have really helped to boost the life chances of many of those children in Feltham, including by helping with coaching for university and medical school interviews.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that in many local authority areas, such as mine in Buckinghamshire, schools are already oversubscribed, so the places in the state sector simply do not exist for independent school parents who find they can no longer afford the fees?
Munira Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I hear repeatedly that there are areas across the country where schools are full and parents are wondering where on earth they will be able to send their children to school. It is simply not true that it is just the ultra-wealthy who send their kids to private school. I am particularly concerned about those parents who, for whatever reason, feel that the local state school is not best suited to their child’s needs. That particularly applies to the 100,000 children in the independent sector with special educational needs who do not qualify for an education, health and care plan and will not be exempted under the Government’s proposed policy.
I have heard too often from parents, on the doorstep and in my inbox, “I really want to send my child to the local state school, and we tried it, but it just couldn’t meet my child’s needs, so we are now making all sorts of sacrifices to send them to a much smaller, more pastoral independent school, where they have been transformed.” It is those families, who will be penalised under this policy, that I am particularly worried about. The vast majority of independent schools are small, with fewer than 400 pupils, and a number will struggle to survive as parents are priced out, putting pressure on state schools, as we have heard.
Today’s debate is focused on education and opportunity. As Liberal Democrats, we recognise that education is the ultimate creator of opportunity and empowers every person to build a better future for themselves and contribute to our economy and society, yet our young people have been let down for far too long. I desperately hope that, with a new Government, that will change, and I look forward to working constructively with them wherever possible on meaningful action to ensure that it does.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
We come to our first maiden speech this afternoon—I call Darren Paffey.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by congratulating you and wishing you well as you take the Chair? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her new position. People in my constituency—parents, teachers, pupils and professionals alike—will be heartened by the vision she set out for how this Labour Government will build opportunity once again.
As I stand here as a new MP—I have to keep saying it to believe it—I want to thank the people of Southampton Itchen for the incredible privilege that they have given me. In fact, this feels like a moment heavy with lots of privileges. One is the privilege to be in the Chamber as many of my colleagues make their maiden speeches, and I congratulate them in advance on the excellent speeches we are going to hear this afternoon. Another privilege is to be one of only three Darrens ever elected to this place. Since the summoning of the first Parliament over 750 years ago, there had been no MPs called Darren, but, like buses, three of us have turned up in the last few years.
The biggest privilege of all is to make my very first speech as the Member of Parliament for Southampton Itchen in this debate about education and opportunity, because, like my right hon. Friend, that is my story. As a former university lecturer married to a secondary school teacher, with children in secondary school, primary school and preschool, I feel like I have some skin in this game. None of the privileges that I feel at the moment is anyone’s birthright; they are privileges for which I and many other people—my team and activists—have worked very hard, so I do not take them for granted.
In addition to being part of the small crack squad of Darrens, I find myself in an equally small cohort of only a few MPs known to have grown up in foster care and to have been adopted. The public services that we are talking about today, and that this Government will rebuild, are the services that made me who I am—the NHS staff, the social workers and the inspiring teachers.
When I was made cabinet member for children’s services in Southampton, it felt like life had come full circle, and it really did so again just a few weeks ago during the campaign when Peter, who was the social worker for the first 10 years of my life, got in touch to wish me well. It was excellent to hear that he is a lifelong Labour supporter. As a cabinet member, I worked to get better support for our care-experienced young people, because too many do not get the start they deserve or the help they need, and we must do more to fight for them. I look forward to working with, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who has done excellent work on the need to review social care. I know that he will continue to be a great champion for care-experienced children.
In the Gracious Speech, His Majesty set out the Labour Government’s mission to
“break down barriers to opportunity”
and to “promote children’s wellbeing”. The Secretary of State has said:
“I will help working-class children defy the odds to succeed—just as I did.”
As someone who grew up as a working-class foster kid, I will do everything I can to back that mission, especially for my constituents. If I achieve just one thing as an MP—obviously, I intend to work hard and achieve more than that—I hope it will be to say to those whose backgrounds look anything like mine, “Let those challenging times and that stigma that often comes with social care never ever hold you back, but instead forge in yourself a steely determination to achieve your fullest potential.” I would not be here without some measure of that. I certainly would not be here without my wonderful wife, children and siblings, who have supported and often tolerated my journey to Parliament, or my parents, who are no longer with us to share this moment, but whom I thank for the values they instilled in me and the opportunities they provided me with in life.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Royston Smith. Before he was an MP, Royston was the Conservative leader of Southampton city council, and it was as council leader that he visited HMS Astute when it was in port. A dreadful and fatal gun attack broke out, and Royston showed enormous bravery by tackling and disarming the gunman, preventing further bloodshed. For this, he was rightly awarded the George Medal by Her late Majesty. Royston fought in Parliament for those constituents affected by the cladding scandal over the years, and I hope to carry on his important work. Party politics aside, I was touched to receive a gracious letter from him, congratulating me and offering some wise words of advice. I think that that is a measure of the man.
There is another accolade for Royston, as he was only the second Conservative to beat Labour in Southampton Itchen since the wars. He succeeded the right hon. John Denham, my Labour predecessor, who served our city for 23 years and attained high office in Cabinet. John has been a role model, mentor and friend to me.
Turning to my wonderful constituency, it sits on the near-tropical south coast of England. The River Itchen, which gives my constituency its name, has shaped our landscape and communities since the establishment of Saxon Hamwic and Roman Clausentum. We are a port city and the cruise capital of northern Europe, but we are also a bustling hub of culture, commerce, and maritime heritage. From the medieval Bargate and city walls to the groundbreaking Ocean Infinity, Starling bank, and the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton is a place where history and innovation walk hand in hand. We are an outward-looking city; we are the gateway to the world, as we have often been called. The pilgrim fathers sailed from Southampton, as did our brave D-day troops. Spitfires and military ships were manufactured on the shores of the Itchen in Woolston.
We have two world-leading and civic-focused universities, and marine and green tech enterprises abound. Southampton is a place where public servants and labourers, stevedores and students, entrepreneurs and artists all contribute to the rich mosaic of daily life. Our people are resilient, diverse, welcoming and warm. Our city faces challenges, like many others, including health inequalities, and child poverty levels are far too high. Many compare us demographically to a large northern seat, but one that happens to be in the south. We are also a microcosm of the country’s broader ambitions and a beacon of the potential still to be unleashed. Indeed, our vision is to be a city of opportunity.
We are a premier league football city, after a short interlude in the championship, and I congratulate the team on winning promotion in May. When the Saints went marching in to Wembley to win the play-offs, I was proud to be in that number watching their victory. Commiserations to any Leeds fans in the Chamber. It was fantastic to see the Leader of the Opposition, a fellow Saints fan, also in that number, cheering on a victory for the red team—something that keeps happening this year.
In closing, I return to my starting point. It is a phenomenal privilege to be here. Many see this Chamber from the outside and think of combative Punch and Judy politics, but as I join these Benches, I look over at the plaque remembering our colleague Jo Cox and recall her words that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
To every constituent, whether they voted for me or not, Jo’s inspiring words are the spirit in which I intend to work hard for them, together with colleagues across the House, for as long as I enjoy the privilege to serve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
As a former maritime Minister, I visited tropical Southampton Itchen very often. I call Sarah Dyke.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to the Chamber, as I do the Secretary of State and her team. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on his maiden speech. He joins two other Darrens. I am one of many Sarahs in the House; until recently, we formed nearly 30% of the Liberal Democrats. I am happy to say that we are now more diverse in our names.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about education and opportunity, but the sad reality is that many children across Glastonbury and Somerton are missing out on the opportunity to have an education, as they have additional requirements that their schools are simply unable to accommodate. After the Conservative Government’s cuts to school and council budgets, education, health and care plans have become the only avenue for families seeking to access support. They face a postcode lottery and are forced to wait months to get the support that they need. Demand for EHCPs has tripled since covid, and local authorities are struggling to meet demand. Only half of EHCPs are issued within the statutory 20-week timeframe. At this point I must declare an interest as a serving Somerset councillor.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Today, North Yorkshire council has moved to restrict the services that it offers for home-to-school transport, which will have a disproportionate impact on rural schools and families. The Conservatives have been swept from power in Parliament, but they are still having a damaging impact on local government in areas such as mine in North Yorkshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should provide rural families and schools with more support, not less, to tackle the challenges that they face?
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. Likewise, Somerset council is forecast to spend £140 million this year on children and family services, including on special educational needs and disabilities provision—a 14% increase on last year. The increase in EHCPs has also increased the cost of home-to-school transport. The high costs are further exacerbated in Somerset because it is such a large, rural county, like Yorkshire. The average cost to Somerset council of travel for one passenger with SEND is over £7,000 a year.
Cumulatively, the local authority high-needs budget deficit is estimated to be £2.3 billion, and the figure is ever increasing; the latest estimate is that the deficit will increase to £3.6 billion by 2025. There are many local authorities working with the Department for Education through interventions such as the safety valve programme. Those programmes demonstrate that local authorities, despite employing best practice, are still struggling to cover the deficit, and any savings made are likely to be lost through inflation.
The Liberal Democrats want to end the SEND postcode lottery that families face by giving local authorities extra funding to reduce the amount that schools pay towards children’s EHCPs. This is urgent, because children are suffering. They are unhappy, they are missing their friends, and they are missing their education—and as a result, their families are suffering, too.
I spoke recently to the parents of a child in Wincanton who had an EHCP that needed an urgent review. It did not happen, and the child’s school could not meet their needs. That resulted in them being absent from school and missing months of crucial education. I have also been working with a group of parents of children with SEND, and one mother from Curry Mallet told me that she believes our education system will see a rise in attendance problems and adverse mental health, and an increased need for SEND support, due to the inflexibility of the system and its inadequacy for meeting the needs of young people in modern times.
It is a total disgrace for any child to be left without an education, because—if I may return to the title of this debate—it strips them of opportunity. Children with SEND will continue to suffer as a result of the lack of places at special schools. Government statistics from earlier this year revealed that around two thirds of special schools are full or over capacity, with Department for Education data showing that there are around 4,000 more pupils on roll in special schools than there is reported capacity. In Glastonbury and Somerton there are two special schools, and I hope that a third will be ready to open near Ash for the start of the new school year, providing much needed extra provision.
Children and their families across the country face a crisis caused by the lack of specialist provision, and it will not go away. Cuts to council budgets under the Conservatives have made the situation intolerable, and we must act urgently to reverse them. Liberal Democrats will work with the Government to ensure that all children can access the tailored learning and support that they need. I believe that we must set up a dedicated national body for SEND, to act as a champion for children with complex needs and ensure that they receive tailored support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for what she has said. She is right to focus on SEND. In the press last week, it was indicated that if children who have autism have early diagnosis and treatment, and an education system put in place, the autism, no matter how severe, can be reduced to a level that means that the child can have an education and a job. If we get it right early, we prepare that child for the future.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important and valid point.
I briefly shift my focus towards the forthcoming curriculum and assessment review. I have been speaking to the principle of Strode college in Street, which has around 550 students on BTec courses that will be de-funded following that review. I know that the Government’s policy is to pause and delay the defunding of applied general qualifications; I encourage the Secretary of State, who is no longer in her place, to ensure that that remains the case, to prevent any unnecessary interruption to students’ education.
I believe that every child, no matter their background, can achieve great things, and we must give them the opportunity to do so.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Congratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on taking your place. It is wonderful to see you here. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on his maiden speech. It was very moving, informative and funny, exactly as maiden speeches as ought to be, and I hope that he has a successful time in this place.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on children with special educational needs, but I want to raise an issue that has already been mentioned a number of times: the lack of available school spaces for children with special educational needs. I want to talk about two schools in my Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency, Cambridge Park academy and Humberston Park school. The parents of children there with special educational needs are very concerned about their education, because the schools lack capacity and the places to meet the needs of the area. The parents also have concerns that if their children cannot go to local schools, they will have to go out of area. That adds pressure to children, who will perhaps have to move away from friendship groups, and to families, because there would be additional travel time, and they would be further away if issues arose with the child in that out-of-area placement. That is incredibly difficult for families.
We should also mention the problems when children with special educational needs or disabilities reach the 16-plus point in education. They can become trapped in a never-ending cycle of trying to achieve level 1 or level 2 qualifications in maths and English—qualifications that sometimes they are just not going to achieve. That just sets them up repeatedly for failure. I urge the new Secretary of State and her team to take a look at that and perhaps consider being more flexible. We should view education in the light of supporting young people to achieve their maximum potential, and not focus on that very narrow academic path.
I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on state-maintained nurseries. We have the state-maintained Great Coates village nursery in my constituency, and Scartho nursery school sits just outside my constituency, but services children within it. Both face an increasingly challenging environment. During my previous time in Parliament, I championed those nursery schools and secured additional funding for them, but that was only temporary; again, our local Conservative council is seeking to reduce the number of state-maintained nurseries, due to a funding shortage. I ask that that be looked at as a matter of urgency.
As has just been mentioned, the Conservative Government had started the process of scrapping BTecs—a decision that the Protect Student Choice campaign has described as “reckless”. It will be welcomed across the sector that this new Labour Government have decided to pause and review that decision. BTec qualification are well understood by employers. Applied general qualifications lend themselves well to young people who are not sure about their career path but have an interest in a particular sector or industry. I talked about young people with SEND whom the cycle of repeating maths and English does not suit; BTecs may be the right route for them. They are flexible, they sit well alongside other academic qualifications such as A-levels and apprenticeships, and they can be studied as stand-alone courses.
When we in Labour talk about opportunity, surely flexibility and a range of options to support young people through their learning and education must feature. The Secretary of State speaks of breaking the class ceiling, and BTecs enable that very thing. For those for whom the strictures of the current school system have not captured their skills or energies, BTecs allow for broad exploration of a working area and provide another route into university or employment.
Franklin sixth form college in my constituency—which was my college—has had great success. Its BTec students have gone on to work as paramedics, in nursing and in engineering. I take this opportunity to commend the outgoing principal, Peter Kennedy, on his excellent work during his time at the college, when it has gone from “requires improvement” to “outstanding” in its Ofsted inspections. I know that he would want me to recognise the excellent support that he has had from his governors and staff, who have supported his vision for the growth and improvement of the college. They have done amazing work and provided an outstanding education establishment for a growing number of young people. I wish him well in his retirement. I welcome the incoming principal, Wendy Ellis, who I am confident will continue that excellent work and—like Peter—will never lose her enthusiasm for young people.
It is imperative for the young people of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes that a plan for BTecs is put in place swiftly to ensure that there is sufficient time for colleges to advertise courses and for students to know what is available in time for the 2025 terms. I was going to ask how long the review process would take, but the Secretary of State took the wind right out of my sails by saying that it will be complete by the end of the year, That is excellent and welcome news, and I congratulate the team on taking that process seriously and putting a set of measures in place swiftly. As part of that review, the Government could consider allowing students to enrol on all 134 existing applied general qualifications—the AGQs that have been mentioned—up to and including the 2026-27 academic year. If it helps the Government make a decision, that would cost nothing because funding was not due to be withdrawn until 1 August 2025, and it would avoid the concern about young people disengaging entirely from education without options such as BTecs being available.
I ask the House to give me a little leeway to talk specifically about academisation. I would not ordinarily rise to speak in favour of academies as a broad-brush educational principle, but that is the landscape that we currently find ourselves in—one that Franklin college would like to explore as an empty multi-academy trust. It would be a local, substantial system-led MAT for northern and coastal Lincolnshire. That status has been applied for via a very exceptional route, as I understand it, but the application is currently sitting with regional directors of the DFE, despite the proposal being widely supported by local stakeholders.
The principle behind the move towards academisation is to build on the college’s strong track record of support for local schools and academies, and engagement with employers and other organisations on initiatives to materially change young people’s lives. The change in status would allow the college to support the area’s schools and employers to meet future need for highly educated, highly skilled young people. For growing local industries, such as clean energy, that is absolutely necessary. Perhaps the Secretary of State or her team could write to advise me on how that process can be moved along to the next stage. That would give confidence and clarity to the college and potential future partners, and would be of benefit to the whole of northern Lincolnshire and beyond.
The future of young people in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes is a concern not just for me but for the local authority and the wider community. There is a strong desire across the constituency not just for available and plentiful opportunities for children and students, but for the provision to get them into those opportunities easily. The young people of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes have all the same ambition and talent as young people anywhere else in the country, and I want that ambition and talent to be nurtured, with the right structures in place to enable and lift every single one of them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
I call Aphra Brandreth to make her maiden speech.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on his maiden speech. This is my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I must tell you that I arrive in this place fired with enthusiasm—so much so that my Whip has warned me that I need to be careful that that is not how I end up leaving this place: fired, with enthusiasm.
I am new woman representing a new constituency: Chester South and Eddisbury. It is without doubt one of the most beautiful, extraordinary and inspiring parts of the United Kingdom, encompassing the southern wards of the great city of Chester, those below the River Dee, and many and varied villages in the heart of Cheshire. Audlem, Bunbury, Wybunbury, Wrenbury, Weaverham, Lache, Handbridge, Christleton and Huntington, Tarporley, Tattenhall, Tarvin, Kelsall, Cuddington, Farndon, Malpas—those are just some of the very special places with which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this House are going to become quite familiar in the coming years, I hope.
Much of my constituency is rural, which is one reason why I found the King’s Speech so disappointing. This Government profess an ambition for growth; if so, it is simply extraordinary that there was no mention of the contribution of farming to our national economy. Food is fundamental: the contribution of the countryside to our country is incalculable, and a Government who are so metropolitan in their outlook that they fail to understand that and reflect it in their agenda are, to use the context of today’s debate, both missing an opportunity and in need of an education. My constituency is both urban and rural, as is our country. Understanding the importance of both, and the necessary balance between the two, is key to our country’s future economic and societal success.
The joy of my constituency is that it includes a rich range of dynamic village communities and a swathe of one of the greatest historic cities in Europe, the matchless city of Chester. It is a business and tourism hub that faces challenges, of course—from basic connectivity to burdensome business rates—yet boasts many successes, among them the major employers in the Chester business park and the University of Chester, whose business school falls within my constituency and at which no fewer than 27 Commonwealth countries are represented among its staff and students. In the 2023 international barometer survey, the university was named in the top 10 nationally in 20 categories, including a top three placing and four top five category placings. Chester’s potential is unlimited, and I shall seek to ensure that this Government give it the fullest chance to bloom.
There are also fantastic schools in Chester South and Eddisbury, some of which I have already had the pleasure of visiting and many more that I look forward to going to over the coming months. Alongside our excellent state schools, we have two independent schools educating over 1,600 pupils, including nearly 400 students with SEND support who do not have education, health and care plans. Those students will face VAT under the Government’s current plans—plans that will reduce choice for parents and increase pressure on the state school system, with no clear benefit to any of our young people.
Chester South and Eddisbury has much to offer, from the glories of Delamere forest—which welcomes more than 750,000 visitors each year—to the excitement of Oulton Park racetrack and Peckforton castle, the home of civil weddings in England. I say that advisedly, because it was the then owner of Peckforton castle who inspired a former Member of Parliament for the City of Chester to introduce a private Member’s Bill that became the Marriage Act 1994. For the first time, that Act allowed civil weddings in this country to take place in venues other than registry offices, including castles, historic houses, hotels and Chester zoo. Some might argue that that single piece of legislation has contributed more to happiness in England than any other legislation of its type.
The former Member who introduced that legislation, who I know quite well—in fact, I have known him since I was born—reminds me regularly that his 1994 Act illustrates how, in this place, an ordinary Back Bencher can make a difference. I hope to make a difference in the years to come, not only by badgering the Government about delivering local bus services and improving mobile phone and broadband connectivity, and demanding that they back our farmers and ensure the investment and infrastructure our villages and city need to thrive, but perhaps by introducing legislation of my own in the fullness of time.
I draw inspiration from my constituency and from my predecessors: not only my father, who was the Member for City of Chester in the 1990s—Mr Speaker will know both how marvellous and, sometimes, how irritating it can be to have a parent who was themselves a Member—but the newly elected hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who sits on the Government Benches and who previously represented the City of Chester. I look forward to working with her on matters of mutual benefit to our constituents. I particularly share with my predecessor in Eddisbury, Edward Timpson, his inspiring passion for education and his concern for the care and development of young people.
Another of my distinguished predecessors from whom I have learned is Stephen O’Brien. In his maiden speech a quarter of a century ago, he said something that I, as someone who served in the civil service for more than a decade and went on to run a small business, can wholeheartedly echo as I visit the many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency:
“The prosperity of those businesses is primarily dependent on less government, less tax, less interference and, above all, a release from the stranglehold of regulations, choking as they do a business’s ability to compete and an entrepreneur’s incentive to take the risk”.—[Official Report, 28 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 1159.]
With such a constituency and such predecessors, I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants, with much to do and prove.
The House of Commons Library, which I have to say I am already finding invaluable, has advised me that I am the first Member of Parliament in its entire history to have the forename Aphra. I am named after Aphra Behn, the 17th-century playwright, poet and author, who was the first British woman to earn her living as a writer. The great 20th-century novelist Virginia Woolf said of her:
“All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn…for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds.”
What a privilege it is to be in this place, in the 21st century, able to speak my mind on behalf of my constituents across Chester South and Eddisbury.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Catherine Atkinson to make her maiden speech.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your new position, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on her first speech. I begin mine by paying tribute to my predecessor, Amanda Solloway, who was a committed advocate for those struggling with their mental health, and part of the generation of parliamentarians who have helped to make it acceptable to talk about. I also want to pay tribute to a woman who has been an incredible inspiration to me for her work representing our city and as the first woman leader of the Labour party and the first woman Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Dame Margaret Beckett. I am very pleased that we will continue to benefit from her wisdom in the other place.
Looking out from the top of the Derby cathedral tower, to the north you can see the River Derwent, which wends its way to Darley Abbey and the magnificent mills in the Derwent valley, the birthplace of the industrial revolution. You can see the communities of Mackworth, New Zealand, Mickleover, Littleover, Stockbrook, California, Chaddesden, Breadsall Hilltop, Normanton, Oakwood and Darley, each with their own distinctive character and with a wonderful diversity of faiths and backgrounds. My own background, a mix of Lancastrian and Mexican American, is perhaps an unusual one, but I have never felt out of place—many communities, but one Derby.
You can also see the Royal Derby hospital and the medical school that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has visited, which will benefit from the doubling of medical school places. You can see some of the sites where building work is regenerating the city, including the new Derby University business school. If you look over to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), you can see some of the industries in which many Derby North constituents work. Rolls-Royce, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor rightly called
“the very model of a great British business”
when she was there a few weeks ago, is one of the businesses in Derby championing new technologies, excellence and expertise, and it is at the frontline in the fight against climate change. You can see Pride Park stadium, home of Derby County, back in the Championship, ready to bounce back like our city and our country. It is one of this country’s true community clubs that I hope will be protected for the future by the Football Governance Bill.
Why have I described Derby North and its surroundings as if standing on top of the cathedral tower? Because I have been there. My nine-year-old son and I abseiled down it a year ago for the children’s hospice charity Rainbows. The reward was that awe-inspiring view, but the feeling was very similar to the fear I am experiencing now. People might assume that, after 17 years as a barrister, speaking in this place would be easy. They would be wrong. Speaking here for the first time, there is a very special sense of responsibility and humility, and neither role would have been possible without the good state education that I had. Wanting to give back is why I used to be a chair of governors at a nursery school and children’s centre. It is why I helped to lead the successful campaign to stop the closure of Ashgate nursery school. It is why I am committed to championing all the nurseries, schools and colleges and the university in Derby North. It is why I am so excited about the children’s wellbeing Bill that will break down barriers to opportunity for all our children and young people.
The legendary Derby County manager Brian Clough summed it up:
“I think everyone should have a book. I think everyone should have a nice classroom to go to. I think everyone should have the same opportunities…The chance to have a few bob and get on.”
Who could disagree? Derby has a deep Labour tradition, returning the first Labour MP in England. Now Labour represents every corner of Derbyshire, and I feel that the voters have sent me not as an individual, but as part of a team.
There is also a proud tradition of rail manufacturing that I will champion too. Two centuries of train building in Derby ground to a halt this year. Jobs were lost and, at the train manufacturer Alstom, nearly 1,000 years of welding experience walked out the door in a single day. Workers, their representatives and many others, not least my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, called for action. There is now a new order for trains for the Elizabeth line. The Mayor of London called my lobbying for new trains “a little intense.” I am afraid that is something this House may have to get used to.
In Derby, Great British Railways will bring rail back into public ownership and help create the conditions for rail to thrive again. With its headquarters in Derby, Derby will be the rail capital of Britain. It is clear that we need an industrial strategy that commits to the midlands. The economy that was broken in Whitehall can only be rebuilt in the regions. The actor Robert Lindsay, who has supported me since I was a candidate in his home town of Ilkeston, is one of many who I need to thank for their enduring support. He congratulated me on my election using the words of his character Wolfie in “Citizen Smith”—“Power to the people.” There is no greater power that you can give to people than through education. It is a power that could ensure that everyone in Derby North fulfils their potential, so it is with pride that I support the Government’s strong emphasis on education, skills and opportunity. That is what will bring real power to the people. I hope to play my part in bringing about the change that Derby North and this country voted for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Dr Al Pinkerton to make his maiden speech.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing me the opportunity to intervene in this important debate and, in so doing, to give my maiden speech. I also congratulate you on both of your recent election successes and welcome you to the Chair.
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I was delighted in particular to hear about her recent abseiling exploits. I wondered whether she was giving a maiden speech or making a pitch to be the next Lib Dem party leader, but it was wonderful to hear her rich and powerful evocation of Derby North—I thank her very much. I also pay tribute to the other maiden speakers today and last week. The quality of speeches and the intellectual energy of those new Members suggest that this Parliament will be enhanced by a new generation of thinkers and doers who will serve this place and their constituents well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am especially grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye on an occasion when education is placed in the parliamentary spotlight. I have dedicated my working life to teaching and researching in higher education, most recently as a Professor of Geopolitics at Royal Holloway, University of London, where I worked with generations of incredible students who have gone on to incredible things in the public, private and charitable sectors. I am proud to say that three of my former students were candidates in the recent general election, at least two are current heads of office or special advisers to senior Members of the House, and one is a rising star of the lobby press. I take no credit for what they do—what they have achieved, they have achieved themselves—but I hope that they will forgive me if I feel some pride in what they do and the contributions they make, even if those contributions are all too often disproportionately favoured towards the Conservative party.
Surrey Heath is blessed with an extraordinary state and independent school system within and local to our constituency. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that teachers and senior leaderships do in supporting generations of young people, providing them with knowledge and the critical and practical skills that are vital preparation for further learning and successful careers. As was reinforced in the recent general election campaign, Surrey Heath’s state schools achieve all of that while edging ever closer to financial crisis.
I welcome and will support any initiative put before the House that will raise educational standards and drive opportunity. Education, after all, is the engine of social mobility and our country’s future economic prosperity. I sincerely hope that, with this change of Government, the hostility that has been directed towards the UK’s genuinely world-leading universities will end. The new Government now have an opportunity to walk the sector back from the brink of financial crisis—indeed catastrophe, as I saw in the newspapers this week—and to recognise again the intrinsic value of higher education, and the role of our universities as powerful instruments of local economic growth and the foundation of our national success in research, innovation and skills.
Surrey Heath is a wonderful place to live. We are blessed with striking and historic landscapes. As the name of the constituency suggests, we are defined by ancient lowland heaths: lasting remnants of prehistoric woodland cleared over the centuries and kept clear by grazing, burning and cutting. Although not strictly natural, these heaths are the preserve of unique ecosystems and biodiversity.
Chobham common is one of the finest remaining examples of lowland heath left anywhere in the world. Wildfires are common—increasingly so—as we are gripped by the climate crisis. We are grateful to the brave men and women of Surrey Fire and Rescue, who battle the toughest of conditions to keep residents and their property safe. They deserve our fullest support, especially now as they go into battle again, facing another round of cuts to that vital-to-life service.
Surrey Heath is a borough and a constituency with a long and proud military tradition, from the development of Chobham armour in the 1960s to the present-day home of ATC Pirbright—a place that any new recruit to the British Army will come to know all too well. Surrey Heath is also home to Gordon’s school, founded in 1885, which is both an award-winning state boarding school and a national monument to General Gordon of Khartoum. The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, where British Army officers are trained, straddles the boundaries of Surrey Heath and nearby Bracknell Forest—although most of the RMA’s buildings are technically in Berkshire, I will claim them a little for Surrey Heath today.
There can be no doubt of the connection between Sandhurst and Surrey Heath’s main market town of Camberley. Camberley is a product of the Royal Military College, which was formed in Sandhurst in 1812. In the years that followed, settlements formed at the margins of the college, including the planned community of Cambridge Town, named after the Duke of Cambridge, the head of the British army at the time. As the town grew, so did confusion between Cambridge Town and Cambridge, its much less well known and less distinguished namesake somewhere in the midlands—apologies to hon. Members representing Cambridge. This problem was especially felt by users of the postal service, whose letters would frequently find themselves long delayed and hundreds of miles from their intended destinations—150 years has gone by, and little has changed.
Royal Mail requested a name change, and it was the newer upstart Cambridge Town that relented, changing its identity in 1877 to Camberley: a portmanteau referencing the River Cam, which still runs underneath the town; “Amber”, in reference to nearby Amber Hill; and “ley”, which is the Anglo-Saxon for a forest clearing and commonly used as a suffix in nearby placenames such as Frimley and Bisley, also in Surrey Heath.
Surrey Heath has a rich musical and artistic tradition. Camberley was the childhood home of Sir Arthur Sullivan and Bros—rich musical tradition—and today is home to musician, astrophysicist and animal welfare activist Dr Brian May. Daphne du Maurier wrote “Jamaica Inn” while living in Frimley, and we are hopeful that a blue plaque may soon mark that spot as Surrey Heath’s contribution to British literary history. We are home to extraordinary local, national and international businesses too numerous to mention, as well as a vibrant charitable and voluntary sector and a community of multiple faith traditions, ethnicities and nationalities, including a large and historic Gurkha community.
During the pandemic, residents self-organised into a remarkable community-wide response to covid-19. Surrey Heath Prepared delivered essential food parcels and thousands of prescriptions to the isolating and vulnerable—an expression of community resilience and solidarity when it was most needed. I hope that contributions by the likes of Surrey Heath Prepared and mutual aid groups will not be forgotten in the inquiry under way into how the UK responded to the pandemic.
Following the recent boundary review that brought the beautiful villages of Normandy and Pirbright into the constituency, Surrey Heath is officially the resting place of at least two significant figures of empire. Sir Henry Morton Stanley is buried in Pirbright, near the home he created for himself after his return from Africa. Perhaps worthy of greater celebration is John Pennycuick, an extraordinary engineer and colonial administrator with the vision and skill to construct the Mullaperiyar dam. Since its construction in 1895, the dam has been credited with saving tens of thousands of lives by protecting communities from seasonal flooding, and for bringing nearly a quarter of a million acres of land into crop-bearing productivity. Today, Pennycuick is revered in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu—children are given his name in his honour—yet he is almost unknown here in the UK. I hope that his mention in this House today may be a small contribution to addressing that historical absence.
Today, drivers on the M3 motorway slip quickly and efficiently—when it is not clogged up—through Surrey Heath as they travel between London and the south-west, often without even realising that they are passing through this fine constituency. On the other hand, Surrey Heath road users may be more aware of the less smooth and much less efficient point of entry on to the M3, at the junction with the A322. My predecessor Michael Gove—more on him in a moment—spent many an hour at that particular road junction over the past few years, but even his formidable talents could not resolve this serious, shared, local frustration. I hope I can make some headway on that issue in the months and years to come.
In Restoration England of the 1600s, hold-ups on the highways of what is now Surrey Heath were of a rather different kind. The Great West Road, known less prosaically today as the A30, was the main connecting route between London and the great port cities of the south coast. It was a lucrative prospect for highwaymen and opportunistic cutpurses, especially on the long, isolated stretches around Bagshot Heath. William Davis, the so-called Golden Farmer, and Claude Duval were two of the most notorious and noteworthy of the 17th century land pirates. Duval is recalled as a “gentleman of the road”. Gracious to the point of obsequiousness, he would relieve you of your jewels while dancing with your wife and complimenting you on the finery of your apparel. An abhorrer of physical violence, the history books recall him as a master of politeness, smiling pleasantly to your face while metaphorically sticking the knife in.
Now, the sharp-eared among you may recognise a passing—one might even say limited and specific—similarity between Duval and another more recent gentleman of Surrey Heath’s roads. I refer, of course, to the former Member for Surrey Heath, my predecessor, Michael Gove, who served the constituency and this House with considerable distinction and flair for just shy of 20 years. Both were men possessed of a singular vision, noted for their grace and observance of the highest courtesies and manners. Unlike Duval, there is no evidence to suggest that Michael’s outings to the A322 involved any public displays of dancing. Those, as far as we can tell, he saved for the nightclubs of old Aberdeen. Conservative Members to my right may go further, but for my part I am certain that that is where any similarities end.
Michael Gove will rightly be remembered as a transformative Minister, even by teachers—this is a debate on education—who will consider him transformative, but not necessarily beneficially so. He was a talented parliamentarian. His oratorical skills marked him out as a once-in-a-generation performer at the Dispatch Box. He will be greatly missed in this House by both his friends and his opponents, and I am sure they will want to join me in wishing him well in whatever his future has in store.
Personally, I am hugely indebted to the people of Surrey Heath for electing me to be the first non-Conservative MP for our constituency in 118 years. This was a vote to be taken seriously again—one for a local MP who will work in this place to further the cause of a great community. And we need that now more than ever. Surrey Heath’s roads and rail infrastructure require significant investment. It cannot be right that it takes longer to travel between Camberley and London in 2024 than it did a century ago. We need to end the postcode lottery of health, and to address the deep inequalities in life expectancy and life opportunities that scar and divide our communities. I welcome the commitment of the Secretary of State for Health to prioritising the rebuilding of RAAC-affected hospitals, such as Frimley Park hospital in my constituency, but we need reassurance that the new Frimley Park will be the right hospital providing the right services and sited in the most appropriate location, accessible by road, rail and bus, and that it does not come at the expense of losing vital green or amenity space. We also need a fair deal for our young people, with genuinely affordable homes, and new educational and training opportunities. We urgently need to fix Surrey’s broken special educational needs provision. In the spirit that there is always more that unites us than divides us, I look forward to working with Members across the House to achieve those things for Surrey Heath and in support of communities across the UK.
Finally, our families all too often pay a high price—indeed, the highest price—to enable us to do what we do in this House, and to participate in the long and stressful campaigns that go before and which, soon enough, will come again. In closing, I express my love and thanks to my wife, Philippa, and to my children, Jamie and Will, for putting up with me, for their limitless support, and for being the best team anyone could ever hope to be part of.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, Members may have noticed that this debate is very oversubscribed. Due to time constraints and to get as many people in as possible, I am now imposing a six-minute time limit on all Back Benchers who are not making their maiden speech.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is great to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker—a strong Yorkshirewoman, no less, which is exactly what we need in the Chair.
I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for his excellent maiden speech. He has done his constituents proud, and it was great to hear from him, and, indeed, from all who have made maiden speeches today.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned the literacy hour. As a child, I was locked out of education. I had dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyspraxia, and a host of different medical needs that make it very difficult and challenging to lead a normal life. I remember not being able to read or write legibly—some may say that I still do not write legibly—and I remember the great influence that the literacy hour had on me when I was seven and eight years old. The changing model of education, involving 15 minutes of carrying out different tasks, suited me to a T, and gave me a lifelong love of literature. It meant that by the time I took my GCSEs, instead of failing and being locked out of education, I got an A in English literature. I am still proud of that today, because it happened against all the odds.
I have been chairing the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities because I think it important for us to give young people that opportunity. The narrowing of the curriculum that we have seen over the last 14 years horrifies me. I am a scientist, and I loved drama and art at school. They unlocked creativity, which allowed me to go on to become the scientist who is creative, thinks outside the box and does great things. I want all children who are experiencing the struggles that I have faced to have the opportunities that I had, under a Labour Government—but I am going on about myself too much, because what we are here to talk about are the opportunities for our young people and our communities.
It may sound like a cliché, but it is still true to say that education is one of the main ways to create opportunity in our communities, so it is excellent that we are having this debate so early in the new Parliament, and it is good to hear from my colleagues on the Government Front Bench about the positive steps that they are taking to create an education system that is fit for all. I want to focus my comments on provision for special educational needs and disabilities, and on how we can create opportunities for everyone in the education system.
It is no secret that the new Government have inherited a SEND system in crisis, underfunded, under-resourced and understaffed. Estimates from f40 suggest that the total level of underfunding in the last Parliament was £4.6 billion, with the last Government promising only a fraction of the expenditure needed to bridge the gap. When that is combined with the chronic underfunding of local authorities, it is easy to see why there are so many stories about authorities that have been unable to meet their statutory obligations.
It is also no wonder that parents who rightly want to fight for what is best for their child have ended up going to tribunals, and more often than not they win. In only 1.7% of cases has a tribunal found in a local authority’s favour. That is a damning statistic, in two senses. First, it demonstrates the tenacity that parents need in order to secure the basic right to education for their children. It was not me but the former Education Secretary who was mentioned by the Secretary of State earlier who said that the system was “lose, lose, lose” for families, and she was right. A tribunal decision in your favour is a bitter victory when all you ask is that your child has the same opportunities as everyone else. Secondly, the extent of the skew in the tribunal figures shows that the problems are endemic and need a systemic response. Unfortunately, that was not the approach taken by the last Government: too often we saw a massaging of statistics, rather than a serious approach to tackling the underlying realities facing too many young people.
We saw the same with the target to cut the number of education, health and care plans, which was rather skirted around. It is right that we aim to reduce the reliance on EHCPs. All children should have the opportunities that they need, whether or not they have a formal diagnosis, and we also need action to ensure that people do receive the diagnoses that are so important, especially for young girls and women who often have to wait, as I did, until their late 20s or 30s, or in some cases their 50s or 60s, to receive a diagnosis to explain why they have been struggling throughout their lives.
A key task for the new Government will be to rebuild the infrastructure for early years intervention that we lost over the last 14 years. The cuts to Sure Start have been dramatic, but we also need more health visitors out in the community. The Institute of Health Visiting estimates that there is a shortfall of 5,000 in England, with 48% of health visitors saying they will leave the profession in the next five years. Shockingly, over a quarter of those surveyed said that they were servicing the needs of 750 children—three times the recommended ratio for health visitors. It is simply not good enough.
Early interventions are so important, because they can change the life course of a child. They can open opportunities that can be cut off if the right support is not in place. Early years staff with the right training can be the passionate people who spot something in a child that no others have noticed.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I really appreciate the hon. Member’s remarks. Indeed, I am thinking about young children, possibly with a SEND diagnosis, who struggle post 19. One of the things I have learned from the Northern Ireland Assembly, where I sat, is that a much more holistic model, which combines health and education, helps young people post 19. Does the hon. Member agree that we need such a model throughout the UK, and that post-19 careers advice should be done in a holistic way?
Olivia Blake
I completely agree that we need a more holistic approach. I recently visited Whirlow Hall farm in my constituency, which provides alternative provision, but also further education, in an agricultural setting. It is great to see the opportunities for the young people who go there, especially those with emotional distress and similar issues. It is really important that we see all of this in the round and make sure that there is quality in all our services—whether that is AP, education in a local mainstream school or getting access to diagnoses, which are so important for so many young people. I must not forget SALTs, or speech and language therapists; otherwise, I will get in trouble with them.
I will draw my remarks to a close. I am pleased to see the good signals and directions that we have had so far. The new approach will treat people as people, and start from the premise that whatever their need or disability, they are entitled to the same quality of education and opportunities as everyone else. I look forward to hearing from the Government what further plans they will be bringing forward to make that a reality.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Neil Shastri-Hurst to make his maiden speech.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by congratulating you on your election, and on taking up the Chair today? May I also congratulate those on the Government Front Bench on taking up the burden of ministerial office? I wish them the best of success with that.
It is with no little pride and a great sense of honour that I rise to give my maiden speech in this House. I am indebted to my constituents for sending me to this place, and I will do my utmost to ensure that I repay the faith that they have put in me. It is a particular pleasure to follow so many excellent maiden speeches over the last few days. I would like to commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for his magnificent speech. His constituency is a place that I hold to dear to me, having trained at the Royal Military Academy, and I wish him well in his stewardship of it. I think he will make a great contribution to this House.
My constituency is Solihull West and Shirley. Like many others, it was newly created following the boundary review. While it is very much based on the old Solihull seat, the wards of Silhill and Elmdon have moved into the new Meriden and Solihull East constituency. In return, Blythe ward has moved into mine, joining Olton, Lyndon, St Alphege and Shirleys West, South and East. Therefore, I have not one but, technically, two predecessors. As I have alluded to, Blythe ward was represented in the last Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). I am delighted to join him in this place, and I thank him for his support and help over the last few weeks.
Julian Knight served as the Member of Parliament for Solihull for nine years. He gave particular service as Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House will join me in wishing the whole Knight family the very best for the future.
I also pay tribute to Julian’s predecessors in this place. Lorely Burt is still held in great affection by residents, who remember her as a proactive constituency Member of Parliament. The late John Taylor, an avuncular man, was Solihull through and through, and he is fondly remembered for his dedication to public service. His widow, Ann, is still a stalwart of the local community. Before John came a fellow member of the Bar, Percy Grieve QC. Famously, Percy once had the campaign slogan “Grieve for Solihull”. I am delighted to tell the House that there is no need to grieve for Solihull any longer.
For those hon. and right hon. Members who have not had the good fortune of visiting Solihull West and Shirley, we may be compact, being a mere 40 sq km in area, but we pack a good punch. We are a diverse community, welcoming to all. We benefit from our confluence of cultures, which serve to create a greater societal bond. Together, we are greater than the sum of our parts. I am particularly proud that several thousand Hong Kong British nationals overseas have chosen to make the area their home.
The land now forming Solihull West and Shirley was once covered by the ancient forest of Arden on the banks of the River Blythe. The earliest settlement in the area can be dated back to the iron age. The density of the forest of Arden was such that even the Romans found it impenetrable, for throughout the Roman occupation of these isles it was held that no Roman roads passed through it. By the time of the Anglo-Saxons, the forest of Arden was part of the kingdom of Mercia. A clearing in the woods was established, and the settlement of the manor of Ulverlei was founded. It is here that the town of Shirley now sits, the name Shirley meaning a bright clearing. The town of Solihull is thought to take its name from the site of the stunning Arden church of Saint Alphege, which can be dated back to the 13th century and was built on a mound of marl. This soily hill gave rise to the name Solihull.
Of course, over the years the two towns have changed somewhat. They are a bustling centre for business and enterprise. We are the home of the Touchwood Centre, we have fantastic businesses such as Gymshark, and nearby Jaguar Land Rover remains a significant employer for many of my constituents, and a major economic driver for the local area. We are blessed with good and outstanding schools, providing our young people with the skills and opportunities to succeed in life. Through the enterprise and leadership of the local council and the former West Midlands mayor, Andy Street, there has been an ambitious brownfield-first housing policy, delivering sustainable homes for the future while protecting the green belt. However, while many will associate Solihull West and Shirley with prosperity, there are pockets of deprivation, and I will therefore work tirelessly to ensure that those parts of the constituency have the investment and opportunities to shine in the years to come.
When you first enter this place, it is impossible not to be struck by the history that comes before you. It makes you reflect upon your own place in the annals of time. There have been many doctors who have entered this House before. There are several of us in this new intake alone. There have been a number of soldiers who have stood up and served again—indeed, there is almost a platoon of us entering the House for the first time. And as for lawyers—well, frankly, we could be an extension of the Inns of Court. However, it struck me the first time I entered this place that there was a chance that I might be the first Member to have done all three. And that rather flatters the ego. Well, how wrong could I have been? Like the bubbles burst in the back garden by my young son George, my illusions were quickly burst. A former Member for Wimbledon, Charles Goodson-Wickes, had done all this before, and he added being chairman of the Countryside Alliance to boot. So, alas, my place in the history books will have to wait, for the time being.
I do hope, however, that my professional experiences will allow me to contribute effectively to this place on behalf of the people of Solihull West and Shirley—by being a critical friend on the issue of health and social care, so that we improve patient outcomes; by protecting the rule of law and ensuring access to justice; and by upholding the military covenant, and continuing the commendable work of the former member for Plymouth, Moor View, who is sadly no longer in this place, and others to ensure that Britain is the best place in the world to be a veteran.
I am painfully aware of the good fortune and opportunities I have had in life. I have benefited from a loving family and been provided with the opportunities to fulfil my potential. Sadly, that is not the case for all, so during the course of my time in this House I will seek to champion the early years agenda, so that we give young people the best chance in life. I will also seek to work with Members from across the House to improve SEND provision in this country, so that we can move the conversation away from the level of disability and focus instead on the level of intervention, and ensure that every child can access the curriculum and achieve their potential, irrespective of the hurdles they face, because it is only by investing in our young people that we invest in our society.
Those of us who choose to enter the political arena have a duty to conduct ourselves with tolerance, dignity and respect. These are the values that the public rightly expect of us, and in this, my maiden speech, I make a promise to my constituents that these are the values that I will uphold for as long as they are gracious enough to send me to this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Chris Vince to make his maiden speech.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for his excellent and very emotive maiden speech.
I welcome you to your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate.
Above all, I thank the people of Harlow. It is a diverse constituency that includes not only Harlow but the villages of Roydon, Nazeing, Sheering and, following the recent boundary review, Hatfield Heath, Hatfield Broad Oak and too many others to name. I thank everybody for giving me the incredible opportunity to serve as their Member of Parliament.
The new Prime Minister used the word “service” throughout the election campaign, and he has used it in this Chamber. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition even used it in his opening remarks on the Humble Address. Harlow is a constituency that demands and deserves the utmost service from its Members of Parliament, and in my direct predecessor, Robert Halfon, it had an MP who constantly championed and worked hard for the constituency. I genuinely thank him for his service. Likewise, his predecessor, Bill Rammell, who is a good friend and a mentor of mine, is still remembered fondly on the doorstep by residents he has supported. Both of them have shown how to persevere in the face of obstacles and beat the odds. Although my story is far more humble, I hope I can live up to the high expectations that they have both set. I also thank Bill’s predecessor, Jerry Hayes, who believed in the importance of public scrutiny.
Finally, I pay tribute to the late Stan Newens. I got to know Stan quite well in his later years, because all our Co-operative party meetings were held at his house. If anyone enjoys a trip back in time through literature, I would recommend a visit. At the end of every Co-op meeting, Stan would come over to me and whisper into my ear, “You’ll be an MP one day.” Stan, I did not believe it at the time, but it turns out that you were right.
My background is one of service. I spent 15 years as a secondary school maths teacher, and more recently I worked for a charity in Harlow called Streets2Homes, which supports homeless people, and for Action for Family Carers, which supports unpaid carers, particularly those who are young. A while ago, I had a conversation with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), about his excellent contribution to the report on young carers. I also pay tribute to Razed Roof, a wonderful charity of which I am a trustee. It is an inclusive theatre company, and I have to say a big hello to Simon.
Like many Members, my experiences have shaped my politics and my interest in politics, but my priorities are also shaped by the constituency of Harlow. Many Members will know that Harlow is a post-war new town, designed by Sir Frederick Gibberd. Sir Frederick designed Harlow to be a place of community; every community has its own shopping area, playground and green spaces. A local historian described Harlow as being designed—excuse me for this, Madam Deputy Speaker—on socialist principles. It is a place where people can see a Barbara Hepworth or a Rodin while just walking down the street.
That sense of community was put to the test during the pandemic, when we saw dark times not only in this country but across the entire world. I am proud to report to everybody in this House that during those dark times, Harlow’s community stepped up; they passed the test. They supported the most vulnerable people across our town and community. Perhaps that is no surprise, given that our town invented the fibre optic cable, and is the home of Harlow college and the birthplace of Rupert Grint—I have no idea why I put those things in that order. Apparently, Harlow has the lowest density of pubs per head of population. That is okay, though, because there is one five minutes’ staggering distance from my house.
It is the convention to talk about a non-controversial issue in one’s maiden speech. That is tricky when you find yourself in a room with people with opposing views. I thought that I might talk about football, but I am a Leeds supporter, and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), went before me, so I think I shall leave the subject alone, but I am sure this House will join me in congratulating the mighty Harlow Town on their league cup victory last season—let us not worry about what league it was.
Instead, I decided to talk about young carers, a subject very close to my heart. As I have said, I was a secondary school maths teacher for 15 years. In one school, I had a boy in my form—I shall call him George, but that is not his real name. He was a lovely lad. Every Friday, it was my job to check that pupils had got their homework planner signed by their parents, so that we knew that the pupils were doing their homework and recording it properly, but George never got his planner signed. Anyone who knew me as a teacher would say that I was a bit of a softie, so I let it go, but over time, I had to keep him back at break time and lunch time because his planner was not getting signed. He never argued. He just turned up, did his five-minute detention and went on his way. It was only at parents’ evening that I found out that both George’s parents were severely physically disabled, and that George and his sister were young carers. I felt terrible. It was probably that experience that inspired me to become more involved in supporting young carers.
The solution to George’s issue was really easy. George, like many young carers, did not want to be treated differently. What we did was say, “Your sister can sign your planner for you. As long as your sister gets it signed, there is no problem.” Lo and behold, he got it signed by his sister—he got a detention if he did not. He was happy with that. I am pleased to say that that story is about 10 years old. I think we have progressed quite well in our recognition and understanding of young carers. I thank Members from across the House, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and my own Prime Minister for bringing their experiences to this House.
In a recent school census, 72% of schools said that they did not have any young carers. I can tell Members that, from my experience of supporting young carers, that cannot be correct. It is predicted that there are more than 10,000 young carers in Essex alone. Essex county council has identified roughly 3,700 of them, so there is a huge number of young carers whom we have not identified, let alone got the resource in place for.
I would like to end my maiden speech on a positive: I ask the House to join me in thanking all the young carers I have worked with, and all young carers across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for the incredible job that they do. Many of them do not even think of themselves as being young carers because it is just what they do—they help a loved one—but I want to put it on record that, to me, they are absolute heroes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on being elevated to the position of First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. Those of us who know you are very pleased to see you in that position. I believe that you will be impartial and fair to everyone, as you always are. I look forward to you calling me to speak and intervene in debates on many occasions.
What a pleasure it is to see the Ministers in their place. The Secretary of State was here earlier, and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), is here now; I look forward to her summing up. The contribution of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), was also excellent.
We have had wonderful maiden speeches today from Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members. The House has been enriched by the combination of contributions, including the intervention of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), who will make her maiden speech at a later stage, as other Members from Northern Ireland have. I especially thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), whose story about young carers resonated with me in particular, as I have had an interest in this area over the years. I think it resonated with everyone, to be truthful, but it resonated with me because I know young carers in my constituency. Perhaps they were not the best students, but they had reasons for it. The story that he told may be 10 years old, but it is still relevant today, and I thank him for it.
It is so important that we have debates on education. I have said in this place so many times that our young people truly are the future. To ensure that they have the tools needed to succeed, we have to make difficult decisions. Education is devolved in Northern Ireland, so Ministers here do not have respond on it. They do not have to take any notice, and they do not need to say to themselves, “I must reply to the hon. Member.” They might wish to say something, but they do not have any responsibility for our education. However, I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective, as I always do, and make two points.
There are so many opportunities out there for young people. Some may know what route they want to take in life, and for those who do not, there are other options. Education may not be everybody’s option, as the hon. Member for Harlow said, but there are other things that we need to do through education as well. Ministers will no doubt take that on board. Whether in employment, further education or apprenticeships, there are opportunities for people to avail themselves of. Furthermore, I am a big supporter of work experience and the prospects that it can bring for young people, especially in their education and future employment. It can give young people a taste for work and the possibilities that it can lead them to. I try to offer it every year in my office, as I did when I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and when I had my own business.
Two of my youngest staff members, one aged 29 and one aged 24, both did their work experience in my office, one back in 2012 and the other in 2017. We never realised that they would one day end up working for me. They went and did another job in between, but ended up coming back to me. Whether they thought I was a soft touch, or what it was, I am not quite sure. I am sure that they did not think that—the fact is that they loved what we do in the office. Like others elected to this House, my whole life has been about helping people and making their lives better. That is our job. It does not matter what political party we are in; we have to try to do that in every part of life. Years later, an opportunity came up for new staff, and knowing the skillset that those two people were able to bring through their work experience, they were able to come into the job like they had always been there. That sticks in my mind.
Whether it be in aerospace; healthcare; science, technology, engineering and maths; government; law; media; trades such as mechanics or plumbing, and so on—the list is endless—it is no secret that more needs to be done on funding for the devolved nations. It was revealed last year that Northern Ireland student numbers were reduced with funding cuts. Indeed, it has been indicated that the teaching grant for Northern Ireland’s universities will be reduced by 10% to save around £14 million. It was also planned that funding for further education colleges would be cut by 4% to save an additional £9 million.
In the limited time that I have left, I want briefly to discuss the opportunities that apprenticeships provide for young people. I mentioned earlier that not every person can have a civil service job or be in university or another form of education, but they can have opportunities out there in society. Our universities are incredible, but there are young people out there who do not see university as a path for them to go down. The number of people aged 16 to 24 pursuing an apprenticeship has been increasing consistently since 2013, showcasing how the world of work can provide opportunities for young people who perhaps do not want to go to university. Apprenticeships are provided in so many industries; there is always something that can be found to give young people the best start on their employment path.
The issues always lie with funding, and that is why it is so important that these issues are represented. Northern Ireland has suffered for too long from ill thought-out budgets and lack of funding. It is time for our words to be listened to and for budgets to be reconsidered for the betterment of young people and their futures. I believe, as everybody participating in this debate does, that our young people are the future, and I want them to get many more opportunities than I got. We are responsible for ensuring that education and employment opportunities are available to all young people across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are always better together.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Catherine Fookes to make her maiden speech.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and llongyfarchiadau, as we say in Wales. It is wonderful to have you presiding over my maiden speech. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); it is a pleasure to follow him. I congratulate Members on the amazing maiden speeches we have heard this afternoon. I particularly enjoyed the story of such an inspirational maths teacher from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
I am really pleased to speak in this debate about education, which is so important. I was a governor at my son’s primary school in Monmouthshire, Cross Ash, as well as at his secondary school. It is so important, as we come to the end of term, to say thank you to all the governors, teachers and headteachers at all the schools in Monmouthshire.
I think I am the first of the new Welsh MPs to make their maiden speech, so I hope I do our country proud. I want to give one more congratulation, to Eluned Morgan MS, who has just been announced as our new Welsh Labour leader—another strong woman leading us in the Labour party.
I have the honour to represent the beautiful, glorious county of Monmouthshire, and I am its first ever woman MP. As former chief executive of the Women’s Equality Network Wales, where I campaigned to get more women into politics, I can finally boast that I am practising what I preached.
I would like to pay tribute not to one predecessor or to two, but to three. David T. C. Davies, the former Monmouth constituency MP, served in four Parliaments. Despite our fundamental political differences, we have one thing in common: our children went to the same fabulous school, Monmouth comprehensive. I say diolch yn fawr iawn to David for his dedication to public service and to his constituents.
With the redrawn boundaries, Monmouthshire has inherited parts of the Newport East constituency: Caldicot, Magor, Rogiet and Undy. That means that I owe a huge debt of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for her legacy of service to those communities, and for the exceptional generosity and support that she and her team have given me, both during the campaign and as I start my journey in this place. She is a brilliant MP, and if I become half the MP she is, I know I will be doing exceptionally well.
Technically, I have a third predecessor, because Monmouthshire was a constituency many years ago, and its last MP was John Rolls, a local man who took his seat in 1880. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) mentioned Rolls-Royce earlier, and I will mention it too. Rolls was father not only to Charles Rolls of Rolls-Royce fame, but to Eleanor Shelley-Rolls, a founder of the Women’s Engineering Society, an early campaigner for the electrification of Britain, and founder, 100 years ago, of the Atlanta Company, an engineering business with a real difference—it only employed women. That combination of the technological cutting edge and socially progressive views still represents some of the best of Monmouthshire today.
Monmouthshire, particularly the Magor technology corridor, is in many ways a 21st-century economy. We are also proud of our agricultural and farming traditions. Some 80% of the land in Monmouthshire is dedicated to farming, much of it carried out on small family farms. As a smallholder and a farmer’s daughter, I know the joys and the huge challenges of rural life, as well as the vital role played in food production and environmental stewardship by our skilled farming families.
Monmouthshire is also a haven for tourists, home to the renowned Abergavenny food festival, the Wye valley national landscape, parts of the Bannau Brycheiniog national park, and the Offa’s Dyke long-distance path, not to mention our incredible historic border castles. I say to Members: please come and visit in the summer holidays. We have Raglan castle, Grosmont castle and many more.
Monmouthshire has a proud history of fighting for democracy, as home to the Chartist movement of the 1830s. The Chartists made shocking and radical demands—how very dare they demand universal suffrage, secret ballots, salaries for MPs?—so that ordinary people, not just the super-rich, could enter Parliament. Those are now the pillars on which our democracy is based. The same spirit is alive and kicking in a constituency where, in 2024, I am proud to say turnout was 30% higher than the UK average.
As a border county, Monmouthshire is instinctively a place of welcome. One of the early actions in 2022 of our incoming Labour-run county council, on which I have been proud to serve, was a formal application to become a county of sanctuary, welcoming and celebrating the contribution of refugees and asylum seekers. Perhaps it is not entirely a coincidence that many of our leaders in Monmouthshire are women, from our inspirational council leader—another female first—to the three women who bring such tenacity and passion to running our chambers of commerce in Monmouth, Chepstow and Abergavenny.
Despite its great strengths, Monmouthshire is, I am sorry to say, one of the most unequal counties in Wales, with great wealth and great poverty existing side by side. As its MP, my first priority will be to support the Government’s drive for economic growth and keeping household bills down so that we reduce that inequality.
Talking of the drive for equality, I am only here because of the incredible women who came before me and because of the support I have had from far too many individual women to mention. I must shout out about the work of mentoring programmes such as the Fabian Women’s Network mentoring programme, the Labour Women’s Network, and organisations such as Elect Her and 50:50 Parliament. It is thanks to them that we now have a House in which 40% of MPs are women. We still have a long way to get to 50% and true equality, so I pledge, as my second priority, to continue my work to ensure that we do get an equal Parliament. I will work with every single relevant Secretary of State and every parliamentarian across the House to ensure that we reduce all the inequalities that women face, from ending the gender pay gap, to halving violence against women and pushing forward the menopause mandate campaign.
I will, of course, do all that I can to support Monmouthshire’s fantastic charities and community groups, from Cyfannol, a charity working to support those experiencing violence against women, to Reach Out, a group supporting those with addiction.
As a keen environmentalist, I will do everything I can to ensure we champion our environment and our rivers, including the River Wye and the River Usk, which flow through our beautiful county. The people of Monmouthshire have made it clear that they expect me to work cross-border and cross-party, with all the regulators, campaigners and action groups, to bring our rivers back to full health.
Monmouthshire is back on the Westminster map for the first time in a century and a half. My determination is to make sure that the legacy of this Government for Monmouthshire is a more equal, more prosperous and greener future.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is great to see another former Leeds city councillor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The value that sports and arts have in people’s lives cannot be overstated and, in this speech, I want to talk about their importance in education. The sad reality is there are significantly fewer access points for people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who have a disability or who are black or from other minority groups in to sports and the arts.
My constituency is home to a very special organisation called MAP, which stands for Music & Arts Production. It is an alternative provision offering access to creative subjects for young people aged 11 to 16. Students gain qualifications in art, design and music as well as in functional skills, and are welcomed into a creative community. They can see that they could make a career from pursuing something creative and are introduced to a range of role models relevant to their lives, who they would not have met without attending MAP.
For young people who are struggling to fit in with our mainstream education system, that can be life changing and the effects on society overall are immense. If we can reduce school exclusion rates by providing meaningful creative alternatives, we will be able to reduce youth violence, young people will be less involved in crime, and some of the strains on child and adolescent mental health services and other mental health services will be lessened.
When I visited MAP, staff told me of the confidence that attending provision such as MAP can instil in students. Having access to arts subjects allows people to develop a strong sense of identity and transferable social skills, and to build a strong base of friendship and community. Children who have been pushed to the fringes are celebrated rather than punished.
I am so pleased that Labour plans to commission an urgent, expert-led review into curriculum and assessment, and I hope that will mean a broader, more inclusive curriculum. MAP is mainly funded by commercial activities, which is not sustainable; we must ensure that alternative provision that focuses on creative education receives funding similar to mainstream provision. I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to visit MAP with me in Leeds.
The issues around provision are not limited to 11 to 16-year-olds. By September, 2,500 more 16 to 19 places will be needed in Leeds. Leeds will have enough A-level places, but there is a huge shortage of places for alternative qualifications. That is causing a number of problems for our young people, who, through no fault of their own, are on waiting lists for technical, level 1 and level 2 courses and are therefore officially not in education, employment or training. That is adding to our skills gap and undermining the Government’s growth target.
My view is that the greatest single challenge for our growth and energy missions is not investment or tax, but skills. I look forward not only to the new growth and skills levy, but to a strategy for creating the post-16 vocational places that we so desperately need.
Sport is also crucial to the health of our nation and saves the NHS £1 billion a year by preventing disease and improving wellbeing through participation in community sport. We are seeing a crisis in the number of people who have active lifestyles, and that starts with schools and education. I am heartened to know that the Secretary of State understands that and is protecting sport time. I hope that will mean that we can reach the target of 60 minutes of physical activity a day for all young people.
I welcome the approach my right hon. Friend is taking. We cannot just tell young people about the benefits of sport and celebrate successful athletes, although I love the Olympics and professional sports. We also need to reimagine—as Labour is doing—the role that sport plays in people’s lives and have it at the heart of decision making. I hope we can see new funding for community coaching and equipment, especially in sports that are widely played at grassroots, but less so at elite level in the UK, such as basketball.
Music education is also a vital area. We know how much music enriches people’s lives, but if they do not have the means to buy the equipment and to get music tuition, it is impossible to access music, to progress and to enjoy all that musical entertainment and education provides. We need to offer that in our schools and give that additional enrichment. Therefore, I hope to see an uplift in provision of music teaching, improving access so that families can afford the high costs of many instruments.
Science, technology, engineering and maths subjects are really important—I am a former community scientist—but we cannot neglect the issues around creative education, I am pleased that we will carry on with the creative GCSE, and I hope that we will see a huge uplift in the uptake of arts, sports and creative subjects in our schools and around the education system. That is my hope for enriching our country and our curriculum.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Baggy Shanker to make his maiden speech.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your new role. A number of us on the Labour Benches know what it is like to be on your first day at work.
I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) on her excellent maiden speech. She raised the important issue of equality, and I am sure that she will continue to press on such matters. I thank the many House staff and officials for making our start here so welcoming and informative. I also thank my colleagues, family and friends, and the residents of Derby South, for their incredible support during the campaign to get me to this place.
I am immensely proud to represent the people of my home city as a Labour and Co-op MP. It means so much that the residents of Derby South placed their confidence and trust in me, and it is the honour of my life to amplify their voices in this place. I was born and raised in the constituency that I now represent, where my parents settled in the 1950s to help rebuild the country after the devastation of the second world war. My father exchanged his simple farming tools, on which he relied to feed his family in the Punjab, for overalls in a local engineering foundry. Just one generation later, I stand here delivering this speech in this place. It still feels a little surreal.
Alongside honour, I must confess that I also feel the weight of history in taking this seat—I am only the fourth person ever to do so. Derby has a proud political history and has been home to many significant political figures. Derby elected England’s first ever Labour Member of Parliament, Richard Bell. However, so as not to alienate any of my Welsh colleagues so early on, it pains me to make it clear he was not the first Labour Member of Parliament in Britain.
After the creation of the Derby South constituency in 1950, it was won for Labour by Philip Noel-Baker, who is the only person to have been awarded an Olympic gold medal and a Nobel prize. He was followed in 1970 by staunch trade unionist Walter Johnson, who served the constituency for 13 years, after which a woman who has made history several times over won the seat for Labour. Her name? The right hon. Dame Margaret Beckett —hon. Members may have heard of her.
As we have already heard, Margaret was the first female leader of the Labour party, the first female Foreign Secretary, and Britain’s longest-serving female Member of Parliament, to name just a few of her achievements. Among her many firsts, Margaret was the first to encourage me to seek selection for this seat. She has been a political mentor and a friend to me for many years, and I will always appreciate her unwavering support. Her dedication and duty to our city over the 40-plus years that she represented Derby South are unmatched, and she continues to inspire many generations of political activists. As we have heard, we are fortunate to be able to continue drawing upon the wisdom that she will offer from the red Benches in the other place. It would be remiss of me not to mention a man who many new and returning Members across the House will have known, and who could always be found by Margaret’s side: the extraordinary late Leo Beckett. We will always miss him dearly.
From the leafy surroundings of Britain’s first public park, the Arboretum, to the best high-tech aero engine testbed facilities and the places where small modular reactors are being designed as I speak, Derby South is a place where tradition and tomorrow meet. The history of our city is rich, vibrant and steeped in engineering excellence: it is widely thought that Derby’s historic silk mill, located on the River Derwent, was the first fully mechanised factory in the world. Derby folk have always led the way with their industrious and hard-working nature, but they also appreciate fairness and co-operation, values that extend to the rest of our county and are reflected in the return of Labour Members of Parliament in every one of Derbyshire’s 11 seats.
I was delighted to hear in the King’s Speech confirmation that legislation will be brought forward to establish Great British Railways, an outcome that I and my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby)—yes, I said Derbyshire Dales—have campaigned for in earnest. I am thrilled that we now have a Government who are committed to delivering its headquarters in Derby. We also campaigned to save the train maker Alstom, which employs so many highly skilled workers in my constituency. The closure of Alstom’s historic Litchurch Lane site would have left the UK as the only G7 nation without essential design, manufacturing and testing facilities for rail, an outcome that we simply could not countenance. Marketing Derby, our city’s award-winning inward investment agency, and our local Derby Telegraph were integral in securing the support of hundreds of businesses around Derby in the campaign to save that train manufacturing plant. I would not have the time to name in my speech everybody who helped.
Thankfully, we did retain so many of those jobs, and now we must build on our significant rail heritage for future generations. We must harness the industriousness of places such as Derby and couple it with bold and ambitious legislation to build a Britain that works for working people once again. Nowhere is that vision more needed than in my home city and many other cities across the UK. We have significant challenges with social mobility in Derby, and unfortunately those divides have widened over the past 14 years, in terms not just of income but of life expectancy. Recent information suggests that people living in Derby city centre have the lowest life expectancy anywhere in Derbyshire, a statistic that we must change. Access to decent homes, good education and secure jobs are key drivers of health equality, and I will be fighting for those things for the people of my city.
I began an engineering apprenticeship at the age of 16, leading to a rewarding career, and recently spent over a decade at the iconic Rolls-Royce. I want Derby’s young people to have access to similar opportunities, not just in engineering but in other sectors, including the expert design and manufacture of sporting apparel by companies such as HUUB in Derby; architecture, design and construction with companies such as Wavensmere Homes; and the cultural and entertainment sector at places such as QUAD, Déda and Derby theatre.
In addition to the growth ambitions outlined in His Majesty’s Speech, Derby people will be particularly pleased to hear that the Government are taking forward plans to introduce an independent football regulator. That regulator will promote the financial sustainability of football clubs, ensuring that they make prudent financial decisions. When our beloved Derby County—a founder member of the Football League—ran into financial difficulties, it was saved from administration by a local man and fan, David Clowes, preserving the club for its supporters. The new regulator will significantly reduce the risk of Derby County or any other club being faced with a similar prospect, and our cherished clubs will be saved.
Derby has so much to be proud of in what we have given the world and what the world has given Derby. As I have said, I am so excited about what we can achieve in Derby with a thriving public and private sector partnership, now a Labour council, a Labour police and crime commissioner, a Labour East Midlands Mayor and a Labour Government. We must work together to retain what is best about cities such as Derby and to develop what is needed. The contents of the King’s Speech are just the start of that journey. Once again, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Tony Vaughan to make his maiden speech.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech today. May I congratulate you on your election? It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker). He spoke about his constituency with eloquence and passion, and I congratulate him on his speech.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Damian Collins, who served as the Member of Parliament for Folkestone and Hythe for the last 14 years. He worked tirelessly here in Parliament, most notably as the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which he led for several years up to 2019. He spearheaded several significant inquiries into pressing issues, including doping in sports, football governance, combating homophobia in sports, tackling online disinformation and examining addictive technologies. As a father of two boys, I am well aware of the parenting challenges that are posed by online gaming and social media, so I know that the work Damian did to hold tech companies to account performed a vital public service, for which we are all grateful. Recognising his expertise and contribution in this area, Damian was appointed the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for tech and the digital economy in 2022, and that appointment followed two Parliamentary Private Secretary roles in the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign Office. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing Damian all the best for his future endeavours.
I would also like to acknowledge my second predecessor, Michael Howard—Lord Howard—who represented the constituency for some 27 years. He remains a much respected figure locally, and many voters talked of him fondly on the doorsteps during the short campaign.
It is the honour of my life to be elected as Folkestone and Hythe’s Member of Parliament. I thank the members and volunteers of Folkestone and Hythe Labour party who moved heaven and earth to get me elected. Without their efforts, I simply would not be here. I also want to thank my wife and my family, who have been behind me all the way.
I have the privilege of being the first Labour MP ever to have represented the constituency since its creation in 1950. Before that, the constituency covering its approximate area, Hythe, had returned Conservative MPs continuously since 1895. As a further piece of history, such was the strategic importance of Hythe and the town of New Romney—two ports that were among the original Cinque ports on the south coast—that they have been represented continuously ever since the Simon de Montfort Parliament of 1265, which is usually regarded as the first Parliament in England.
I first visited Folkestone and Hythe in 2007 as a baby barrister sent to Folkestone magistrates court, apparently drawing the short straw. The fee was not much more than the train fare to get there, and the two-hour journey down was bumpy and slow. The upside was that I got fish and chips for lunch, a sea view and a breath of sea air. By the time I moved to Folkestone in 2014, the high-speed line HS1 had cut the journey time to 53 minutes, and as hon. Members can imagine, the dream of seaside living was no longer a distant thought for many.
Folkestone and Hythe today is a cultural hub. We have arts festivals, comedy, theatre, open studios, open gardens, the Folkestone Music Town initiative and live music to suit every taste. The Royal Gurkha regiment is based in the constituency, and we have one of the largest Nepalese communities in the UK. It is hard to beat a Nepalese curry from Folkstone. The constituency has around 20 miles of beautiful coastline, from the border with Dover down to the Kent-Sussex border near Camber. It is little wonder that Folkstone and Hythe is a tourist hotspot, a creative and digital magnet, and a place to find solitude and peace. We also have a large windfarm in Romney Marsh, which was opened by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) in 2009. It was a privilege to visit it with him earlier this month, following his announcement about dropping the ban on onshore wind.
What I love most about Folkstone and Hythe is the strong community spirit, and the drive of so many to make the area the best that it can be. There is Romney Marsh community hub, where the elderly can socialise and access services, and Hythe youth centre supports young people in the area. The New Folkestone Society and the Sandgate Society are safeguarding the heritage of the area, and Napier Friends welcomes, integrates and assimilates refugees who come to our area from all over the world.
Sadly, however, far too many people in Folkstone and Hythe are being left behind. Some of the most deprived areas in Kent are in my constituency, and the system has been holding communities back. Opportunities are spread unevenly, sewage pollutes our seas, unaffordable mortgage rates and rents are faced by everyone, and public services just do not work as they are supposed to. Having lived on Folkstone and Hythe’s coastline, like many residents I have seen overloaded small boats arriving on our shores—boats organised by organised criminal networks that trade and commodify human beings. On too many occasions than I care to remember, I have joined local residents to remember lives lost in the channel. Indeed, as the Home Secretary reminded us, 90 lives have been lost so far this year.
I am proud to be a Labour MP supporting this transformative Labour Government who will pass the laws we need to turn Britain around and break down barriers to opportunity. The 35 Bills in the King’s Speech are just the start of that. As a barrister of 17 years’ standing, I particularly welcome the Government’s reinstatement of the rule of law, which is the foundation of our constitution and democracy. The Government’s decision to treat human smuggling and trafficking as a national security issue is long overdue. I have represented many victims of those criminal gangs, and I know that such are their sophistication and resources, that nothing short of the full force of our national security expertise will do. We must never forget that the victims themselves need justice. I am the son of one of the first Filipinos who migrated to the UK. My mum came here in the 1970s and worked in the NHS, which I think makes me the first person of Filipino heritage to stand in this Chamber. I understand how easy it is for vulnerable people to be exploited by powerful others—Filipinos around the world know that all too well—and we can, and must, break the business model of these sophisticated criminals.
For a corner of east Kent that often feels left out and a long way from Westminster, Labour’s devolution plans represent a rare opportunity. Coastal communities, including those all along the south coast, face similar challenges. East Kent has the second highest level of economic output of Kent’s five regions, and devolution would open the door to greater powers, and with them a strategy for regional economic growth and solutions to the problems that my constituents face every day with housing, buses, health, skills and work.
The strength of Folkestone and Hythe lies in its people. Every person I spoke to during the general election campaign reinforced my belief that there is so much untapped talent and so much that people have to give, and that with an extra helping hand from the Government the potential of every person can finally be realised. To everyone in Folkstone and Hythe, I say this: I stand here ready to help you, whether you voted for me or not, and I promise to use all the energy, expertise and dedication to be your advocate and your voice, wherever it is needed. My parents’ values of compassion and public service run through everything I do, and those are the values that will today, and every day, guide my actions, my decisions and my work in and across this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jim Dickson for his maiden speech.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech. I welcome you to your place. I commend the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan). We envy his sea views, but it is great that he and I are part of a group of 12 Kent Labour MPs—up from one before the election—and I am delighted that my speech is likely to be followed shortly by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), who is also one of our number; it is brilliant to see her here as well. It has been said that when Labour is strong in Kent, we are strong in the country, and I think we are proving that with our presence in Parliament.
I very much welcome the new team of Education Ministers, and particularly their promise of new investment and additional teachers for Kent and Dartford schools. I welcome the priority given to education under this new Government. Investment cannot come soon enough, particularly at a time when Kent county council is looking at reducing the rights of parents of special educational needs pupils. Again, the arrival of a Labour Government could not come soon enough.
I would like to say a very warm thank you to the electors of Dartford for placing their trust in me to represent them. It is truly an honour for me that they have done so. They do not change their Member of Parliament often—there have been as few as eight since 1945—and, needless to say, returning the same MP for many years is a tradition that I strongly approve of and hope to see continue long into the future.
That prompts me to remember the contribution of two of my immediate predecessors as Member of Parliament for Dartford. Gareth Johnson, who represented the constituency for 14 years until the recent election, is a former Dartford grammar school pupil whose commitment to the constituency and its residents cannot be questioned. To his great credit, he has already provided assistance to me as I start in this role. I really do wish him well. I first came to Dartford more than 20 years ago to knock on doors for the constituency’s last Labour MP, local GP Howard Stoate, a Member whose commitment to public service above all else is still warmly remembered by residents and whose example I will do my very best to emulate.
Among other things, I have spent many years both as a council leader and more recently as a cabinet member for health in the south-east London local authority of Lambeth, so I stand here as a passionate advocate for better public health and for central and local government action to prevent ill health for all our population. That is why, in addition to the really welcome steps that the new Government are taking to restore the NHS, I am particularly supportive of their decision to retain the Bill proposed by the last Government to prevent all those born after 2009 from starting smoking. In Dartford, nearly 10,000 people—almost 12% of the population—smoke, with resulting health and care costs of more than £24 million a year according to Action on Smoking and Health, and of course, tragically, many early deaths. When it comes to smoking, it is vital that we stop the start.
It has been rightly observed that Dartford has at this election continued another tradition, which is the longest in the country: that of electing an MP of the same party as the Government. I know that Dartford residents are rightly proud of the canniness and common sense that that reveals in their outlook. It is a place where strong values co-exist alongside, thankfully, an openness to change.
It is worth noting that it is nearly 63 years since two former pupils of Wentworth primary school in Dartford bumped into each other on platform 2 of Dartford station and began discussing their shared interest in black American blues music. The sequel to that chance meeting of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards is one of national and global success. It is pleasing to note that, even as we speak, they are touring the United States. So Dartford remains a bellwether constituency and the Rolling Stones are still playing live—you could say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that those are two reasons why we can be confident that the sun will go down tonight and come up tomorrow morning. Their story, and that of Dartford, is not just one of continuity, but one that is very much about embracing new cultures and change.
Dartford is a historic market town that, alongside its beautiful surrounding villages of Darenth, Longfield, New Barn, Joyden’s Wood, Greenhithe, Swanscombe, Bean, Stone, Ebbsfleet and Southfleet—I think I got them all in—has an unquestionable place in the story of our country. It is where Henry VIII kept a grand residence, later provided as a home to Anne of Cleves, the wife who I think we can all agree had the good sense to get out early. It is also the location for much of the life’s work of Richard Trevithick, father of the steam engine, which powered the UK’s 19th-century industrial might; his presence is still commemorated in the Royal Victoria and Bull pub in Dartford. Even in the digital age, paper produced in Dartford, as it has been over the centuries, still sends vital information across the UK and around the world.
Dartford and its people are a true marker of our past and our history. It is also the fastest growing town in the UK, with new residents arriving all the time from a multitude of places, making Dartford more diverse and bringing fresh energy and new ways of thinking to our town. We have a growing and much cherished Hindu community joining our Sikh and Muslim populations, an increasing African-Caribbean population, and a Nigerian and west African heritage community emerging impressively quickly. Many residents have recently arrived from Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and across the river in east London, seeking homes that they and their families can just about afford, and bringing their strong cultural influence to bear.
However, action is sorely needed to make the new homes being built in the constituency more affordable and accessible to all. I strongly welcome the Government’s plans to address that issue. If the Government can help us set in place the infrastructure in new communities such as Ebbsfleet, including new hospital and GP capacity—our wonderful Darenth Valley hospital is overrun—investment in schools and the better transport that these communities need, as well as addressing the stubborn inequalities still felt by our long-term less affluent residents, Dartford can be a model—the kind of multicultural community that demonstrates just how our country can succeed.
Regrettably, Dartford’s roads are frequently gridlocked. A new Thames crossing is needed to cope with the volume of traffic using the Dartford crossing, and to meet the requirements of the growing north Kent economy. Our station at Ebbsfleet must be given back its status as Ebbsfleet International, and cross-channel services should stop there once more. Residents of Swanscombe need action to restore the A226 Galley Hill Road, which is partially collapsed, and to end the nightmare of large vehicles diverting down its narrow streets. For the new communities living on estates run by management companies, reform of leasehold law and stronger regulation of management companies cannot come soon enough.
To complete the picture, we also need Dartford and its Princes Park stadium back in national league south, and looking upwards to where they belong, following last season’s relegation to the Isthmian league. I fully appreciate that that may be beyond even your powers, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Darts—alongside Dartford cricket club, one of the oldest in the country, built and started in 1727 and about to have its 300th anniversary, and Dartford Valley community rugby club—are anchors of our community in Dartford, alongside our Orchard theatre, which is suffering from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and is currently closed, but which we hope to see reopened as soon as possible.
Notwithstanding the need for those improvements, I look forward to being a strong voice in this place for Dartford, and to being a champion for the town, our villages and all our residents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Steve Witherden to make his maiden speech.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I congratulate you on your election to your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate Eluned Morgan on becoming First Minister of Wales, echoing the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for his speech. It is lovely to listen to someone who is so knowledgeable and passionate about their constituency.
As this is my first time speaking, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessors. I say “predecessors” as my constituency is a 35%-65% split between two former constituencies. First, I pay tribute to Craig Williams for all his excellent work representing the people of Montgomeryshire. Craig was always affable, gentlemanly and respectful towards me and my wife on every occasion we met. On polling day at the count, he conducted himself with decency and dignity at what must have been an extremely difficult time for him and his family. He was a credit to both himself and his family, and that needs to be acknowledged. Secondly, I pay tribute to Simon Baynes, the last ever MP for Clwyd South, which was partitioned four ways. The largest piece, Glyndŵr, and all of south and west Wrexham went into my constituency. I salute Simon’s work in bringing Llwyneinion Woods near Rhosllanerchrugog into community ownership.
I grew up in Glyndŵr, but four miles outside the constituency, the pre-1996 Glyndŵr not having identical borders with the current incarnation. I have lived in the constituency for 15 years, having long put down roots there. Glyndŵr has an incredibly rich industrial heritage. Until relatively recently, Air Products and Monsanto, which straddled the villages of Acrefair and Cefn Mawr, dominated the landscape, the famous Ruabon red-brick dominating many towns and villages within and beyond the boundaries of the constituency. Going back further, I would argue that Chirk is second only to Bournville in the history of chocolate production in the UK. Bersham colliery was the final coalmine to close in north Wales, in 1986. It was also in Bersham, on the River Clywedog, that British ironmaking began in 1670 and smelting iron ore with coke began in 1721.
Montgomeryshire makes up the larger part of the constituency and also has a fantastic history. It was here that Robert Owen, the pre-Marxist socialist, was born in 1771 and died in 1858, in Y Drenewydd, the largest town in my constituency. Montgomeryshire has been at the forefront of environmental and green initiatives. It is the home of the Centre for Alternative Technology, of which my father was a founder member in the 1970s. To this day, Montgomeryshire produces approximately 96% of the power it uses through renewable energy sources. That takes me on to what has to be one of my objectives, and one of the priorities for this Government: the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company which will see a vast increase in renewables. What else are my objectives? Until earlier this month, I was a national executive member of the NASUWT teachers’ union, so our new deal for working people is incredibly close to my heart. The banning of fire and rehire, and even more so the abolition of zero-hours contracts, are things that this country desperately needs. We will bring them about in the first 100 days of Government.
As a teacher since 2005, and having been a community governor, a parent governor and a teacher governor at multiple schools, plus having held an array of elected teacher trade union roles since 2009, I feel that I am qualified to speak on matters pertaining to education. Our education system is in crisis. The number of teacher vacancies, especially in key subject specialisms, and the number of teachers leaving the profession, is alarming. I thoroughly welcome the Government’s proposal to recruit thousands of new teachers, but retention of them once they have qualified is of equal importance, if statistics on teachers leaving the profession within five years of qualifying are anything to go on. The underfunding of schools, especially secondary schools, is a ticking time bomb.
My own experiences made me want to become a teacher. I was statemented dyslexic and dyscalculic at a time when a lot of people did not believe in such terms. I was completely illiterate until the age of 11, and was placed in bottom sets at school for many years and written off by many. I joined the profession to not write off anyone, and to fight for children to believe in themselves and realise their potential. That has gradually become more and more difficult for even the most dedicated teachers, as hungry children cannot realise their potential. This House needs to do everything in its power to ensure that there are no hungry children in the sixth-richest country in the world.
Finally, I thank the House, all the staff and all the political parties for the kindness and support that I have received since the death of my mother a fortnight ago today. I think that in the final weeks of the short campaign, my mother perhaps did not tell me how ill she was. Even when she was deathly ill, she may have used her unforgettable influence—a three-line Whip of her own—to try to persuade my sisters and father not to tell me just how ill she was. I would have done the same had our roles been reversed. I thought we had weeks, but on 9 July, after Black Rod’s summons and during the Speaker’s speech, I was called out of the Chamber and told that we had hours. Thanks to the efficiency of the staff in this building, to whom I am eternally grateful, I was able to get straight on a train back to Wales in time, and thanks to the exemplary care of Dr McAndrew, Nurse Kathryn and their colleagues at Wrexham Maelor hospital, I was able to see my mother before she died, not suffering or in distress, to tell her I loved her, and to hold her hand while she passed away.
When nearly everyone thought that Montgomeryshire would remain the only seat in Wales never to have a Labour MP, my mother believed that I would win it. She never gave up on me, just as she never gave up believing, when I was a boy, that I would be able to read one day and to make something of myself. I am glad that she got to see me elected, because I know that it made her very happy—and if it is permissible, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to dedicate this maiden speech to my mother. Diolch yn fawr.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Laura Kyrke-Smith to make her maiden speech.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to address the House, and I congratulate you on your election to the Chair. I am sure that the House will want to join me in extending our deepest sympathies to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). I am very sorry and sad to learn of the death of his mother. I congratulate him on a wonderful maiden speech, and on speaking with such passion about our children and the potential of the next generation.
I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Rob Butler, who I know has great affection for Aylesbury, and who served the constituency with great loyalty and good will. It is a true honour to be here as the new Member of Parliament for Aylesbury. Given that my constituency houses the county town of Buckinghamshire and has returned a long line of Conservative Members to Parliament, as might be expected from that county, I am particularly proud to be here as Aylesbury’s first ever Labour MP, and its first female MP.
My constituency is very diverse geographically; it covers the rapidly growing town of Aylesbury, many lovely villages, such as Whitchurch, Wing, Cheddington and Edlesborough, historic woodlands and farmlands, and the Chiltern hills. It also has very diverse communities, with people of Christian, Muslim, Hindu and other faiths, and people of Asian, African and Eastern European heritage, living alongside elderly residents and young people whose families have called my constituency home for many generations. We are a historic constituency, too. Britain’s oldest road, the Ridgeway, crosses through to Ivinghoe Beacon; the remains of an iron-age hill fort lie beneath Aylesbury town; and an Aylesbury constituency has existed in some form since 1554. It was from Aylesbury that John Hampden defended Parliament against Charles I in 1642, and his statue overlooking Market Square in the town centre still celebrates the parliamentary freedom that he championed. Perhaps I will not dwell for too long on our Conservative-leaning political history from then onwards, but I want to highlight three other ways in which history shapes my brilliant constituency today.
First, there is our vibrant culture. Roald Dahl made Buckinghamshire his home, and today we host the Roald Dahl children’s gallery at Discover Bucks museum. We are the birthplace of the Paralympic movement, and hosted the first competition for people with spinal injuries in Stoke Mandeville back in 1948. For decades, Aylesbury was home to the iconic Friars nightclub, where acts like Queen and U2 performed. David Bowie’s first performance of “Ziggy Stardust” there is now marked in the town by a bronze sculpture, which bursts into song, catching visitors by surprise.
Secondly, my constituency has a history of offering a friendly welcome, including to many evacuees from London in world war two and the exiled Czech Government, who operated out of Old Manor House, between Wingrave and Aston Abbotts. You can still see the bus shelter that the Czech President instructed to be built on that road, having taken pity on the local schoolchildren waiting in the rain. We have seen the same welcome to many people who have moved into the constituency in recent decades, and particularly into the many new housing developments in the area.
Thirdly, I want to highlight the inequalities in income and wealth that exist in the constituency. Members of this House may be surprised to hear that Aylesbury has high levels of deprivation. In fact, one in eight children in the town live in poverty, and we have always had a history of people struggling to get by on a low wage in the print and car factories, or as agricultural labourers. I pay tribute to the local food banks and to fantastic charities like Youth Concern and Aylesbury Homeless Action Group, which make life more manageable for those who are struggling most today, but they should not have to exist.
That takes me to the four points that I will prioritise as the Member for Aylesbury, and to the reason why I wanted to speak in today’s debate on education and opportunity. Above all, I want my constituents to feel a sense of opportunity and optimism again. First, I will focus on the desperate need to improve healthcare. We are home to Stoke Mandeville hospital, where my son was born, and its internationally renowned spinal injuries unit. I have the deepest respect for everyone who works in the healthcare sector across the constituency, but we have to make it possible for people to get basic healthcare and to see their GP again, and we have to tackle the awful and pervasive mental health crisis in my constituency and across the country. One of my most brilliant and best friends, Sophie Middlemiss, is not here to witness this moment of great change and opportunity for our country, because she took her own life when her little girl was 10 weeks old. I do not want anyone to suffer from post-natal depression and anxiety in the way that she did, and I will fight to get better help for people in her situation.
Secondly, I will focus on education for our children, and I will fight to ensure that all children, whatever their background and circumstances, get the opportunities that they deserve in life. I am particularly concerned about SEND children—I am pleased to have heard a lot about that in the House today—and their parents, families, carers and teachers, who are not getting anything like the support they deserve. That has to change.
Thirdly, I will help our businesses to thrive. I will support the small businesses that I hope will be part of a revival of Aylesbury town centre. We have to make it a safe and attractive place to spend time again, and we have to make it possible to get in, across and out of town without spending hours in traffic. I will also support the farming businesses in the rural parts of our constituency, within a wider, careful approach to protecting and managing our nature-rich and agricultural lands.
Finally, I come to this job conscious not just of the challenges and the opportunities for my constituency and my country, but of the very challenging moment that we are in globally. Before coming to Parliament I was leading a humanitarian aid agency, and I will continue to be a voice for, and do right by, the most vulnerable people around the world. There are record numbers of people caught up in conflict and crisis, at a time when geopolitical rivalry is on the rise and the global institutions set up after world war two no longer offer the protections that they used to. A strong and principled Britain can make a real difference in the world, and I know this matters to my constituents, most pressingly in their concerns about the awful suffering in Gaza and the suffering of the Israeli hostages and their families.
Let me conclude with one final point. I mentioned that Aylesbury is home to the Roald Dahl Children’s Gallery, so I will end with some inspiration from Matilda, perhaps Roald Dahl’s finest character—certainly that is my daughter’s view. Matilda said:
“Having power is not nearly as important as what you choose to do with it.”
Every day, in this place of power, we all make choices. I will know if I have made the right choices if people in crisis around the world and, most importantly, people struggling in my constituency tell me that I have played my part in making a positive difference to their lives.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Emily Darlington to make her maiden speech.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to your role. Can I also say how fantastic it is to have an all-women Deputy Speaker team? Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate on education and opportunity. In it, I would like to pay tribute to my great-grandmother, Emily Jones, who married Thomas Thomas and made sure that her seven children could read. This started our family’s journey from the mines of the Welsh valleys to her namesake standing here in the Chamber today. Malala Yousafzai told us:
“One child…one book and one pen can change the world.”
I pay tribute to the other Members who have made their maiden speeches here in the House today. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), it is great that you have Great British Railways, but if you come after Network Rail in Milton Keynes, we will have words.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) that I know what it is like to have those strong Welsh women role models. I give him my condolences, but I am sure his mother would be so proud of him here today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), one of five Labour MPs now representing Buckinghamshire, shares with me a passion for international development. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) can count me in on her ambition to get 50% of women into this place and I suggest that we have our first meeting in Usk, where I was married.
I am the first MP for the new constituency of Milton Keynes Central. It encompasses half of Milton Keynes North and half of Milton Keynes South, and I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) will pay tribute to their predecessors, but I would like to wish Ben and Iain luck in their future and thank them for the collegiate way we have always interacted over the years. I would also like to pay tribute to the late Brian White and to Phyllis Starkey, fantastic former Labour MPs for Milton Keynes, and to the late Kevin Wilson, the best MP Milton Keynes never had.
Another former MP for my seat is Robert Maxwell. I have very little in common with him, except that in his maiden speech in 1964 he pleaded against the closure of the Oxford-Bletchley-Cambridge line, which we now know as East West Rail. He was right. He also argued that science, research and technology would be how the UK would become an economic success and how we would improve our NHS. He recognised the challenge of translating those discoveries into products and services, and that challenge remains today. I wonder what he would think of the new town of Milton Keynes, which embraces innovation.
We have robots that deliver our groceries. We are at the forefront of driverless technology. We are at the heart of AI, and of regulation, with the British Standards Institution based in my constituency. We are the home of the Open University, the vision of Harold Wilson and delivered by the fantastic Jennie Lee. It was the first university to do distance learning, with learning and opportunity for all at its heart—a true Labour institution. Milton Keynes college delivers opportunities for young people, but hon. Members might not be aware that it also delivers the biggest education to prisons across our country.
It is innovation that has led to our economic success, but we have also been innovative in our approach to building our city. We are all pioneers. We have all chosen to live in Milton Keynes. We have moved from across the UK or from across the world to build a better life for our families and ourselves. As Members may have realised from my mid-Atlantic accent, I too have moved around many times. I was born just across the river at St Thomas’s, then my father and I emigrated to Canada when I was young due to a lack of science funding in the UK. My summers were spent in south Wales, learning about my heritage and learning from the strong women in my family. I moved back 24 years ago to care for my gran, and she would be proud that I am here. I now call Milton Keynes my home with my husband and two children.
Perhaps it is the lack of history in Milton Keynes that allows us to embrace change. We are different by design. We are building a new kind of city and, as we deliver our manifesto commitment to build new towns, we from Milton Keynes have this advice: it is not just about homes, roundabouts, hospitals and schools. It is about communities and green spaces. It is about places of spirituality and worship. It is about places to gather to celebrate and commemorate. It is about places to explore and exercise, and places to reflect and heal. From Campbell Park to the Milton Keynes Rose and the country’s first ecumenical church, which hosts the community iftar, Milton Keynes values these spaces.
The cohesion of a city is based on its community, its culture and its people, and it is done by design, not by happenstance. In Milton Keynes, we work hard to celebrate our city by celebrating our diversity. In just the past few weeks, I have had the pleasure to attend the African diaspora festival; Nelson Mandela Day; Art in the Park, organised by Islamic Arts and Culture; MK India Day, which 15,000 people attended; the midsummer festival, celebrating our pagan past; and the Tamil sports day. These events are open to all, in that Milton Keynes spirit, bringing together people from all backgrounds to bind us as Milton Keynes citizens, to learn about the plurality of our ancestry and to celebrate the diversity of our patina, but bound by our British values, which encompass the ideals of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and, most of all, tolerance.
A society is judged by how we treat our most vulnerable, including our children in care—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) spoke so passionately about his experience—our children with SEND and the growing issue of mental ill health, our refugees, our rough sleepers, our carers, our elderly, our young people at risk of knife crime and all those who suffer from sexual violence and domestic abuse. The previous Government presented these crises as consequences outside their control, but if that were true, why are we here? I am here because I have worked on all these issues in Milton Keynes with colleagues from the amazing city council, which is the only local authority to reduce rough sleeping in the past few years—no one has to sleep rough in Milton Keynes.
Milton Keynes is the first city to state its ambition to become a white ribbon city. There is more youth support to prevent knife crime. Communities, parish councils and groups are delivering food parcels, and we are supporting our children in care with housing and employment. There is new support for unpaid carers, who are our heroes. People have the right to have end-of-life care in their own home, and there is the biggest retrofitting and building of council housing in a generation.
But there are limits to what can be done locally, so I have made my way to Parliament to get the change that Milton Keynes both needs and deserves. On my journey here, I have found that the reputation of this place is at an all-time low. Even worse, it is a place that causes fear for some people because of the divisive language used both here and on the campaign trail.
When a country is divided, it makes it weaker. When arguments lead to violence, it makes our citizens scared. When the rights of one are played against the rights of others, it weakens all of our rights. When we focus on what divides us rather than what we have in common, we lose good MPs like David Amess and my friend Jo Cox. Let all of us who seek to unite our country focus on the “United” in United Kingdom and the “Great” in Great Britain.
I am only the second Emily ever to be elected to this House and, like the first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), I will speak my mind. I end my speech with another Emily, Emily Davison, who was never elected but did find herself in a closet in this House. We will be judged by the British people for our deeds, not our words.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Sam Carling to make his maiden speech.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my first speech in this place today and in a debate on education, a subject that is very important to me. As this is my first contribution, I ought to start by thanking the people of North West Cambridgeshire for electing me to represent them in this House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on her maiden speech, as well as all the others we have heard today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), whose speech was very moving; I am sorry to hear of his loss.
I have thoroughly enjoyed hearing maiden speeches from Members on all sides of the House over the past few days, and I am honoured to be part of a clearly very eloquent and passionate intake of new MPs. I look forward to the debates that we will have over the coming years.
My constituency of North West Cambridgeshire has not had a new Member of Parliament in many years, as my predecessor, Shailesh Vara, was elected to represent it in 2005, when I was only three years old. Over that time, he made significant contributions to the work of this House, for example, through campaigning to broaden the age of routine breast cancer screening and, on a local level, fighting for new infrastructure to support residents as new developments continue to come forward across the constituency. He was very kind to me over the election campaign, which was fought fairly and cleanly, and I wish him well for the future.
North West Cambridgeshire is a constituency with an enormous variation of different communities. It has a large urban section in those parts of Peterborough south of the River Nene, such as Fletton, Woodston and Stanground, as well as new areas, such as the Hamptons, which continue to develop. That urban section also contains the former villages of Orton Waterville and Orton Longueville, which grew into one another and expanded when Peterborough was designated as a new town. Despite that growth, the village atmosphere of those areas has been beautifully retained.
My constituency also has a number of semi-urban towns, with Yaxley being the largest and joined by others such as Ramsey. And it has a large number of smaller villages—far too many for me to name now—but I look forward to holding constituency surgeries in as many as possible and engaging with their rich histories as I work to represent and support their communities.
North West Cambridgeshire has a very strong military tradition, with one in 20 of my constituents reporting in the 2021 census as having previously served in the armed forces. I am proud to have within my constituency the grounds of RAF Wittering, a station that was extremely active during the Battle of Britain in the second world war. I look forward to playing my part to support the causes of those personnel actively serving, as well as the veterans I now represent.
Continuing on the theme of the communities across North West Cambridgeshire, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the large farming community that I now represent. I was pleased to meet representatives of that community during the campaign and am thoroughly looking forward to continuing that engagement now. A large proportion of the land in my constituency is used for farming and that plays a significant role in providing food for our country. Our farmers face numerous challenges, from the impact of rural crime to the effects of climate change on crops and livestock, and I am committed to advocating for farmers’ needs and supporting sustainable practices. I will be taking part in the National Farmers’ Union’s new fellowship programme for Members of Parliament to strengthen their knowledge and understanding of the farming industry and the problems it faces, and would strongly encourage other colleagues to do so too.
Now, if I may turn to the subject of today’s debate, as I am the youngest Member of this Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thank Members—it will not surprise many Members to hear that I have not been out of the education system for that long. Indeed, I was in the first cohort of students whose A-level exams were cancelled during the pandemic. In many ways, it was that experience that politicised me.
I grew up in a deprived rural area and was concerned from a young age to see a progressive decline in local high streets, alongside growing problems in public services, notably within schools. When I was in my final year at a rural school, budget cuts forced the closure of its sixth form, leaving me and many others having to find alternative provision at short notice, which was not easy for many, who faced very long journeys indeed to the nearest alternatives. The closure not only disrupted education but fragmented the community, as students were scattered to different institutions, but I never connected those issues to politics and the decisions being made in this place until I saw the direct impact of those decisions on schools during the pandemic. The response to the crisis, the decisions about exams, and the support, or lack thereof, provided to students made it clear to a great many previously disengaged young people that political choices have real and immediate consequences.
We have to work across this House to improve engagement with our democracy, and a large part of that must revolve around rebuilding trust in politics, and getting to a position where we disagree respectfully and work together to make life better for the people we represent. My background is in science—biology in particular—and that has instilled in me the importance of having solid evidence behind the decisions that we make here. We saw during the pandemic that communicating the rationale behind decisions taken by the Government was very difficult, which highlights why there is such a need to improve how we teach science in schools, and I will champion that.
I intend to use my direct experience of the problems in our schools to contribute to the Government’s agenda to revitalise them. Going further, we must deliver a robust skills system as part of facilitating lifelong learning as we seek to break down the barriers to opportunity, as our manifesto outlined. On that front, I pay heed to Anglia Ruskin University Peterborough. While just outside the boundaries of my constituency, it is delivering a huge amount for residents in the communities I represent, as, prior to its delivery, Peterborough was the largest city in our country that lacked a university, as I understand it. I am proud that a Labour combined authority has made expansion and development of that university a real priority, and I look forward to championing that cause in this place. That is a real example of how devolution works. Having served as a councillor and council cabinet member, I hope to be an ally and champion of local government and the insight that councillors and other locally elected representatives have into local communities.
I have highlighted just some of the issues that my constituents in North West Cambridgeshire face, but of course there are so many more that I do not have time to go into. A lack of affordable housing. Insufficient and unreliable public transport. The dental desert that we face in Peterborough, with no adult dental clinics accepting new patients, and people having to travel as far as Stevenage and Kettering. The list goes on, but I will end this speech by reaffirming my commitment to doing all that I can to address these issues, both in my constituency and more broadly, through delivering with colleagues the change that we were elected to bring.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Johanna Baxter to make her maiden speech.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on taking your place. I also congratulate all the Members who have made such eloquent maiden speeches this afternoon, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—please accept my sincere condolences for the loss of your mother.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech. It is an honour to stand here as the new representative for Paisley and Renfrewshire South. I thank every person who put their faith in me at the election. The people of Paisley and Renfrewshire South have voted decisively for real change and a Government in their service, and that is what we will deliver. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of this House for the professionalism and kindness that they have shown to every one of us who is a new MP.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mhairi Black. It cannot have been easy for Mhairi to enter this House as the youngest MP of her time, with the country’s press hanging on her every word. I followed her career with interest and, while we disagree profoundly on how we get there, I have no doubt at all that her desire has always been for a fairer and more equitable country. I wish her well in all her new endeavours, particularly her upcoming debut at the Edinburgh Fringe—though she may need to encourage her colleagues in the Scottish Government to settle their now annual pay dispute with the local government workforce if she is to avoid stepping over the city’s rubbish to get there.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), who served my constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South with distinction as their MP for 18 years, between 1997 and 2015, before being returned to this House again this year. The help and support that he provided to so many across my constituency was mentioned frequently and fondly at many of the doors on which I knocked during the election campaign. That he has already been appointed as a Minister of State in the Department for Business and Trade in this Government is testament to the talent and experience he brings to our Benches.
Both Mhairi and Douglas leave large shoes for me to fill. I am just glad that that is a metaphor rather than a physical requirement, because it might have been a challenge that eluded me. Madam Deputy Speaker, size is not everything, as I am sure people will appreciate. My constituents did not vote for me on the basis of my height. In the words of one of my constituents when I knocked on their door, “We are voting for you—you’re not getting any taller.” But no one in this House should mistake my height or size for the scale of my ambition for my constituency.
I am pleased to make my maiden speech in this debate on education and opportunity, because without good education, opportunities are reduced for many and inequalities widen. In doing so, I remember fondly my modern studies teacher, who, almost 30 years ago now, brought a class of working-class kids from the west of Scotland down to London on a bus to show us this mother of all Parliaments and remind us that, whatever our background, this place is as much our place as it is anybody else’s. His passion and belief in the power of politics to improve people’s lives gave me the confidence to fight for the values that I believe in, and I will forever be grateful to him for that.
My values were shaped by my grandad, Tadeuz Sadowski. He was a Polish migrant who came to Britain and worked down our pits. The loss and trauma that he experienced by the war waged at home led him to seek a better life here and in Scotland. His experiences taught me that no matter their background or birthplace, everyone deserves the opportunity to live a decent life, free from persecution and prejudice. That is why I have spent my entire working life until now in the service of the trade union movement and ordinary working people.
My constituency lies on the west of Scotland, covering the southern portion of the Renfrewshire council area. It includes much of Paisley, Scotland’s largest town, the smaller towns of Johnstone and Linwood, and the beautiful villages of Kilbarchan, Elderslie, Lochwinnoch, Howwood and Brookfield, among several other hamlets and farmland spreading across the rolling Renfrewshire hills. It has a proud and rich industrial history: the mills of Paisley, the carpet factory at Elderslie and the establishment of the first machine tool foundry in the world. While the industries people work in may have changed—many now work in our vital public services and at the nearby Glasgow airport—it remains a place where people work hard and rightly expect to be treated fairly in return.
A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work should not be much to ask, but wages have lagged behind costs in recent years. Too many people who are in work have had to claim benefits just to get by, and the number of those claiming unemployment benefits in my constituency is above the Scottish average. For too long, our communities have been failed and forgotten by two Governments—but no more. I am proud of the commitments set out by our new Labour Government to improve people’s lives, particularly the commitment to a new deal for working people. Making work pay, ending insecure work and extending employment rights will make a huge difference not just to people’s pockets but to the quality of their lives. They will be the biggest transformation of workers’ rights in generations, restoring dignity to work and preparing people for the changing world of work.
My constituents have never been afraid of standing up for what they believe in, and neither have I. We are, after all, the birthplace of William Wallace. It is our persistence in the pursuit of equality, opportunity and justice for all that binds us like the threads of the Paisley shawl. It was the spirit of persistence in the pursuit of equality that prompted the early uprising of the weavers who sought recompense for the sma’ shot thread—an invisible thread without which the Paisley shawl would fall apart. That industrial dispute was won by the workers, whose story lives long in our memory and continues to inspire us today.
It is persistence in the pursuit of opportunity that brings my constituents together to provide for others, as exemplified by the brilliant work of Thorn Athletic; the community bus service launched by Kilbarchan’s John McBarron, who stepped out of retirement to help fellow residents by filling a hole in local transport provision; and the West End Growing Grounds Association, which provides raised beds to help grow food and prevent food poverty in the local community. It was persistence in the pursuit of justice that gave us the infamous Paisley snail, which formed the basis of tort law. These are all ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and they are heroes, every one of them.
My constituents know that good work should provide not simply the bare necessities that people need to live, but the means by which they enjoy a good life—like our famous poet, Robert Tannahill, who knew how to weave threads and verses alternately. St Mirren football club provides huge enjoyment to many people across the constituency, and I hope that the entire House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), whose constituency includes St Mirren’s arch rivals, Greenock Morton, will send its best wishes to the club as it heads to Iceland tomorrow to face Valur FC in the UEFA conference league second qualifying round—its first European tie since 1987.
I know the value of people being able to send time appreciating the beauty of the natural world. We have the beautiful Gleniffer Braes, with its highland cows, the Clyde Muirshiel regional park, and the tranquillity of the Lochwinnoch RSPB nature reserve, one of the few remaining wetlands in the west of Scotland, where people can watch whooper swans, widgeon, goldeneye and, if they are very lucky, the elaborate displays of the great crested grebe. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the enrichment provided in everyone’s life by the pets of Paisley and Renfrewshire South, many of whom I had the pleasure of meeting on the doorstep during the campaign.
Let me conclude with this message to the voters of Paisley and Renfrewshire South. I will fight for you every day with every fibre of my being. I will work with everybody in the House who has a genuine desire to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people in our communities, because one person living in poverty is one person too many, and we must work together to do everything in our power to combat that. JFK once said:
“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
That is the motto to which I held true as a trade union negotiator. We must ensure that we do everything we can to lift people out of poverty and provide good jobs with decent terms and conditions that allow people to thrive, not just survive, because people need bread, but they need roses too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Dr Lauren Sullivan to make her maiden speech.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I congratulate you on your new post and wish you very well? I pay tribute to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter); she may be small, but incredibly mighty things will come from her standing up for her constituency. I offer my deepest sympathies to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and say to him, “Your mum would be so proud, and you moved many people in this Chamber today.”
I also welcome my new colleagues from Kent, my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), to their seats in Parliament. They spoke with passion about their constituencies and I look forward to working with each and every one of the Members who have made their maiden speeches today, and Members across the Chamber.
I begin by thanking the residents of my Gravesham constituency for putting their faith in me. I will work to the very best of my abilities to raise their concerns and issues in this House. I also pay tribute to the Member for Gravesham who served before me, Adam Holloway. Adam served the residents of Gravesham for 19 years and he and his office provided much support, advice and guidance to a range of constituents over those many years. I will seek to enhance and build on that work by holding surgeries and having an office in the borough to fulfil my promise of being an accessible MP. We may have disagreed on much, as hon. Members would expect, but, as a former soldier, Adam served his country, and his dedication in this House to those who serve is something I wholeheartedly support and will continue to champion.
Gravesham is a great place, encompassing the towns of Northfleet and Gravesend, which are bound by the River Thames to the north, 20 miles that way. They are surrounded by the beautiful rural villages of Meopham, Higham, Istead Rise, Shorne, Cobham, Sole Street, Luddesdown, Culverstone, Harvel and Vigo. We have a blend of manufacturing and industry close to the river, such as refined metals and paper making, and farming and agriculture.
We are proud to have not only one of Europe’s largest—if not the largest—gurdwaras, but two gurdwaras in Gravesham, and I commend and pay tribute to the incredible voluntary work they did before, during and after the covid pandemic. For many communities during covid, we saw a coming together, whether in churches, mosques, temples or other voluntary organisations. We saw the very best of people, and I am proud to represent a diverse constituency of many faiths and cultures.
I recall the recent celebrations of the Windrush generation, whose relatives docked across the river—they cannot get there at the moment because the Tilbury ferry is down, but we are working on that. They have enhanced our borough and they chose Gravesend and Gravesham for their home. One such legendary woman was Sister Ursula Sullivan, also known as Sully, who is known for having birthed and cared for most of the population in my constituency, including my husband.
Gravesham has a rich history dating back to before the Roman settlers. I pay tribute to the Gravesend Historical Society—100 years old today—and to Christoph Bull, Victor Smith, Sandra Soder and many others for documenting our proud history, as has been done since the Domesday Book. One of Gravesend’s claims to fame is that it is the final resting place of the native American princess Pocahontas, or Rebecca Rolfe, as she was known later in life. A fictionalised story of her early life was immortalised in a famous Disney animated movie, in which Pocahontas was not only a Disney princess, but a strong female leader. That is a part of Gravesham, and as the first woman MP for Gravesham, I can draw on her for inspiration. However, I can assure the House that, while I admire the strong female role models that Disney provides, such as Mulan, Merida from “Brave” or even Elsa, I am no Disney princess. Certainly nobody in this Chamber would want to hear me sing—so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just let it go.
There is so much to admire about Gravesham, but there is also much to admire about Labour’s plan for education and opportunity, so I will turn back to the subject of the debate. I welcome the Secretary of State and Ministers to their positions. Having campaigned alongside many of them, I know their passion for all our young people and children.
As well as being a scientist working on neglected tropical diseases under the supervision of regius professor Michael Ferguson at the University of Dundee—particularly African sleeping sickness, or trypanosomiasis, which is transmitted by the tsetse fly—and having worked more recently on malaria with Jean Langhorne at the Francis Crick Institute in London, supported by a brilliant Daphne Jackson fellowship, which returns its fellows to science after a break, I am also a qualified secondary school science teacher. I know full well that lessons should instil the excitement and inspiration needed for young people to choose to pursue a scientific career—one that our nation’s growth depends on —so I welcome the proposed modernisation of the curriculum, and especially the curriculum for life. So many of our young people in Gravesham tell me that they do not feel that the current school curriculum prepares them for life’s many challenges.
Although my children attend a great state school, the stress and pressure of the system, and the constant testing even at primary school, is leaving less time for play, creativity and socialisation. At times, our education system seems focused on evidencing for Ofsted’s needs rather than on the education and wellbeing of children—especially those with special educational needs. Academic achievement is important, but we must ensure that our young people are included in an education system that leaves them well-rounded and ready for life with practical skills. A fully equipped, statutory, universal and open-access youth work system will be vital to achieve that aim.
I thank the residents of Gravesham, my wonderful campaign team, and my family, who are with me today—and have behaved incredibly well! [Interruption.] I would not be here without their love and support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Peter Swallow to make his maiden speech.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is privilege and a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), who, like me, worked in teaching and the university sector before entering this place. My background is in humanities while hers is in science, and I know that we will both have to resist the urge to tell anyone off for speaking at the back of the class during our time here.
It is the honour of my life to rise and offer my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for Bracknell, Crowthorne, Sandhurst and Whitegrove. I am the first ever Labour MP to represent this corner of Berkshire. I offer my thanks to my constituents who have put their trust in me, and in this new Labour Government, to serve them. It is now for me and colleagues on the Labour Benches to deliver the change that we have promised. I take that duty seriously, and although change cannot come overnight, it is time to begin the steady task of building a better future for Bracknell and for the country.
My predecessor, James Sunderland, represented Bracknell through a challenging Parliament dominated by a global pandemic and two major international wars. I pay tribute to the manner in which he served during that difficult period. James was an advocate for the eradication of malaria, a disease that he saw in action while serving overseas in the Army. He was also a champion for special educational needs—a cause that I will be proud to take up as his successor. In his maiden speech, James remarked that
“politics is ultimately about service.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 98.]
We disagreed about many things during the election campaign, as Members would expect, but on that we were and are agreed: politics is ultimately about service.
This year is the 75th anniversary of Bracknell being designated a new town. In 1949, after the war, Britain was facing a housing crisis, and a Labour Government established new towns such as Bracknell to address a burning need for more social housing. I am proud that in 2024, a new Labour Government facing a new housing crisis are again committed to developing the next generation of new towns, in order to build a better future for families struggling to find safe and secure housing. This next generation of new towns would do well to look at the success of Bracknell: a sense of community has been embedded by good town planning; transport links and active travel have been designed into the fabric of the town; and we are home to many national and international businesses, including in the tech and life sciences sectors.
My constituency’s long and proud history did not start in 1949. The new town of Bracknell was originally a small market town in the parish of Warfield, some of which lies within the new constituency boundaries. I am also proud to be the MP for Crowthorne, which is a beautiful, peaceful village, yet one that has a long history of automotive innovation. Everyone in this House will have benefited from the new road signs, mini-roundabouts, zebra crossings and speed humps that were designed and tested at the Transport Research Laboratory based in Crowthorne. In the south of my constituency lies the town of Sandhurst. It is, of course, home to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, where British Army officers receive their training. The close relationship between the academy and the town is commemorated every four years with the Sandhurst freedom march, marking Bracknell Forest council’s decision in 1997 to grant the freedom of the borough to the academy. I was privileged to attend this year’s march, which happened to take place in the middle of the election campaign; it was an important opportunity to pause and honour those who serve.
As I have said, before my election I was a university lecturer, and before that I was a secondary school teacher. I have also been a primary school governor, so I have worked in education at all levels. Given that, it is no surprise that I would be keen to make my maiden speech on a topic that is of great importance to me and to this whole House: that of education. I welcome the Secretary of State for Education’s commitment to breaking down the barriers to opportunity for all children, her announcement today of a pause and review of the defunding of technical qualifications, and her laser-like focus on raising standards in early years education. We are lucky to have a number of excellent schools across Bracknell Forest, and as this week is the start of the school holidays, I take this opportunity to thank teachers, teaching assistants and the wider school staff across my constituency for another year of hard work and dedication, and wish them a pleasant summer.
The measures set out by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary are badly needed in my constituency. Despite their heroic efforts, teachers are finding it harder than ever to offer an excellent education while supporting the increasingly complex mental health needs of their students. Alongside that, there has been growing child poverty and real-terms cuts to funding. Nowhere is education reform more needed than in the area of special educational needs provision; a long-term failure to grapple with SEND has threatened local government finances and has meant, frankly, that we are letting our children down. During the election campaign, I was privileged to get to know a young man called Fred. Fred is 13 years old. He has autism and ADHD, and for the past 18 months, he has been out of school because mainstream education is not suitable for him and he is still waiting on a place in a special school. Fred wants to go to school. He wants to learn—he is an inquisitive kid. I know that because Fred helped me with the research for this speech. But because the system is not working, he has been locked out.
Fred is not alone. There are far too many children like him in Bracknell and across the country—so-called ghost children who are missing education because the right support is not in place. This is a national crisis and requires national solutions. I welcome the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement of that fact today, since the first step towards solving the problem is admitting that it exists. Let me conclude with this commitment: for as long as I serve in this place, I will do everything I can to fight for better educational opportunities for all, and to speak up for kids like Fred, who just want a chance to learn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Al Carns to make his maiden speech.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on taking up such an important role. We look forward to working with you. Thank you very much for allowing me to vacate the Front Bench and come to the Back Benches to make my maiden speech; I really do appreciate it. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) and for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) for their fantastic maiden speeches. I will try to live up to them and get the third one done okay, but they were really well done, with a fantastic story to tell.
Before I delve into my speech, I thought it would be worthwhile stepping back and taking a look at the position globally. First, I do not know any country in the world that has high education standards and a weak economy, and I would argue, as we sit here in this debate, that better education and having more opportunities relate directly to the economy, and that the two are mutually supporting. Secondly, I would like to say, as Veterans and People Minister in the Ministry of Defence, that the Army is one of the biggest providers of apprenticeships in the UK; there are 13,000 to 14,000 across the whole service—and that is just in the Army, not necessarily across the MOD. I and other ex-military individuals here are testament to the fact that the military provides people with a fantastic opportunity to realise their ambitions.
It is a true privilege to stand before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and an honour to be in this historic place. I am deeply grateful to the constituents of Selly Oak for placing their trust and confidence in me. I will work tirelessly to deliver change for the people of Selly Oak, and indeed this great nation.
It would be remiss of me to stand here without thanking the man who held the seat before me, Steve McCabe. Steve was a devoted public servant and an esteemed MP, a role he held for over 27 impactful years. To name but a few of his achievements, he worked to improve the NHS and social care, and championed small businesses in our constituency. His legacy in these great halls and in Birmingham Selly Oak will be enduring. I am also personally grateful for his guidance, and indeed his friendship throughout the campaign, which, as I took to knocking on doors, felt very alien to me. I used to joke with him that if he did not know it, it generally was not worth knowing. On the doorstep, people would often chastise me by commenting that it was one in, one out. Indeed, the Scots are slowly taking over.
I would like to outline my heartfelt sympathy for the Army officer involved in the shocking incident outside Brompton barracks in Kent yesterday evening and his family. Our thoughts, collectively, are with them all.
Importantly, I would like to extend my gratitude to the extraordinary and unflagging volunteers in my constituency from all walks of life. Their drive and dedication helped me, and helped our election victory become achievable. The generous spirit with which they committed huge amounts of their personal time genuinely humbled me. I have never seen so many people give up their time to support the cause. It is one of the many reasons why I am really proud to stand here representing Selly Oak constituents, and to drive forward change for them.
I have the privilege of being the MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, which is a constituency rich in working-class heritage. Its historical developments are interwoven with Birmingham’s industrial story, but it also blazed its own unique trail in, I would argue, industrial and social relations. The Cadbury family, for example, was not just any family, and theirs was not just any business. That business saw the value in investing in the local workforce by building hundreds of homes, social spaces and schools, not only securing a legacy, but making Selly Oak a far better place to live when times were exceptionally tough. Imagine if big business mirrored even a small fraction of that same spirit, or indeed that self-generated leadership, in today’s society.
When walking around knocking on doors and speaking to constituents, I often described Selly Oak as a United Kingdom squeezed into a constituency. We have different cultures, different characters and hundreds of small businesses. We had the Cadbury factory, and we have the Cadbury attraction, which has over 500,000 visitors every year. We have the great Birmingham University, which is so fantastic. We have many NHS workers and teachers, and an abundance of entrepreneurs, micro-breweries and charities. Much to my dismay, when I found out that I was to be a junior Minister, I learned that I could not attend the all-party parliamentary beer group. I can only apologise.
Selly Oak is still developing. I apologise to the rest of the west midlands MPs, but it was no wonder to me that a reputable newspaper named Stirchley, a small part of my constituency, one of the best places to live in the west midlands. We have one of the most stable and diverse populations in the UK, and as I am sure the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is acutely aware, we have the second biggest medical university in the UK, leading hospitals in our backyard, and an upcoming life science facility that makes Selly Oak and Birmingham a centre of gravity for the mission to transform and invest in the NHS, and for championing and harnessing the spirit of this immensely innovative nation.
Selly Oak not only has wonderful leafy suburbs, but is home to one of the biggest council estates in Europe. I look forward to working with the Deputy Prime Minister on the homes and communities agenda to ensure that the regeneration of Druids Heath is in keeping with the indomitable spirit of those who live there. I also want to do everything in my power to deliver on the Chancellor’s mission for growth, so that we reduce the requirement for food banks, increase police numbers, support our NHS more effectively, and release the pressure on our education system. There is much to do, but I have complete confidence that Labour Members will be able to do it.
The work of the small army of volunteers—people who stepped in to care for each other when past Governments forgot them—has my deep admiration. They keep so much afloat—no Navy pun intended—supporting Acorns children’s hospice, which is one of the biggest in Europe; Oaks and other primary schools, which are the backbone of opportunity throughout our constituency; the Shed in Cotteridge Park; and many social gardens and food banks across the constituency. Their energy, commitment and selflessness is truly remarkable.
What was most noticeable on the campaign was the Brummie culture, and I was amazed and humbled by the willingness to engage, discuss and debate throughout. The constituents of Selly Oak wanted to talk and have a voice. They have the energy, hope and ingenuity to build a better life, and it is our job to help them get there. Selly Oak and countless other places across the nation deserve our respect, our support, and our steady leadership in enacting meaningful and lasting change.
This general election result saw democracy in full swing, which I am deeply proud of, but as many in the House will have witnessed, there is a rise in threatening, malicious and intimidatory behaviour in our politics. Just as the constituents who put us here deserve respect, I commend those on all sides of the House who have put themselves in this place, in difficult circumstances, ready to volunteer, stand up and serve. I salute you all.
In that spirit of service, it was an honour and a great privilege to accept the Prime Minister’s offer of the role of Minister for Veterans and People, and to take up the mantle of working not only for the people of Selly Oak as their MP, but for veterans and families who have sacrificed so much for our nation, and who have stood and fought, often in the face of the unimaginable. I will stand with them, as one of them, to deliver the highest duty of care, commensurate with the risk and rigour that we expect from those who have defended, and continue to defend, the nation on the frontline. Achieving that will deepen the effectiveness of our service overall. It was therefore a huge thrill to announce yesterday in Birmingham, in my capacity as Minister, and to share here today that the 2027 Invictus games, which provide opportunity to those who have been wounded in service in any way, shape or form, will be hosted in the great city of Birmingham. What better way to demonstrate the unconquerable soul and unity of our veterans, their families and those serving, and of Birmingham and indeed Great Britain?
I would like to step back and give the House a reflection from my experience over the last 24 years that may be relevant to the rest of the year. After spending the past 24 years in the far corners of this world, fighting to uphold and protect our democratic values, Members cannot imagine—I genuinely mean this—how humbling it is to participate in this democracy, to go out on the campaign trail, to knock on doors, to vote, and to see the democratic process at work, and now to stand here among this fantastic cohort. I see this election victory not only as a moment for me, or from the perspective of Selly Oak or of all of us; I think it is a moment for all democracies. Our deeds must be as strong as our words. The world has become tougher and far more unstable, with insecurity surrounding us.
As His Majesty alluded to in his speech last week, we live in an increasingly fractious world; one where autocratic regimes seek to erode the universal freedoms that our parents and grandparents fought to protect. I have been on some of those frontlines and seen that at first hand. I can tell the House that there is little doubt in my mind that the tapestry of the international order is fraying, and in some cases now threadbare. The rise of populism and extremism and the assault on values such as the rule of law, self-determination and democracy itself should be of the greatest concern to us all.
I welcome and support the call for a ceasefire in Palestine, and we watch with a wary eye the developments in the Asia-Pacific. Most important though, from my perspective, is acknowledging and countering Russia’s despicable and illegal invasion of Ukraine. Russia has not only brought war to Europe, but even questions whether Ukraine has the right to exist and govern itself.
It is worth considering that if four years ago I had stood here on either side of the House and explained that today in Ukraine there would have been 900 Russian casualties by this time, and that by the time hon. Members had had lunch there would have been 500, and perhaps a similar number of Ukrainian casualties, Members would have probably told me that I was a scaremonger, a dramatist or, at worst, a belligerent Scot, but here we are. We have a war on the edge of Europe of a scale and of such devastation that is inconceivable to us. Indeed, it is taking place at such a pace that it is changing the very character of warfare. That is why I welcome the defence review, because the only thing consistent about change is that change is consistent. We must adapt and keep pace with the shifting character of conflict. If not, we risk falling short of our mission and indeed our duty and our responsibility to serve.
In my career, I have never stood idly by and done nothing in dangerous or uncertain times. The United Kingdom has not, either; we lead the way. After fighting for democracy all over the globe for so long, it is a great privilege to be stood here in this great Chamber and carry that fight forward not only on behalf of Selly Oak, defence and our veterans, but on behalf of all the people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I would like to call the Front-Benchers at 20 minutes to 7. That gives us time to get in John Slinger for his maiden speech.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I warmly congratulate you on taking up your position and warmly welcome the Secretary of State and her ministerial team to their positions, too? I express my deepest condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) for his loss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) on his sobering and powerful words, and other colleagues across the Chamber on their speeches today.
I start by thanking my family for their love and forbearance in recent months, my Labour and other friends for their support, and the people of Rugby and the villages for giving me the honour of representing my constituency, which has been my home for the last 17 years. As the MP representing the only seat with a sport named after it, I hope that the House will indulge me the occasional rugby analogy.
The rugby ball has been passed to me, notwithstanding a couple of minor mauls during the election campaign, which I overcame. I want to pay tribute to Mark Pawsey, my predecessor, who ran with the ball—literally and metaphorically—as a member of the Commons and Lords rugby team. Mark is an honourable, decent and kind man who served the House with distinction, worked tirelessly for his constituents and promoted the game of rugby internationally. I also put on record my respect for the former Labour Member Andy King, whose distinguished service continues to inspire me.
Rugby is a market town that has grown rapidly in recent years, surrounded by many small villages—too numerous to mention one by one—set in the beautiful Warwickshire countryside. To the north of the constituency is Bulkington, which some say is one of the largest villages in England, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) may disagree.
Rugby’s population ballooned when the Oxford canal was constructed in the 1770s, and the railway hastened industrialisation. I say to any Front Benchers listening that being on the west coast main line can very much hasten any ministerial visits that they may or may not want to make. [Interruption.] No, stop at Rugby. The confluence of the M1, the M6 and the M45 near Rugby places us firmly in the logistics golden triangle.
Notwithstanding this logistical good fortune, Rugby’s potential lies primarily with its people. We have been blessed, and still are, by people who innovate, challenge norms and think creatively. Let us take sport: a plaque at Rugby School records that, in 1823, the legendary local schoolboy William Webb Ellis,
“with a fine disregard for the rules of football, took the ball in his arms and ran with it”.
Although my connection with the game of rugby as a player was, I confess, somewhat underwhelming, I am proud to say that my dad, who is in the Gallery, played for England as a schoolboy.
I will not join the House rugby team, but I might join a reformed House rock band. I am acutely aware of how dangerous such statements can be, given that yesterday I wandered innocently into a meeting of an all-party parliamentary group, and wandered out slightly bewildered as vice-chair. As a classically trained violinist and semi-retired rock musician, I am glad to represent a constituency filled to the brim with talented people. I will bang the drum and strum a chord for them. Rugby was the birthplace of the poet Rupert Brooke, whose words
“That there’s some corner of a foreign field that is forever England”
epitomised a quiet, contemplative English patriotism.
We have spawned famous rock bands and musicians, from Spacemen 3 to James Morrison. The creative arts scene is thriving, with fantastic local bands of all genres, an orchestra, dance schools, Rugby theatre for amateur dramatics, galleries and much more. The sporting scene is vibrant, with several rugby football and football teams, and a plethora of clubs in the town and villages, where selfless volunteers offer pretty much every sport to the community.
Rugby also has a proud track record of technological innovation. As hon. Members get on a jet plane this week, they should think of Rugby, as the prototype of the first jet engine was built by Sir Frank Whittle at the British Thomson-Houston works in the town in 1937. At the same site a decade later, a young Hungarian refugee Dennis Gabor invented holography. I live in hope that holographic technology advances so far that, one day, MPs can be beamed into multiple locations, to assist with our busy diaries. Until recently, dozens of giant masts formed part of the world’s most powerful radio transmitter. In 1927, the site was instrumental in the first transatlantic telephone call. I believe in maintaining the strongest possible transatlantic alliance, so I am proud that Rugby played its part in deepening the ties between our two great nations.
That pioneering industrial and scientific prowess persists. Today, GE Vernova builds world-leading advanced generators, including for Royal Navy vessels. At Ansty Park we have the Manufacturing Technology Centre, the London Electric Vehicle Company—which makes the electric cabs in which many of us newbies may have been moved around in recent days—and FANUC UK. When I visited the MTC recently with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the West Midlands Mayor, it struck me that in order to unleash potential, we need partnership between business, the education and skills sector, local and national government, trade unions and much more. We met apprentices, beaming with pride at their achievements and in anticipation of a brighter future.
We also need investment, most importantly in education. I am therefore delighted that the King’s Speech includes measures to raise standards in education, reform the apprenticeships levy and establish Skills England. Having visited so many of our excellent state secondary schools and the brilliant local college, I am confident that the people of our area will do the modern-day equivalent of inventing a sport, designing an engine or writing an immortal poem.
Rugby is a place that is at ease with itself. We are a very diverse town, and that is unequivocally a huge strength. We learn from one another, celebrate one another’s traditions, break down barriers and focus on our common interests, something epitomised by the late Dr James Shera MBE, a mentor of mine who is sadly missed across the constituency.
Our charitable sector is strong. I will take the liberty of mentioning two local charities that inspire me: the Our Jay Foundation, which installs defibrillators; and Back and Forth Mens Mental Health, an issue close to my heart. The churches, temples and faith groups are at the heart of our community. The Street Pastors, who I shadowed on a late night shift, show kindness in action—kindness is a much underrated virtue.
The people of Rugby and the villages are compassionate. They warmly welcomed refugees from Ukraine. I pay tribute to the thriving Rugby Ukrainian community, its Ukrainian members bravely forging their new lives away from home, and all from the constituency who are helping them. The Benn Partnership’s “Meet and Eat” on Fridays, catered for by recent immigrants who not only cook the food but are learning English there, shows our cohesion. Our community invests in our young people, with fabulous youth centres, such as Hill Street and the Bradby Club. There are too many voluntary groups and organisations for me to mention; I simply salute them all.
We thrive more when we work together and when the Government are truly an enabler. I want to put on record my appreciation as a councillor of the work of council officers and all public servants in serving our community in difficult circumstances. I campaigned to become a Labour candidate using the phrase “Together we can”. I believe that is the only approach that will truly unleash the potential of the constituency. We now have a brilliantly led Labour council, a Labour MP and a Labour Government committed to empowering places with a strong vision.
I will do all I can to bring together people in this constituency, urban or rural, factory or farm worker, whatever their background, to tackle the problems we face, whether the lack of infrastructure such as GP surgeries, the need for more services at the superb Hospital of St Cross, insufficient affordable and social homes, town centre regeneration or the need to make our streets safer. In doing this, I am inspired by the late, great Ann Clwyd, for whom I worked, and the late, great Frank Field, with whom I worked.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I now have to call the Front Benchers.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to have you in the Chair. This is a first time for both of us.
I thank each and every Member for some awesome maiden speeches. I remember, four and a half years ago, how daunting it was. I still wake up today in a cold sweat thinking that I have to redo it. I will start with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), whose journey to this place is enlightening. This place is better when we bring our life experiences here to create better policy and to ensure that the next generation’s lives are better. I think that being honest about our own journeys helps others to feel as though they are part of our great country. One of the pleasures as a Member of Parliament is going into schools and speaking to school kids. I am dyslexic, and when I speak to them I ask, “Does anyone struggle to read or write?”—and I always stick my hand up. If someone like me can do this job, it hopefully gives the children I speak to the confidence to think high.
There are a lot of Members here with an education background. I ask them to please bring that experience to the forefront. Every single Government, of whatever stripe, want to make sure that our children do better. Politics is a team sport. You are all critical friends—I can say that because I am on this side now—but as a former Whip I can also say that your ability to communicate is what differentiates you on the Government Benches from the Opposition: speak to your Whips; feed in your views. None of us wants to create bad laws or regulations.
I say “Well done” to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), because I thought it was only the other side that made politics a family business. I look forward to her own private Member’s Bill, which will be life-changing. I say to the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) that I am not sure you are allowed to let your child abseil on behalf of Rainbows children’s hospice. I know the area well because I have family members from that part of the world, and I look forward to your legal skills being helpful.
Mr Mohindra
Oh, I am sorry. Excuse me: I am a newbie at this bit.
As for the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), you have some big shoes to fill in replacing my old boss, Michael Gove, but you have started very well. Your experience as a lecturer will be very helpful.
Mr Mohindra
The hon. Member’s experience of being a professor will be very helpful to this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) has significant experience of three separate careers, and I know he will be a strong advocate for his community. I applaud his focus on early years.
I now come to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I was a councillor in the neighbouring area before I came to this place, so I know your patch well. Your experience as a teacher—[Interruption.] The hon. Member’s experience as a teacher will be extremely helpful. He highlighted the important issue of young carers. That is probably below the radar for many of us as constituency Members, and we all need to spend a bit more time focusing on it to ensure that our communities are supported properly.
I now come to the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). I applaud her ambition to have 50:50 in this place. When I speak to my nieces, and indeed my nephew, it is always a disappointment to us that while 51% of our great country consists of women, only about a third of my colleagues are women—although the proportion is probably greater now—and, similarly, many boardrooms throughout the country are still very male-dominated.
The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) talked about Great British Railways. As my in-laws continually say, Derby remains the centre of the United Kingdom geographically, and I am surprised that neither of the new Derby Members mentioned that. As for the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), his Filipino heritage is a matter of passion and importance. When I was growing up and looking at Parliament TV—well, I didn’t really, but let us suppose that I did—this place did not reflect what I thought the country did, and today it does. We are on a journey towards getting better in that regard, and with his help and, hopefully, subsequent general elections and by-elections—and, also hopefully, with a few more Members elected to my side—this place will become truly reflective.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke about the Rolling Stones. Music is a strong theme in Parliament; he will figure that out in the bars and the all-party parliamentary groups. his significant experience in local government will be very helpful.
I offer the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) my sincere condolences about his mother. We realise that we are all human. Sharing that personal background with this place humanises us and makes sure that we all have “more in common”. All of us will have had a difficult general election, and I hope that the tone of politics returns to what I thought it was meant to be about 20 years ago, when politicians were held in high esteem. When I speak to individual members of my community, they still seem to consider politicians to be public servants, but unfortunately social media may not always reflect that and unfortunately you will all experience that; so make sure you communicate with colleagues, because they will all be going through it as well.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) spoke about Roald Dahl. I have the poem “If” on my wall at home, and I read it every single day. We have a really rich heritage in our great country, and when Members talk about things that inspire them, it will only inspire the next generation to be inquisitive. I hope that Stoke Mandeville will be improved, because it is a hospital that I will have to use, if and when necessary.
I am conscious of the time and that the Minister will need to say a few words, so I am going to wrap up my comments on maiden speeches. I know that I have not addressed every single one, but I will buy Members a drink at the bar in the next few days, weeks and years. Please do enjoy this job. It is the best job in the world, and you really are life-changing. On that note, I welcome those on the Government Front Bench to what is a phenomenal brief, and I look forward to supporting them where they are changing people’s lives for the better.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Catherine McKinnell)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome you to your place in the Chair, and I warmly welcome the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) to his place. I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State, whom I previously shadowed.
I thank hon. Members who have made contributions to this afternoon’s debate, and pay tribute to those who have made their maiden speeches today. They do themselves and their communities proud. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), the first Member of Filipino heritage to stand in this Chamber; my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), the youngest Member of the House, who spoke about his education, which was fairly recent; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who has rightly been recognised in this place for his experience; and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger), who is forgiven for all his rugby analogies after making an excellent speech.
In this House, we come together with a common goal: to give every child the best start in life and equip them with an education that sets them up for their lives. We are the Department for opportunity at the Department for Education. We are bringing education back to the centre of national life again, and we will work tirelessly to spread opportunity across our country, so that every child can thrive in a school with high and rising standards, and with a broad and rich curriculum that they can enjoy. Like every parent, I want that for my children, and I am so pleased that we have a Labour Government who are ready to deliver it.
I know what a brilliant school and education can mean. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), who made an excellent maiden speech today, I am not one of three Darrens, but I am a Sacred Heart girl, and I am not the only one in this Parliament. The parliamentary Labour party boasts three alumni of my old school, Sacred Heart Catholic high school in Newcastle; my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) and for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) went there, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), who made an outstanding maiden speech today, also attended a Sacred Heart school. It means that there are now as many state-educated Sacred Heart girls in the House of Commons as there are old Etonian boys—a tangible demonstration of the radical redistribution of opportunities that this Labour Government represent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) gave an account of her school trip to Parliament, which reminded me of my own trip at the age of 17, when I got in trouble for sitting down on these Benches. Clearly, such trips work to break down barriers to opportunity.
The journey starts in a child’s early years, when their development and education begin. Under successive Conservative Governments, however, the attainment gap has widened. It is now some years since I served on the Treasury Committee, but I still recall our inquiry into childcare as a part of national infrastructure. It was ground-breaking at the time and acknowledged that childcare is a fundamental service to our economy; it is not a “nice to have”. It is fundamental to allowing parents to work longer hours to provide for their families, and it is fundamental to people’s life chances. That is why this Government will deliver 3,000 more primary school-based nurseries, making them widely accessible to parents and unlocking opportunity for our youngest. In answer to the shadow Secretary of State’s question earlier, that will be delivered in partnership with the sector to ensure that it meets the needs of children and parents.
We know that childcare needs do not end when school starts. When a child moves up to primary school, in England, they will benefit from the roll-out of free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England. This will drive up attainment, improve behaviour and attendance, and enable parents to start work on time and support their families. It will set children up for the day and set them up to achieve, because it is as much about the club as it is about the breakfast. Being in the classroom at the start of the day matters.
Schools have a unique power to open up enormous opportunities for their pupils, with teachers and support staff who make a mark on every child’s life. That includes supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities to flourish, but across that system we have to acknowledge the many challenges that we face. Our buildings are substandard, our children are too often unhappy in school and our support staff feel underappreciated. We have to do better.
So many Members today have touched on the crisis in support for those with special educational needs and disabilities, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who I know has worked tirelessly on this issue for many years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who also spoke passionately today. This Government will help schools to take a community-wide approach to SEND, improving their capability to accommodate pupils in mainstream settings and supporting them to flourish.
Last week, I visited the brilliant Croftway academy in Northumberland. It demonstrates how children of different abilities and needs can have the highest standard of education in a mainstream setting, but we also need to ensure that special schools can cater for those with the most complex needs. For those struggling with the pressures of school life, this Labour Government will fund mental health support in every secondary school and in every community so that they can access support before problems escalate. I know that mental health is a priority for many in this place, as was powerfully described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) in her speech.
As shadow Schools Minister, I heard many stories of decisions being taken about our schools that just did not factor in the needs of communities. There was delay that turned to disappointment and frustration. I have seen this in my own constituency with a lack of proper planning causing chaos to school admissions in Gosforth this year, and countless stories of failure are replicated across the country. So under Labour, schools will need to co-operate with their local authority on school admissions, on SEND inclusion and on place planning. No more of the chaos that we have seen over the last few years.
We want children to leave school with the skills and knowledge to set them up for life. That means a broad and balanced curriculum that encourages them to try new things, ask questions, express themselves and be creative while also gaining an excellent foundation in reading, writing and maths. So we are establishing an expert-led review on the curriculum and will collaborate with the sector to allow schools, teachers, parents and students to contribute and to plan ahead.
On the question of removing exemptions for private schools, which has been raised, this change will enable vital investment in more teachers and improved nursery provision. I commend the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), a former maths teacher. While we are delighted that he is in his place, we need to ensure that we have more maths teachers in our state schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) spoke about being a school governor, and we need more of those too. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) gave a powerful testimony to his dear late mother. We share his grief and we share her pride.
Ultimately, education is about preparing children and young people for life and giving them the skills they need to get on, but these opportunities do not end at the school gates. For too long, post-16 education has been poorly matched to the ambitions of young people and the needs of businesses and employers, allowing talent to go untapped and the economy to flag. That is why, earlier this week, we announced Skills England, a transformative new body to match post-16 education to the needs of the economy. By deploying skills investment strategically, we will bring employment opportunities to the parts of the country where young people need a break and businesses need their skilled labour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) spoke powerfully about his apprenticeship and his passion for ensuring those opportunities for others. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) spoke about the need to not have to leave the place you love to get on in life. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) wants to see a curriculum for life. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak has rightly been recognised, as I mentioned earlier.
All of this work will require a partnership approach. None of the challenges we face can be addressed by one person or one body alone. That is why we are resetting the relationship between Government and the sector. We are listening to professionals. We are learning from best practice. We are working to improve standards across the board. It is also why I want to take this opportunity today to pay tribute to all those who work in our schools, to thank them and to wish them a restful and restorative summer break.
Under this Labour Government, neither a person’s place of birth nor the income of their parents will determine what they can achieve, how they find fulfilment, how they discover their skills and talents, or how they grow in confidence, because breaking down the barriers to opportunity is Labour’s guiding focus. It is the job of this Government, and it is one that we are committed to delivering.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered education and opportunity.
Business without Debate
Flood Defences: West Worcestershire
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and what a pleasure you have had in listening to such an excellent array of maiden speeches this afternoon. I thank Mr Speaker for allocating me one of the first Adjournment debates in this new Parliament.
My speech will be more of a reiteration of certain points and less of a novelty, as I was lucky enough to get an Adjournment debate on the same flood defences at the beginning of the last Parliament. During that winter, we suffered not only from coronavirus but from Storms Ciara and Dennis.
I congratulate the floods Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), on her appointment. She and I were colleagues on the Treasury Committee, and I know how passionately and genuinely she cares about flooding issues, so I look forward to working with her.
My constituency is in a part of the world that floods frequently, and we realise that we will flood a lot in West Worcestershire. We have the River Severn running through the middle of the constituency, and the Rivers Avon and Teme flow into the Severn just south of Worcester, so we accept that flooding is a part of nature and part of what we have in West Worcestershire.
In the years that I have been fortunate enough to represent the area in Parliament, and before, I have tried to mitigate some of the problems that arise from being in a very flood-prone part of the world. Last winter, we again saw how difficult it can be when there is a very wet winter. Many local farmers, residents and businesses were very grateful for funding from the flood recovery fund after Storms Babet and Henk.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Rural areas are often the worst impacted by flood damage, yet they are often deemed less of a priority for flood defences than urban areas. Does the hon. Lady agree that the flood defence grant in aid cost-benefit analysis must be reviewed to ensure it sufficiently values agricultural and rural communities?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady highlights something that I have grappled with throughout my time as a Member of Parliament.
I will now move on to the situation in Tenbury Wells in my constituency. Seventeen years ago this month, in the middle of summer, we had the most severe flooding for many, many years. It caused massive damage and misery across West Worcestershire. In fact, it was the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) who was the Environment Minister at the time. In 2007, he came to see the devastation in Tenbury Wells. It was at that time that I first started to look into these cost-benefit analyses and the formula that the hon. Lady raised. While accepting that, in West Worcestershire, we will flood regularly, I think that there are many things we can do to mitigate the misery of being flooded, and of being flooded regularly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on being elevated to Deputy Speaker. She is well-respected and her appointment is well-deserved. Everyone in this House is very encouraged to see her in that position.
May I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) on securing this debate? Is she aware that inadequate flood defences mean an increase in homeowners’ insurance premiums? That increase has been noted in her constituency, as it has been in mine of Strangford. Does she agree that this House and Government must work on a UK-wide approach to ensure that insurance premiums are not hiked because defences are inadequate?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. Indeed, it was after the 2007 floods that the idea of a flood reinsurance scheme came about. It was something that was established when the last Government came into power in 2010. It has now become somewhat easier to get insurance, but it does continue to be a challenge, and I shall highlight examples of that in my speech. It will be interesting to hear if the Minister can confirm from the Dispatch Box whether Flood Re will continue to be a priority for the new Government.
I have campaigned successfully for many flood defence schemes in West Worcestershire over the years. We have made real progress. In particular, the two schemes that protect Upton upon Severn have been deployed year in, year out. In fact, they have successfully protected Upton upon Severn from flooding something like 40 times since they were opened in 2013. We have had a bund built along the Defford Road in Pershore; a flood defence gate installed in Kempsey; a gate barrier installed at Uckinghall; a bund built in Powick; and a community scheme is now in place in Callow End, so there has been real progress.
We have seen the cumulative impact of the many millions that have been spent on flood defences across West Worcestershire in the resilience that the communities showed last winter when it was so very wet. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to previous flood Ministers, to the teams at the Environment Agency, to Worcestershire county council and to the regional flood defence committees, which have helped over time to get these flood defence scheme funded and built.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She describes the huge amount of investment that has been going into the River Severn. She has an awful lot of the River Severn in her constituency. She will be aware that, in Bewdley, about £11 million is being spent on flood defences. She may remember that Daniel Kawczynski, the former Member for Shrewsbury, set up an action group because he recognised that the whole of the River Severn is a cohesive watercourse, which requires a lot of effort and attention. That role in the action group is now vacant and I was wondering whether she would be enthusiastic to take it on. She would have a lot of support from all of those Members of Parliament representing constituents on what used to be the blue River Severn, which is now, I think, a bit red and orange in places.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thought my hon. Friend was making a good pitch to take on that role himself, and I would certainly support him in that. None the less, he is right: all of us who live along the Severn catchment and the rivers that flow into the Severn have a responsibility to work together to make sure that we make progress.
With the very wet weather that we had this winter, we discovered that some of the roads that we accept will close once or twice a year are now closing more frequently. I have asked for an analysis from both our county council and the Environment Agency to explore the projections of the frequency with which those closures might happen. I am looking to find a solution to the situation with the Hanley Road outside Upton upon Severn and also the historic Eckington bridge, where the floodplain is also flooding more frequently. We need to see whether we need solutions to these infrastructure challenges over the decades to come.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On the impact on local people, I wonder whether the hon. Member is, like me, very concerned about the proposals of the Conservative-run Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council to build on Keele golf course? Many of my constituents are very concerned indeed about the potential impact of flooding that may come with such development. Does she agree that, when it comes to building, councils have to factor in the climate and our natural world?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I think the hon. Member needs to have a word with his Deputy Prime Minister about that. He and I may share some concerns about the ability of Whitehall to determine where concrete is poured across our country.
Let me turn to two schemes that are still not built. They were the subject of my Adjournment debate back in 2020. I think that we can make progress in this Parliament on the Tenbury Wells and Severn Stoke flood defence schemes. I would like today’s Minister to be the Minister who sees those schemes completed. Tenbury Wells is the most beautiful town, but it was built on a floodplain centuries ago, so protecting it is a very complicated project that comprises flood gates, bunds and walls. After my Adjournment debate in 2020, to my delight a funded scheme was agreed, with £4.9 million allocated to move it forward. On top of that, last year I secured another £2.5 million from the frequently flooded communities fund, because inflation had taken its toll and construction costs had spiralled. We are now in a situation where some of those millions have been spent on consultants and advisers, but the flood defence scheme itself is still stuck on the drawing board and has not yet gone to planning. I ask the Minister for an update on that.
Severn Stoke—the clue is in the name—is another community that sits on a floodplain. The village, its popular pub, its church, and the busy A38 road are frequently flooded. In fact, the village hall had to be pulled down because the parish could no longer afford to insure the property. The church is now struggling with insurance. In the last Parliament, I was pleased to win funding for that scheme as well, including from the frequently flooded communities fund, and arranged the transport of local topsoil to the place free of charge, but I would now also describe that scheme as stalled. In fact, there is a forlorn pile of topsoil in Severn Stoke that sat there while the village flooded again last winter. Will the Minister tell me how we can get both schemes moving again and, importantly, how we can get them finished?
In April, I had a very helpful meeting with the Environment Agency chief executive Philip Duffy and the Environment Agency team. I had another one scheduled for June, but of course the general election intervened. I ask the Minister whether we can reschedule that meeting at the earliest moment, to identify how to unblock the two schemes. I know that the last Government were on track to spend over £5 billion on flood defences over the spending review period.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech, and making a very strong case for why we need to invest in flood defence schemes. Under the last Conservative Administration, we increased the amount of investment in flood defence schemes from £2.6 billion to £5.2 billion over the next six-year period. Does she agree that the new Government should adhere to those funding increases so that we can ensure that schemes such as the ones for which she is advocating are dealt with and funded?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He points to a fact that I acknowledge: cumulatively, we have become more resilient to flooding in West Worcestershire over the last 14 years, but there are still these two schemes. That was going to be my next question to the Minister: will she confirm that the new Government will continue with the same level of spending that my hon. Friend mentioned? Is there anything that I could do, other than leading debates such as this and meeting with the chief executive of the Environment Agency, that would help locally to unblock any of the issues?
I know that these schemes, particularly the one in Tenbury Wells, are complicated. I just want the Environment Agency to be able to find its way through the obstacles. The local community knows that in order to make the omelette that is the flood defences of Tenbury Wells, a few eggs will need to be broken, with a few road closures at times and potentially some loss of road space down some side roads. I just want to say on behalf of the community that it is prepared to put up with that level of inconvenience and some traffic disruption for a while in order to protect its beautiful town. As can be seen from the other examples in West Worcestershire that I have mentioned, particularly Upton upon Severn, the long-term benefit of protecting the town is immeasurable.
Will the Minister join me in an effort of shared persistence and determination to protect these two communities by finally getting the two schemes built, preferably before the inevitable arrival of the next serious floods? Finally, will she confirm that she will press ahead with the expanded offer of the farming recovery fund? Farmers in my constituency and elsewhere think it is very important that the offer includes those who experienced damage due to extreme rainfall, and not just those who experienced flooded land.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I have given way once already to the hon. Lady. I am going to allow the Minister to use the remaining time to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Thank you and congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a night of firsts—I am giving my first speech as Minister and we have you here for the first time as Deputy Speaker—but of course we have the continuity of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) being here to intervene in the Adjournment debate. As so many things change, so many things remain the same. Long may that continue.
I am delighted to respond to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who I hold in high regard and esteem. I enjoyed our time together on the Treasury Committee. I am pleased, in my first debate as Minister, to be able to talk to her about something that we had conversations about before I took this role. I want to state at the beginning that I will be very happy to continue the conversation; I recognise that she requested a meeting and I will be more than happy to follow that up.
The hon. Member alluded to 2007, which we remember very well. She talked about the challenge and the impact in her constituency, and it was the same for me in Hull—absolutely devastating. As she mentioned, people continue to feel the trauma, which has a long-lasting impact not just on the economy and the state of people’s property, but on people’s mental health. I therefore want to make it abundantly clear that this Government are committed more than ever to protecting communities from flooding. It is one of our top five priorities in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the good news is that the work has already begun.
I want to be as open and honest as possible with the hon. Member, so I have looked in detail at the two schemes that I was aware she would raise tonight. Although I have been informed that the Environment Agency has completed some work since 2007 and progress has been made—I am sure we both want to acknowledge that—these two schemes do seem to be particularly difficult. I recognise that she raised the same issue with the previous Minister. I extend my sympathies to all the communities of West Worcestershire who were affected by the winter flooding, which is an awful thing for anyone to experience. I enjoy and share the hon. Member’s persistence. In fact, I believe that this place only works when we have persistent and talented women leading the way, so I am absolutely with her on that.
Let me turn first to the Severn Stoke flood alleviation scheme. I understand that the hon. Member was involved in securing some of the soil required for the embankment. My understanding of the situation is that if the scheme is completed, it will better protect 18 homes and businesses and the Rose and Crown pub, which I have heard good things about, but the difficulty seems to be making sure that the scheme is within the funding envelope that has been allocated. My understanding—I will make a comment on the funding formula—is that the benefits of the scheme, as assessed, cannot be greater than the cost of delivering the scheme. The funding envelope that has been allocated is based on the benefit that is meant to be given, so the scheme has to be delivered within that envelope, even though payment in kind has been received, in terms of the provision of the soil. That is the difficulty with that particular scheme. The good news is that the Environment Agency is still working on finding a contractor; it is still going out there and talking to organisations that could deliver the scheme within the budget available.
The hon. Member mentioned the role that she could play. She has knowledge and experience of businesses in the area, and that might be one avenue to explore with contractors, who would learn the benefits that they would bring to the city and how they would be celebrated. We would need to make sure that they could deliver within the funding that is provided. That is the particular difficulty, as I understand it. I recognise the frustration that the hon. Member expressed. There can be nothing more frustrating than, to use her words, a forlorn pile of soil sitting there doing nothing. I share her frustration, and I hope that we can find the contractor that is needed.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that many flood schemes have not been completed, including a number in my constituency of Carlisle, as a direct result of the economic chaos created by the previous Government, which has forced the Environment Agency to cancel a quarter of the planned schemes?
Emma Hardy
It is great to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber. She is right. The economic chaos that we face, and which continued as we changed Government, Prime Ministers and Chancellors, did not provide the stability needed to get on with these schemes and deliver them. The change that people required has now taken place, and we have stability and new Ministers—hopefully, I am not going anywhere quickly—so I hope we can get on and deliver. I hope that my hon. Friend will be persistent in pursuing this issue.
I had a careful look at the Tenbury Wells scheme mentioned by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and how complicated the measure would be. As she said, it would potentially involve people having to move house and, at times, parts of their garden being removed and roads being closed. I understand that the necessary consultation has been undertaken with residents, in the detail needed. Nobody wants a scheme that will be expensive and disruptive, or that does not perform as expected. Anything put in place must also be in keeping with that beautiful part of the country. As a result, design costs have increased repeatedly. There is always the difficulty that we want something that is as good as possible at ensuring flood alleviation, designed in the best possible way, in keeping with the character of the town and that causes minimum disruption.
My understanding of the situation is that the scheme has become much more expensive as time has gone on; that is something that we might want to discuss in more detail when we meet. It is important that we get it right, and that it is affordable, given the amount of money that has been allocated. I am happy to take forward that conversation. I would not want to be the Minister for delivering something that residents would not want to have in their community.
As the hon. Member will know from the National Audit Office report, “Resilience to flooding”, which was published last November, we have inherited a floods capital programme that faces extreme delivery challenges. As has been mentioned, the NAO cites a number of projects that have not gone through, partly because they could not be delivered within the timeframe, partly because of inflation, and partly because of covid and other challenges in government. That has had an impact, so I am reviewing absolutely everything that is going on in the Environment Agency and looking at all the schemes. I want to update hon. Members on all that as quickly as possible, and if anyone wishes to see me about individual schemes, they are more than welcome to do so.
Mark Garnier
I congratulate the Minister on her new job; she is doing a fantastic job so far and saying all the things that I, as a neighbour of this scheme, want to hear. She talked about reviewing the project, and I think we would all agree that there is no harm in that, but it is probably worth bringing up my experience just down the river from Tenbury Wells in Bewdley, where flood defence schemes are being put in place very successfully, and are working well for the town and the community. However, one issue keeps coming up: the disruption caused by having to switch to one-way traffic on the bridge results in a slight drop-off in trade in the town.
It is very early days for the Minister, but as part of the review, it might be helpful to reassure traders. Perhaps her Department could look at not necessarily financial compensation, but something that could help businesses that struggle with cash flow during lean periods because of the works, in order to get them through. Ultimately, we will get far better economic value from a town that has flood defences, because it will not flood any more, but in the interim, this issue is problematic. I ask her respectfully to have a look at that in her review, so that we can help traders to get over the hump—that difficult moment—of the flood defence works.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I recognise the difficulty that these works cause to businesses. That goes to the point that I made to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire: the design has to be right, and works have to be done in conjunction with the community. That is why works sometimes become more expensive. However, I will take away the point the hon. Gentleman makes.
On the funding formula, I said many times in opposition that I was keen to look under the bonnet, and now I am delighted to get that chance for a detailed look at exactly how things work. That is something I am reviewing. As is always the case, pulling one lever can have unintended consequences elsewhere, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving the details of exactly which levers I intend to pull. However, I am actively gaining a clear and transparent understanding of how the funding works, who the winners and losers are under the formula that we have, and our priorities.
Jim Shannon
In my intervention on the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), I referred to insurance premiums. If we sort the flooding out, insurance premiums will fall and there will be less cost. That must be a factor for constituents and their living costs. Is that something the Minister will look at, please?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second intervention in this Adjournment debate; we are doing well. I have been passionately supportive of the Flood Re scheme, but it is meant to come to an end in 2039, and I am looking at that in real detail. The whole point of the Flood Re scheme was that we would be able to build resilient properties, which would not be reliant on it, but that has not happened—I think we need a level of honestly about that—so I am looking at the Flood Re scheme at the moment. We want to ensure that wherever people live in the United Kingdom, they are able to find affordable insurance for their property. That has to be a priority.
In the last few minutes that I have, I will touch on one of the other big problems we face, which is the maintenance of existing flood defences. We have talked a lot in this debate about the capital building, and the need to build new flood defences, but we have a significant issue with the flood defences that we already have, and it has been exacerbated by the problems we had as a result of the two storms. One of my big concerns is the deterioration over the past few years of some of our key infrastructure. That is another priority for me.
In opposition, I talked about our flood resilience taskforce and what Labour would do, and I am pleased to say that Labour is getting on with this as promised. We will look to create the taskforce as soon as possible, ahead of the wettest season. The flood resilience taskforce will look at co-ordination across Government and across agencies on the ground, and will work with stakeholders in fire and rescue services, to inform policy and establish national standards. A difficulty I often noticed in opposition was with Government Departments maybe not always working together as one when they should.
To finish, this Government are dedicated to collaborating closely with the Environment Agency and, of course, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire to advance the Severn Stoke and Tenbury Wells schemes in her constituency. More generally, however, this Government commit to works that will ensure that communities throughout England receive the protection that they need, especially as the risk of flooding rises due to climate change. I salute her and every other Member present for their persistence on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Machinery of Government
(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government changes.
On 10 July the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was renamed the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
I am today announcing the following further changes to the machinery of government.
First, responsibility for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, including co-chairing the ministerial structures under the UK’s treaties with the European Union, will move from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the Cabinet Office. This change will allow the Paymaster General as Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations to drive the Government’s European Union agenda, overseeing the existing relationship, and leading the cross-Government work to deepen this relationship in the future. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office remains responsible for bilateral relationships, Gibraltar negotiations and Europe strategy using the Department’s diplomatic expertise.
Secondly, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs will move from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Defence. This change will enable the Minister for Veterans and People to have complete oversight for the entirety of service life, from training to veteran, working with all Government Departments to deliver for our service personnel.
Thirdly, the Government Digital Service, the Central Digital and Data Office and the Incubator for Artificial Intelligence will move from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This change will embed the delivery of digital services and levers to drive public and private sector innovation within a single Department. Working closely with the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will be the digital centre of government.
Fourth, the Government car service will move from the Department for Transport to the Cabinet Office. This change will better align the Government car service with other centrally provided protective security services for Ministers and support end-to-end provision of executive protective security.
The four additional machinery of government changes outlined above will take effect immediately.
[HCWS19]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Schools: Mental Health and Poor Attendance
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the links between rising levels of mental health issues among school age children and poor school attendance; and what steps they are planning to take to address the situation.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, mental ill-health and inadequate access to support are real challenges facing children today and have a detrimental impact on their school attendance. This is despite the excellent work done by education and health staff across the country. Poor mental health and low attendance are mutually reinforcing barriers to opportunity and learning. That is why we are committed to providing access to a specialist mental health professional in every school and developing new young futures hubs.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. As she has acknowledged, the evidence increasingly shows a clear link between school absences and poor mental health. There is also a growing recognition of the gap in mental health support available to children who need a greater level of support than is currently available in school mental health teams but do not require specialist treatment from CAMHS, and that this gap is best filled, as happens in Scotland and Wales, by school counsellors and suitably qualified practitioners. She talked about providing specialist mental health support for every school, mirroring my recent Private Member’s Bill, and I very much welcome that. Could she confirm when these proposals will be brought forward and whether they will include primary as well as secondary schools?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness has done much work in this area and, obviously, has had a Private Member’s Bill on it. Access to mental health professionals will be for all schools, secondary and primary. We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we get that model right and that we can, as she emphasises, provide that early support to alleviate the need for more acute mental health provision for young people, I hope.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to her position and congratulate her on her appointment to the House. Research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership found that only one in three disabled children receive the support they need in education, and only one in five receive the support they need within the health service. In the light of these findings, it is unsurprising that mental health issues prevent many disabled children continuing their education. Can she assure the House that these two barriers in particular will receive urgent attention from the Government, because they are destroying lives?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend identifies particular issues around mental health and special educational needs and disability. There are 1.6 million children identified with SEND. Unfortunately, outcomes are poor and confidence in that provision is declining. That is why we are working hard and, as I mentioned in my speech last week, are willing to engage widely to provide ways in which we can support those children and improve a system that is currently failing too many of them.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, schools are called the fourth emergency service by the Association of School and College Leaders. They often help parents with benefit applications and mental health support so that their children will attend school. However, disrupted home environments, as well as mental ill-health, drive persistent absenteeism. Family hubs in Sefton, Salford, Kirklees and Bury St Edmunds are lifting this burden, freeing schools to teach. Will the new Government continue to support the growth of family hubs?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, of course, that, for many children, schools are the stable part of their lives, but teachers, although they provide enormous levels of support along with other school staff, need to be able to focus on teaching children. Family hubs indeed play an important role in helping families to access vital services to improve the health, education and well-being of children and young people. We are already considering the overall approach to early childhood and family support, and how it can support this Government’s opportunity mission. That includes reviewing the future vision and intentions for family support, including the core role played by family hubs.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on what the Government will do to ensure access to mental health support for those children with disabilities and special educational needs? We know that they are disproportionately represented in absence and persistent absence figures, and that mental health is often a contributing issue. She spoke in her Answer about the evidence link between absenteeism and life chances. Does she agree that failing to address this risks widening even further the existing gap between attainment and life chances for those children who live with disabilities and educational challenges and those who are fortunate not to live with those challenges?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that, where special educational needs come alongside mental health problems and other issues in children’s lives, they are more likely to be absent from school. Of course, while they are absent from school, they are not learning and it is also likely that mental health issues will increase, not reduce. That is why, for the vast majority of children with special educational needs who are being educated in mainstream schools, early intervention through the use of access to mental health support workers will be an important first way to support them and prevent conditions from becoming worse.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, improving attendance is the most urgent and important priority to support our children’s well-being and their academic attainment. There is rightly a focus on the most vulnerable children who are severely absent from school, including those with mental health issues. They represent about 2% of school-age children, but there is a much larger group—about 37% of our children last year, or 2.7 million pupils—who miss between 5% and 15% of school, with all the impact that has on behaviour and attendance, and the pressure it puts on teachers. What are the Government planning to do to help schools to improve the attendance of those children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness has done considerable work in this area, as I was reminded while being briefed for this Question. In particular, the whole range of work outlined in the updated Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance, which of course becomes statutory in August, is important in outlining the responsibility of schools to develop a policy and the support that needs to be available to children and young people to enable them to attend. She worked carefully on improving access to data, so that schools can have a more granular approach to the reasons why individual children or cohorts of children may be missing from school, and can put tailored interventions in to support them. She will know that 93% of schools already provide that data to the department, and from September that will be compulsory for all schools.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, will the new Government seek to address the severe problems of child and adolescent mental health services coping with increased referrals and lack of staff? As reported by the Centre for Young Lives and others, there are now quite unacceptable delays in obtaining appointments, assessments and necessary treatment. Giving priority to children and families needing intervention will reduce much misery and save costs in the long run.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there is a considerable problem with access to child and adolescent mental health services, at a time when one in five eight to 16 year-olds have a probable mental health disorder, it is suggested, and are seven times more likely to be absent for extended periods of time. When the median wait for these services for children is 201 days, there is clearly more that needs to happen. Alongside access to mental health professionals in all schools, my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are also committed to recruiting an additional 8,500 mental health staff, with a priority for enabling them to work with children and young people.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister comment on what further work the Government plan to do specifically for young people with spectrum disorders, such as autism and ADHD? They can do well in mainstream schooling, but often do not because their needs are not recognised soon enough, and they can then present with mental health disorders on top of their spectrum disorders. What is being done to help teachers understand how to manage those children and keep them in the classroom, which is often not easy?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is of course right. There are a whole range of reasons why children may be absent from school. Special educational needs and particular disabilities, as she identifies, are a key reason. That is why, in a system that is not properly serving children, this Government are committed to improving that and working to ensure, across the whole spectrum of special educational needs and disability, that children get the support they need to remain in mainstream schools. As she also rightly says, teachers are getting the support they need, along with other staff within the school, to both identify and then support those children, so that they can achieve and succeed in a way that will be an important foundation for the rest of their lives.
European Investment Bank
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to seek a closer relationship with the European Investment Bank to encourage investment in the United Kingdom.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have set out plans to significantly increase investment in the UK economy, including through a new national wealth fund and far-reaching reforms to the planning system. The Government have not set out any specific plans in relation to the European Investment Bank.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. When we left the European Union, we left the agencies in a particularly violent way. We did not really deal with them at all, but there is nothing in the EIB statutes that precludes it lending to non-EU countries such as the United Kingdom. Will the Government consider opening negotiations with the EIB to get a closer relationship, one that is based not on cherry picking but on the mutual concerns on both sides to get a better spread of investment in the United Kingdom and Europe?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the substantive points that the noble Lord is making. We need to reset our relationship with the European Union. The Government are committed to doing this in order to strengthen ties, reinforce our commitment to security and tackle barriers to trade. We also need, as he says, to increase investment in our economy, so we have set out significant steps to unlock billions of pounds in private sector investment in the industries of the future through a national wealth fund, planning reform, a pensions review and a modern industrial strategy.
The noble Lord asked specifically about a third-party relationship with the European Investment Bank. Although it is possible to agree such an arrangement, it is unlikely that such an arrangement would provide anything like as much investment into the UK as membership of the EIB did.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, there are substantial links through the financial sector, legacy projects and joint development funding with the EIB at present, and I think there are opportunities that the Government could investigate further in the areas of defence and energy security, which have increased in significance since Brexit and where there is obviously mutual advantage. Will the Government look to explore those areas and make significantly greater political engagement by means of higher-level Civil Service relationships with the EIB and possibly the secondment of staff between the UKIB and the EIB, which could be mutually beneficial? These could all be measures where we could move forward and obtain greater funding or greater joint projects.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct that there are continuing projects in the UK that were financed by the EIB prior to leaving the EU and which it continues to support. I agree with her that there is merit in improving our relationship with the European Union. We have not yet set any plans on working with the European Investment Bank, but I will absolutely consider the point she makes.
Lord Watts (Lab)
When we left the European Union we were told that there were loads of trade deals to be done around the world. The previous Government sent people to every quarter of the world to try to do trade deals and failed. Will the Minister redirect his staff into doing something positive rather than waste our time?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think it is a question of either/or. Clearly we need to do more to reset our trade relationships right around the world. We want strong multilateral partnerships with new countries and to reset our relationship with the strongest and closest partners that we have in the European Union. We should work hard to develop stronger trade relationships right across the board.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
If the Government are to set a good example about investing in the UK, should they not perhaps start at home and invest a little more of the MPs’ pension fund?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think that is a question for Parliament rather than the Government.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
I declare my interest as chair of Oxford University Innovation. At the heart of this question is the need to have more scale-up capital invested in UK innovations. Australian pensions invest more than 10 times the amount of capital than we do in private markets. The previous Chancellor was trying to unlock UK pension capitals into our UK innovations. Are the Government going to continue that work and unlock pension capitals into these innovations? How do they intend to make sure that that happens at pace?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and I agree with the premise behind it. We as a country need to get better at start- up and scale-up capital, and we need to increase the levels of investment in our economy. Our goal is absolutely to unlock billions of pounds of private sector investment into the infrastructure that our economy desperately needs. The noble Baroness will be aware that the Chancellor and the new Pensions Minister have launched a review to boost investment, increase pension pots and tackle waste in the pensions system. In order to boost investment in Britain, we want to see more pension schemes investing in fast-growing British firms. As she will know, just a 1% increase in the £800 billion of assets that DC schemes are set to manage by the end of this decade could raise £8 billion of investment into the UK economy. The sectors that she identifies are definitely ones that we should prioritise.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I would not argue for a moment that we should not be turning to UK pension funds as a source of long-term patient capital in the British economy, but will the Minister take on board that for people with small pension pots, for whom risk is very dire, investing their funds in illiquid long-term assets could be a significant blow when they reach retirement and find that their pots have shrunk dramatically?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness. That absolutely has to be one of the criteria or conditions that we establish as part of the pensions review. I am sure that, as more details are announced, that will be taken into account.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his patience and understanding in not pointing out to Members opposite who are sitting quietly—not asking questions, even from the Front Bench—that they are the people who got us into this problem in the first place.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Apologies. I was unsure whether that was a question. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his warm words. He knows that I agree with him that we must reset our relationship with our closest and strongest partners in the EU.
Lord Fox (LD)
During his very good summing up at the end of Monday’s excellent debate, the Minister did not get a chance to answer some of the questions that I had asked about the national wealth fund, so I will ask one of them now and perhaps he can go through Hansard and look at the others. How will the national wealth fund decide what it is going to invest in? Will it be a strategic investment or purely commercial? Who will be setting the criteria for those investments?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The national wealth fund will work on the same basis as the UK Infrastructure Bank in terms of allocating investment. I think that is the answer to the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
In a similar vein to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I had a question in the debate on Monday about the first phase of the pensions review, looking at the investment of pension scheme monies in productive economy. I am sure my noble friend will agree that in such discussions the voice of the trade unions that represent scheme members and pensioners through their organisation should be an important part of the debate.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. I did not address his question in the debate, because I hoped he knew that I would agree with him, which I do. As part of the pensions review, we will consult all interested bodies.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that, during this pension review, the thousands of savers in pensions over decades will enjoy the 25% tax- free element when they eventually retire?
Household Support Fund
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of the local authority Household Support Fund, due to expire in September.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the household support fund is a scheme to provide local support to those most in need. For the period April to September 2024 DWP has provided £500 million, of which £421 million is for local authorities in England to spend at their discretion, with the balance going to the devolved Administrations. No funding was budgeted beyond September. As a new Government, we keep all policies under review, including the household support fund.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to her rightful place. May I urge her to impress on her government colleagues the urgent need for the fund’s extension for at least six months, to give local authorities certainty and to enable the development of a longer-term, ring-fenced local crisis support scheme to replace also the discretionary welfare assistance that many authorities have scrapped and that is vulnerable to further cuts? As she knows, the alternative is even greater hardship for people in very vulnerable circumstances and even greater reliance on food banks.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question and for the warmth of her welcome. We appreciate very much the crucial role that local authorities are playing in providing crisis support to vulnerable people in their areas. Indeed, my department is engaging closely with each local authority in England to make sure that we understand the ways in which they are using the household support fund.
She mentioned that it is not the only source of support; some local authorities still have local welfare assistance schemes and there are other forms of localised support. But the Government are very conscious of the financial pressures facing local authorities and we are committed to ensuring that councils have the resources they need to provide public services to their communities. As I say, the policy is under review but my noble friend’s points are well made and I will take note of them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have relevant interests recorded in the register. Prevention is better than cure, for the reason that it can improve lives at a lower cost. Does the Minister agree with that and will she consider working with councils and the Local Government Association to develop a scheme that enables preventive work, rather than the existing household support scheme?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful; that is a really important point and I thank the noble Baroness for making it. Prevention is always better than cure, even if it is not always possible to replace cures entirely with prevention. There may always be the need for some support locally. The way that the fund runs has been designed deliberately so that every local authority can choose how it spends it; and they have chosen to do it in different ways. DWP has given guidance about the nature of the groups that need supporting, and it is for essential support. Some authorities have given grants to third parties; others have given money directly to people and some have even given food. But her broader point is well made. I certainly know that my colleagues in the Ministry for local government—MHCLG—are talking closely with local authorities about how we can get better at doing multiyear funding, giving stability to local government and engaging more effectively in the way that we spend this money.
Lord Bird (CB)
While we are talking about poverty and children, can I ask a very cheeky question? Why is it that the Government are punishing seven members of the Labour Party who have put the party behind the interests of the people? Why are they doing this? This is a very disgraceful thing to be doing so early in their Administration.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is talking about a vote in the other place on the two-child limit. I certainly would not comment on the decisions of the Chief Whip here—never mind at the other end—who is of course always right. I simply take gentle issue with the suggestion that people taking a particular view are putting party before country. I recognise that there is a concern about the two-child limit, but our new Prime Minister could not have shown a greater commitment on child poverty. One of the earliest major announcements he made, in his second week, was to create a major commission on child poverty, with Ministers drawn from across government. It will of course look at important questions such as household income, but poverty is not just about that. It is going to draw in and look at education, childcare and health—all the things that prevent our children having the best start in life—and I am really excited about that.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Does the Minister recall that, the last time we debated this, the outgoing Government agreed to extend the household support fund for a further six months until September? Does she recall that, at that time, I intervened to suggest that, instead of a cliff edge at the end of September, there should be some form of taper? Will the Government consider that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I remember that very well. In fact, I read the Hansard of the last time this came up and noticed that the noble Lord made that point. When I looked at how the financing had been provided, I saw that the money had been provided for only six months. Therefore, there is currently nothing in the budget to go beyond that. But I take his broader point about cliff edges and short notice being unhelpful. As I said, we need to get back to a space where we can support councils with longer, multiyear funding to give them the kind of stability they need but simply have not had recently.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Something like seven out of every eight local authorities now use this money to alleviate holiday hunger among our children. Can we have any hope that the Government will look at a more strategic way of helping children cope with hunger during the school holidays? Many of the churches in my diocese, and those of my right reverend friends here, are having to put on voluntary projects to support children during those periods. What can we hope for?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Church and other faith organisations, which do such important work with children, families and their communities. I commend them for that. The question of holiday hunger, and indeed of children and food, will clearly be considered by the child poverty strategy and the task force when it gets together. We will set up a child poverty unit in the Cabinet Office that will work with the task force. We have already begun talking to stakeholders of different kinds, asking for experiences and getting expertise from inside and outside government to look at the best ways we can make this better. But we are also making some specific starts. For example, we are committed to making sure we have breakfast clubs in every single primary school. That is a simple measure that helps with the cost of living for families and helps children to start the school day able to concentrate because they have had something to eat. So I fully accept the importance of ensuring children have food and of being consistent; that will be part of what we look at.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it will be music to the local government sector’s ears that the Government are looking at multiyear funding. I ask them also to consider ending the begging-bowl regime, where councils have to bid every year against each other for funding. As we have heard in this House just in the last two days, funding is ending in September and ending in March. We need to move away from that to give much more financial sustainability to local government.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, certainly in this Parliament, we will provide councils with more stability and certainty through multiyear funding settlements. The aim is to ensure that councils can plan their finances for the future properly. But we will also work with local leaders to try to end competitive bidding for pots of money, and to reform things such as the local audit system to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. I know that my colleagues in MHCLG are very interested in working together with local government to find a better way of funding local councils.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am sure everyone welcomes the government scheme to introduce free breakfasts, but I am concerned about the rates of obesity, especially in lower-income areas. When kids come in at five, 25% are obese, and when they leave at 11, 47% are obese. What are the standards of these breakfasts? Many breakfasts that schools offer are bagels and high-sugar cereal, because these get donated by companies trying to “look good” in the eyes of their shareholders. I have not read anywhere what the standards of food are and I would be very interested to meet with the Minister to discuss this, because it is critical if we are to have a genuine health impact.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point and I commend her for raising it repeatedly in this House. It is an important question and I have two things to say. First, the breakfasts will be fully funded; they will not be done on the cheap. Secondly, colleagues in the Department for Education will consider carefully the question of the composition and health nature of the breakfasts; I am sure that will be taken into account. I will make sure that point gets passed back.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, despite household support fund guidance making it clear that local authorities should consider the needs of low-income families that cannot work, particularly those with disabilities, we know that people with learning disabilities are disproportionately impacted by the cost of living crisis. So can the Minister say whether the Government will commit to an additional tranche of funding that is strategically targeted at disabled people in crisis, while a longer-term plan for their financial well-being is implemented?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to commit to another tranche of funding. What I will say is that one reason why the scheme was designed to give maximum discretion to local authorities was a recognition of the difference in composition in local areas and different sets of needs, but also the different resources available. We have given some guidance out from DWP about the nature of the client groups, and we have said previously that at least part of the money should be available on application. I can certainly feed that point back in. At this stage we do not know what the future of the fund is—but it is an important point and I shall make sure that it is taken back to the department.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation to prevent ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation’.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 was a positive and significant step forward in tackling SLAPPs relating to economic crime. The Government are now carefully considering options to tackle SLAPPs comprehensively. I know that the noble Baroness has a long-standing interest in this area, and I assure her that the Government are taking the matter very seriously and are establishing working parties, working at pace to try to address this issue.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
First, I welcome the noble Lord to his new appointment. It is very important for us to understand that SLAPPs are related not just to economic crime. SLAPPs are illegitimate and aggressive lawfare, used by all kinds of the rich and powerful to silence politicians, journalists and public bodies. They are an abuse of our legal system, and they are a threat to press freedom. Before Dissolution, we were very close to outlawing SLAPPs in their entirety, through the then Government supporting a Labour MP’s Private Member’s Bill. Would the Minister ensure that his Government supported another Private Member’s Bill, if another MP was to bring forward a revised version that incorporated all the amendments and agreements reached with the previous Government before the general election? If not, could he commit to the Government bringing forward their own legislation in this first Session of Parliament to outlaw SLAPPs comprehensively?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with the first point that the noble Baroness made. It is not just about economic crime, and that is one of the reasons why we want to have a wider review of potential SLAPPs legislation coming forward. I am not in a position to make the commitment that the noble Baroness has asked for around when any legislation might come forward, but I reassure her that we are taking this matter very seriously. On the Private Member’s Bill that fell at Dissolution, we support the principle behind it. However, we believe that there are outstanding questions that need to be properly balanced. That is to prevent the abuse of the process of SLAPPs, about which the noble Baroness spoke, but we also need to protect access to justice for legitimate claims. It is that balance that needs to be fully worked through. There were live discussions with important stakeholders—for example, the Law Society—at the time of the previous Private Member’s Bill. We have every intention of continuing those discussions as we review any potential legislation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
The Private Member’s Bill that I produced on the abusive SLAPPs civil litigation, which was given its First Reading in the last Session of the last Parliament, was based on the Ontario model, which was approved in the Supreme Court of Canada as recently as last year and provides a way forward. It was also well received, as I recall, by the Ministry of Justice. Will the Minister take that into account?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there are various attempts at dealing with SLAPPs in different legislatures across the world. The Government are currently working with the Council of Europe, with its 46 member states, to try to get a more comprehensive approach. The noble Lord’s experience in Ontario, which he referred to, will be taken into account.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment. He is of course doubly there—he is not only elected but appointed, which gives him particular status on the Front Bench. I sympathise greatly with his position in the Ministry of Justice, which he will much enjoy. He will remember the terms of the amendment put down to the then Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill; it was a start, but will he agree that it is important that we have really muscular legislation? Can he bear in mind that his own Foreign Secretary said that these SLAPPs have the effect of
“stifling effectively not just the rule of law and freedom of speech, but particularly going to journalists doing their job”?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Regarding the noble Lord’s opening comments, I am a hereditary Peer, though not an elected one, but I am a life Peer, which is the reason I am standing here at the moment. The noble Lord is absolutely right: my right honourable friend David Lammy has expressed very strong views on this matter, which is one that the Government are taking seriously. As I tried to reassure noble Lords in my earlier answers, we want to get this right and to be trenchant in the legislation that we bring forward.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Does the Minister agree that any further legislation coming forward on SLAPPs should enable the judge to determine the intent of the litigant by their actions as to whether they are trying to harass the defendant? Will the legislation further make clear that no level of such harassment is acceptable?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. SLAPPs represent an abuse of the legal system, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper means. Judges are able to assess that. One objective of any forthcoming legislation will be to give them greater capacity to assess improper use of these objectives within the court’s process.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his place on the Front Bench. As has been indicated, SLAPPs often involve an insidious abuse of domestic legal systems in order to intimidate investigative journalists, or indeed human rights defenders. At the same time, it is necessary to balance any consideration of that with the issue of access to justice. The issue of harassment can sometimes be a somewhat subjective one. However, at the end of last year, the European Union published a directive to address SLAPPs and how they might be dealt with in domestic jurisdictions. The Minister may not yet have had an opportunity to consider that directive. Will he undertake to do so, lest it might give some guidance to our way forward as well?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question. I am happy to give that undertaking. As I mentioned, there is a Council of Europe initiative going on, but clearly we should, and we will, look at the EU directive.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Dispatch Box. Recognising that the Government are planning a review, do they still agree that there is an urgent need for a stand-alone anti-SLAPP Bill, and that the lack of legislation will see SLAPP litigations continue? In the words of our right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, as already mentioned, and as reported in the i newspaper on 3 June, they will continue effectively to stifle
“not just the rule of law and freedom of speech, but particularly … journalists doing their job to throw a spotlight and transparency on the most egregious behaviour of oligarchy, plutocracy, and very corrupt individuals doing bad things”.
Surely we need to stop that as soon as possible.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with everything that my noble friend has said. I cannot make a commitment to a stand-alone Bill, but there is nevertheless an urgent need for legislation. My noble friend may be interested to know that the number of Russian litigants appearing in judgments from the Commercial Court has more than halved in the year to March 2024, falling to 27 from a record high of 58. We believe that that is a result of the successful UK sanctions regime taking effect.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, to build on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, surely it would be better for a judge to be able to infer the intention of a SLAPP litigant based on their actions, rather than, as happens at present, having to infer the litigant’s state of mind, which is so hard to determine.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with that point, but it is a complex question and we want to look at it in the round.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I have been practising at the defamation Bar since the mid-1970s. Much has been said in this House and in Committee about the need for SLAPP laws. I invite the Minister to look, if he can, at the letter I wrote to his predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, on this very subject just before the election; if he cannot look at it, I will send him a copy. Will he also undertake to put this matter before the Law Commission, so that we can generate rather more light than heat?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to look at the letter and to consider whether the matter should go before the Law Commission.
Business of the House
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Monday 29 July to enable motions to approve the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024 and the Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024 to be moved, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon)
My Lords, I thought it would be helpful to the House to set out why this Motion is needed. Noble Lords will see that the Motion enables the debate and approval of two statutory instruments, but in this case before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been re-formed and therefore able to consider them. As I have said before and I think colleagues are aware, I can assure the whole House that I take very seriously the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House and, in particular, the importance of committee scrutiny of primary and secondary legislation. I am therefore moving this Motion on an exceptional basis, due to their urgency, to ensure we have a full debate on the substance of the issues as soon as possible.
I am clear that, across government, this is not best practice, which is obviously for the JCSI to consider matters before they come to your Lordships’ House. I bring this forward only because the statutory instruments must be implemented with some urgency. The first statutory instrument we are discussing supports the response to the crisis in our prisons. The second supports the implementation of an international treaty. This was agreed before the election but could not be implemented due to the Dissolution. Action is needed now to ensure we meet the timelines that have been agreed with our international partners. The usual channels have agreed that we will hold full debates on both before the summer, on an exceptional basis, and I am grateful for their support in this.
I very much hope and anticipate that the JCSI will be re-formed in September, enabling it to consider instruments before debate as part of the normal procedures of your Lordships’ House. I am sure that the Ministers, my noble friends Lord Timpson and Lady Chapman, look forward to debating and engaging with your Lordships on the substance of the instruments next week.
Business of the House
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That, in the event that the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill has been brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 29 July to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Post Office Horizon
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make this new Government’s first Statement in your Lordships’ House on the Horizon scandal. It was one of the Government’s key manifesto commitments to ensure that full and fair compensation is delivered for every sub-postmaster caught up in the Horizon scandal.
I echo what my colleague Justin Madders MP said in the other place. This has been a huge miscarriage of justice and I am deeply grateful to those sub-postmasters who pursued justice against the odds. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their tireless campaigning. I am also deeply grateful to colleagues in this House, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and in the other place for their work in righting this wrong.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has already met with Alan Bates, Kevan Jones and Nigel Railton to discuss progress and what more can be done. We intend to make another announcement on the redress scheme before the Summer Recess and to help those whose convictions were overturned in the last Parliament.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to her place on the Front Bench. I am glad that the Government are picking up with a sense of urgency the last piece of business that went through this House before the general election. At this point we might take a moment to congratulate the tireless campaigner Alan Bates on his recent knighthood. It reflects the will of the people to congratulate him on his tireless campaigning on this matter over 20 years.
The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 was an unprecedented piece of legislation that overturned the convictions of 800-plus postmasters and postmistresses. However, the Act quashes convictions but does not provide compensation. That is what we need to turn our attention to now. Can the Minister please clarify whether the July deadline for the letters offering the final settlement of £600,000 to go out to the 800-plus postmasters and postmistresses will be met? Has the Horizon shortfall scheme been implemented, allowing the additional £75,000 top-up? When the Minister says that this will be done before Recess, does she realise that is next Tuesday?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments and welcome him to his new role. I echo his congratulations to Alan Bates on his very well-deserved knighthood.
Obviously, we are awaiting the details of the scheme, but once they are in place the follow-up letters will go out at pace. As the noble Lord knows, in the meantime we are implementing the £75,000 fixed sum awards and we will set out further plans for that in due course. I take note that the beginning of the Recess is next week, and I hope to come back with further information in the meantime.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Baroness to her position, which I believe spans two departments. I am not quite sure what she has done to deserve that. I associate myself with the remarks made by the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition and credit him for the energy he brought to this subject in the latter half of the last Parliament.
In those discussions, there was a group of people who are still not covered by what we are doing: the unsuccessful appellants of the case. There was a small but significant number who had the courage to take their case to appeal, lost their appeal and are now hanging outside this scheme. I spoke to the last Government in both this place and the other place about the reasons for that. I understand the reasons around the judicial nature of what has gone on, but can the Minister assure us that these people are not forgotten and that a route is being sought to make sure they get the same of level of redress received by the others as a result of the legislation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, of course we are mindful of those cases and are carefully watching the numbers that remain in that camp. The usual routes of appeal remain for those cases. In particular, those individuals can apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be referred back to the Court of Appeal, if it considers that
“there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made”.
I hope that advice will be taken by a number of those individuals.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, for nearly 20 years, institutions of government and corporations claimed that there was nothing wrong with the prosecutions of sub-postmasters. Now, of course, we know different. With that in mind, I urge the Minister to appoint an independent inquiry into the 100 or so convictions of sub-postmasters that were secured by the Department for Work and Pensions. In many cases, the affected individuals have passed away and their families are traumatised.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. He is absolutely right about the long delays that took place, and I think we around this House have all accepted that that was unacceptable. I hope that all parts of government have learned the lesson from that. On the individuals and the question of whether there should be an independent inquiry, we believe that the best way to deal with this issue now is through the current arrangements being set up, rather than by having another third party involved. I am sure that all these matters will be taken into account in the eventual recommendations.
Prison Capacity
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the House of Commons by the Lord Chancellor. Before I do so, I will say that I look forward to addressing the House more fully with my maiden speech during the debate on the King’s most gracious Speech. I understand that it is rare for a Minister in your Lordships’ House to take a Statement before giving their maiden speech. However, given the timely importance of the subject at hand today, we thought it helpful to take this Statement at the earliest opportunity.
I will now repeat the Statement:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I will make a Statement about prison capacity in England and Wales. As you know, I wanted to make this announcement first in this House. However, given the scale of the emergency facing our prisons, I was forced to set out these measures before Parliament returned.
It has become clear, since this Government took office two weeks ago, that our prisons are in crisis and are at the point of collapse. The male prison estate has been running at over 99% capacity for the last 18 months. We now know that my predecessor warned No. 10 Downing Street but, rather than address this crisis, the former Prime Minister called an election, leaving a time bomb ticking away. If that bomb were to go off—if our prisons were to run out of space—the courts would grind to a halt, suspects could not be held in custody and police officers would be unable to make arrests, leaving criminals free to act without consequence. In short, if we fail to intervene now, we face the prospect of a total breakdown of law and order.
Rather than act, the last Prime Minister allowed us to edge ever closer to catastrophe. Last week, there were around 700 spaces remaining in the male prison estate. With 300 places left, we reach critical capacity. At that point, the smallest change could trigger the chain of events I just set out. With the prison population rising, it is now clear that by September this year our prisons will overflow. That means there is now only one way to avert disaster.
As the House knows, most of those serving standard determinate sentences leave prison at the halfway point, serving the rest of their sentence in the community. The Government now have no option but to introduce a temporary change in the law. Yesterday, we laid a statutory instrument in draft. Subject to the agreement of both Houses, those serving eligible standard determinate sentences will leave prison after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence. Our impact assessment estimates that around 5,500 offenders will be released in September and October. From that time until we are able to reverse this emergency measure, 40% will be the new point of automatic release for eligible standard determinate sentences.
The Government do not take this decision lightly, but to disguise reality and delay any further, as the last Government did, is unconscionable. We are clear that this is the safest way forward. In the words of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, these steps are ‘the least worst option’. He said that
‘the worst possible thing would be for the system to block’,
and that any alternative to these measures would be ‘dangerous for the public’.
I understand that some may feel worried by this decision, but I can assure the House that we are taking every precaution available to us. There will be important exclusions. Sentences for the most dangerous crimes—for sexual and serious violent offences—will not change. That will also be the case for a series of offences linked to domestic violence, including stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour and non-fatal strangulation, as well as those related to national security.
We will also implement stringent protections. First, this change will not take effect until early September, giving the Probation Service time to prepare. Secondly, all offenders released will be subject to strict licence conditions, to ensure they can be managed safely in the community. Thirdly, offenders can be ordered to wear electronic tags and curfews will be imposed where appropriate.
Let me be clear: this is an emergency measure, not a permanent change. This Government are clear that criminals must be punished. We do not intend to allow the 40% release point to stand in perpetuity. That is why I will review these measures again, in 18 months’ time, when the situation in our prisons will have stabilised. Throughout, this Government will be transparent. We will publish data on the number of offenders released quarterly and we will publish an annual prison capacity statement, legislating to make this a statutory requirement.
When we implement this change, we will stop the end of the custody supervised licence scheme introduced by the last Government. This scheme operated under a veil of secrecy. From the Benches opposite, I was forced to demand more information about who was being released and what crimes they had committed. This Government have now released the data showing that over 10,000 offenders were released early, often with very little warning to probation officers, placing them under enormous strain. This was only ever a short-term fix. It was one of a series of decisions this Government believe must be examined more fully, which is why we are announcing a review into how this capacity crisis was allowed to happen, looking at why the necessary decisions were not taken at critical moments.
The measures I have set out today are not a silver bullet. The capacity crisis will not disappear immediately, and these measures will take time to take effect. But when they do, they will give us the time to address the prisons crisis, not just today but for years to come. This includes accelerating the prison building programme to ensure we have the cells we need. Later this year, we will publish a 10-year capacity strategy. It will outline the steps that this Government will take to acquire land for new prison sites and will be supported by this Government’s new planning and infrastructure Bill, which will take control of the planning process. It will also classify prisons as being of national importance, placing decision-making in Ministers’ hands. This Government are also committed to longer-term reform and cutting reoffending.
Too often, our prisons create better criminals, not better citizens. Nearly 80% of offending is reoffending, at immense cost to communities and the taxpayer. As Lord Chancellor, my priority is to drive that number down. To do that, this Government will strengthen probation, starting with the recruitment of at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers by the end of March 2025. We will work with prisons to improve offenders’ access to learning and other training, as well as bringing together prison governors, local employers and the voluntary sector to get ex-offenders into work. If an offender has a job within a year of release, they are less likely to reoffend. It is only by driving down reoffending that we will find a sustainable solution to the prisons crisis.
In a speech last week, I called the last occupants of 10 Downing Street ‘the guilty men’. I did not use that analogy flippantly. I believe that they placed the country in grave danger. Their legacy is a prison system in crisis, moments from catastrophic disaster. It was only by pure luck, and the heroic efforts of prison and probation staff, that disaster did not strike while they were in office. The legacy of this Government will be different: a prison system brought under control; a Probation Service that keeps the public safe; enough prison places to meet our needs; and prisons, probation and other services working together to break the cycle of reoffending.
I never thought that I would have to announce the measures that I have set out today, but this Government have been forced by the scale of this emergency to act now rather than delaying any longer, because this Government will always put the country and its safety first. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson of Manley, to his place on the Front Bench. Repeating a Statement has always struck me as one of the odder things that one has to do from the Front Bench, and I congratulate him on having completed it. I also have a further degree of sympathy with him in his opening outing in your Lordships’ Chamber. When I gave my maiden speech, I had to speak half of it as a maiden speech and half of it on a Bill, prompting my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern to say, “I very much enjoyed half of the Minister’s speech”. However, I look forward to welcoming properly the noble Lord to his place on the occasion of his maiden speech, which he is shortly to deliver.
The strain on prison capacity has been a matter of anxious concern for Parliament for some time, and the matter was brought frequently before your Lordships’ House in the course of the last Parliament. This is an area of great complexity, in which the actions of the Government of the day must take into account considerations over which they have no control, and should never seek to have control—such as decisions taken by the independent judiciary on sentencing, carried out on a case-by-case basis, to arrive at a sentence apt for the individual circumstances of the case and the need at once to protect the public, to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate.
It also has to reflect the physical capacity of the prison estate to accommodate prisoners. There is an inevitable tension between the need to protect the public by imprisoning serious offenders and the need to have sufficient provision of prison accommodation and staff so that the crucial function of rehabilitation might be best accomplished. It is liable to be upset by sudden contingencies, such as the closure of HM Prison Dartmoor and the effect that had on the number of available places on the estate.
At all times, the previous Government sought to manage this difficult problem in a manner which addressed all concerns while reflecting their paramount concern: the safety of the public. That is why, during the pandemic, in circumstances wholly without precedent, the previous Government made the decision not to order a mass release of prisoners from our jails, as happened in other countries and as was pressed on us by public health experts and others. I acknowledge immediately that we were supported in that steadfastly by the then Opposition, who now sit on the Government Front Bench. Events demonstrated that that was the correct decision. During the pandemic, we maintained that vital safeguard of our liberties which we all enjoy: trial by jury.
However, all that added to the pressure on the prison estate: the numbers of those remanded pending trial or sentencing increased from around 9,000 to 16,500. The previous Government acted to allow longer sentences for the most serious crimes, conscious of the possible strain on prison places, and acted at all times to reflect the overriding necessity of protecting the law-abiding public and reflecting their concerns that punishment should properly reflect the gravity of the crime for which it is imposed.
The previous Government also acted responsibly and with foresight to address the capacity of the prison system in England and Wales. The biggest prison-building programme since the 19th century was commenced. During the last Government, more than 13,000 additional prison places were created, two new prisons were opened, a third is under construction at present, planning permission has been granted for two more and a decision is imminent on another. Some £30 million was allocated for the purchase of land on which prison construction could take place.
On probation, a detailed Statement was made to the other place and repeated in your Lordships’ House on 13 March. I repeat some of the details: additional funding for probation of £155 million; more than 4,000 trainee probation officers beginning their training; and probation practice redirected to areas which bring the best results in reducing reoffending, as well as public protection.
When the Lord Chancellor says that she will recruit at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers, is that in addition to those that we announced? Will the Government commit more funds to recruitment and training of probation officers? We do not see any acknowledgement of that in the Lord Chancellor’s Statement. She professes to find herself shocked by what she discovered on taking up office about the pressures on the system, but the figures on the prison population in England and Wales were not only widely publicly available during the last Parliament but matters of urgent debate here and in the other place. They can have come as a surprise to no one.
The previous Government left the new Government with no ticking time bomb, but the Lord Chancellor’s Statement prompts real concern for public safety. These Benches will watch what develops with anxious concern. In the Statement, she made a promise to be transparent in a way that she says the previous Government simply were not. In the spirit of that transparency, I pose certain questions.
Does the Minister agree with the position outlined from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in the other place by Alistair Carmichael MP that prisons should be used less? It is a perfectly defensible position which is perfectly capable of being argued. We do not agree with it on these Benches, but do the Government? If they do, how do they intend to deal with violent crime, rapists, persistent offenders who have no fear of the system and the epidemic of benefit and financial fraud which the country is experiencing? Does the Minister agree that it is easier to speak about community alternatives to custody than to devise ones which are not expensive to operate and difficult to organise and command the support of the public and the judiciary?
We heard from the Lord Chancellor of the safety measures on which she relies in relation to this new measure of early release. I submit that she does nothing more than rehearse safeguards which already exist. She speaks of strict licensing conditions, electronic tagging and curfews where appropriate. These are familiar measures, deployed to support prisoners released on licence. They are measures of long standing. The Lord Chancellor announces a policy which will understandably create concerns for public safety and then, to allay concerns arising from that new policy, founds a series of safeguards that already exist. That is nothing new.
The Lord Chancellor offered specific reassurance on crimes of domestic violence in the debate that followed her Statement. Before too long, I hope that we will hear from her about the significance of other crimes, such as those relating to public order, the need to maintain our civic spaces and free thoroughfares and the need to protect our retail sector and those working in it from those who try to dictate to us what we should buy and from whom. We look forward to hearing from her on these matters.
I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor would agree with that great man of the left, George Orwell, about the harmful properties of stale, clichéd language and dead metaphor. Her Statement gives us “ticking time bomb”, “silver bullet”, “veil of secrecy”, “the guilty men” and much more tired language besides. Orwell’s point is that such language not only serves to disguise meaning or conceal the absence of content in a statement but has actively harmful effects on the reader by helping to deaden not only the capacity for clarity of expression but the capacity for clarity of thought. It is inevitable that we express ourselves in such a way in politics—and I certainly would not hold up my own contributions to this House as models—but the Lord Chancellor’s Statement was filled with cliché. Can we see clarity from the Government?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome the Minister to his new role, and we look forward to his official maiden speech later today with enthusiasm, not least because we have for a number of years on these Benches cited his ground- breaking commitment in his business and more generally to the rehabilitation of prisoners through training and employment.
However, to say we welcome this Statement would be inaccurate, because it reflects a complete failure of our prison system, but we recognise the emergency and, with it, the need for the measures announced in the Statement. We also endorse the Statement’s serious criticisms of the last Government’s performance; they allowed, encouraged and created the present prison capacity crisis. I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, for whom I have the greatest respect, as to the foresight, commitment and care of the last Government on this issue, which was sadly lacking.
On these Benches, and on the Labour Benches, we warned of this crisis during the last Parliament over and over again, but the Government carried on in the same old way, filling our prisons to bursting and failing to address the disastrous conditions within them.
The Government’s stated aim is that the 40% early release point should not stand in perpetuity and is to be reviewed in 18 months’ time. We agree with that and that this process will be a slow one, but progress is thoroughly necessary. A wholesale programme of prison reform is needed. We imprison far too many people in this country for far too long. We have seen significant sentence inflation over recent years, and it is no good just blaming the judges for passing longer sentences; government legislation on sentencing and later release dates has significantly increased prisoner numbers. We need more use of community sentences and that means more probation officers—we welcome the commitment in the Statement to an urgent recruitment programme. However, to echo the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, does that include a commitment to fully funding an increased overall number of probation officers?
Our prisons are desperately overcrowded; cells are packed to well over capacity; temporary prefab cells are used; repairs and maintenance are cancelled. Cells that should not be in service are brought back into use. Prisoners are shuffled around the prison estate at the expense of continuity of training and supervision. Understaffing remains acute, with insufficient officers to manage our prisons, even to get prisoners to where they need to be for education and training courses when they are available. Twenty-two hours daily in overcrowded cells has become the new commonplace within our prison system, which has led to mental health issues, serious violence and massive drug abuse. When will we introduce mandatory drugs checks for everyone entering prisons, staff as well as visitors? There is ample evidence that too many drugs enter prisons in the hands of members of staff who give their colleagues a bad name and seriously damage morale.
The prison building programme set out to provide 20,000 new places under the last Government, but, of those, some 4,000 already counted as present capacity. Only Millsike in Yorkshire, with just 1,500 places, is approaching completion next year. Grendon in Buckinghamshire now at least has planning permission for another 1,500 places, but in the other sites not a brick has been laid. Two prisons at Gartree and Chorley are still in the planning process, and two near Braintree have not even been decided on yet. The whole promised programme of the last Government involved double counting and smoke and mirrors. The new Government’s programme is welcome, and so is the caution and moderation with which the Statement stressed it—but it is crucial.
On any view, the last Government’s building programme could not possibly keep up with the projected rise in prison numbers—17,000 more places needed in three years on present trends. The only answer is to reverse those trends; reduce reoffending, emphasise reform and rehabilitation as the function of prisons and do all we can to reduce prison numbers. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for their questions. This is my first time in this House answering questions, so I apologise in advance should I not respect any of the customs and courtesies of the House by mistake. Having not even done my maiden speech yet, this feels to me like having a first ski lesson on a black run. I thank noble Lords for their patience and will do my best to answer all their questions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, raised a point on the sentencing review that we are planning. The sentencing framework has been allowed to develop piecemeal, over time. As a result, there have been inconsistencies that do not make sense to victims or the wider public. We will be launching a review of sentencing. While the terms of reference are not yet defined, this will look to ensure that the sentencing framework is consistent and clear to the public. More details of this review will be announced in due course.
On HMP Dartmoor, one of the first roles that I have had since taking on this job is focusing on prison capacity. It was unfortunate that I had a note from my officials regarding the temporary closure of HMP Dartmoor at a time when we really need capacity. At Dartmoor, safety is our number one priority. After close monitoring of the situation, it has been decided that the prison will temporarily close. I will update the House as the situation develops.
This Government are committed to a 10-year capacity strategy, and we recognise that we need to make sure that this country has the prison places that it needs. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, and we will never allow the planning process to get in the way of having the prisons we need.
Talking about the prisons we need, we need to build more prisons, because we need to keep the public safe, but one of the themes also raised is around reducing reoffending. I have been working on this for the last 22 years, finding ways to recruit people from prison to help them get a job, live a normal life and not reoffend. This is not a quick fix—it takes time—but recruiting 1,000 probation officers is a good start. These will be in addition to the probation staff we have now.
Only late last week, I went to the Camden and Islington probation delivery unit and met the team there, which was preparing to deal with the offenders who were being released in September and October. I was delighted at the commitment, focus and professionalism of this team, and I am confident that they will do their best in very difficult circumstances.
On training, I do not know about probation officers but, just before I came into this role, I completed a review for the Government on prison officer training. It was clear to me where the gaps were, and I am looking forward to working with colleagues in the months ahead to see what can be learned not just for prison officers but for probation officers.
On safeguards put in place for early release, the scheme currently in place is a very rushed and disorganised way of releasing people from prison, which puts extra pressure on probation officers to do all the work they need to do to identify victims, to find places to live, and to connect the offenders up with mental health and drug workers. The eight weeks that they now have to prepare for the releases will make this easier, but it is far from perfect.
The 40% early release scheme will be reviewed and, in 18 months’ time, the plan is for it to go back to 50%, but the noble Lord is right when he says that we need a wholesale programme of prison reform. Community sentences are vital, but we need to resolve the capacity crisis we have now, because our probation officers are overworked. The recruiting of 1,000 extra probation officers will help, but they also need time for the system to settle down.
Finally, I will mention training and education. Prisons are not places where we want people just to be locked up. We want them to have opportunities to turn their lives around. A lot of that is around training and learning skills, so that when they are released they can have a job and not go back. Some 80% of people who offend are reoffenders. It is hard to do this well in the current crisis, but I emphasise that I look forward to working with the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord and having countless important debates. I stress to all noble Lords that I will write a letter, which might be quite a long one, on all the points I did not answer today.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend on getting through his maiden Statement, and in particular for answering the questions so concisely and clearly. He of all people, as he has already referred to, is fully aware of the big challenges of rehabilitation and avoiding reoffending and, therefore, recall. Would he be prepared to talk to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and, I hope, Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the very real challenge of additional large numbers being released into local communities in September and October, to avoid homelessness and to ensure that there is not a return to prison, which all of us fear?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. It is crucial that people leaving prison have somewhere to live. Having been in this space for a number of years, I have met too many people who have left prison—I have seen them outside the gate—and there is no one to meet them, they have nowhere to live and nowhere to stay that night. It is not surprising that the revolving door often means they come back in. I will take my noble friend’s questions away and get back to him. I know we are meeting very soon.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I also welcome the noble Lord to his post. He said that the Probation Service is overworked, so what will the Government do to help it immediately to deal with the 40% situation coming in September?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Recruiting 1,000 extra probation officers will take time. From conversations with the probation officers that I have recently met, I know that we are asking a lot of them, but they are confident that they can manage the influx of offenders in September and October safely. In the longer term, they need the extra colleagues and a system that is more stable.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome very warmly the noble Lord to his position, and congratulate him and his family company on the most remarkable work they have done for the past two decades in protecting the public by rehabilitating so many people who would otherwise have gone on to commit more crimes and settle down to a life of criminality. Other firms have done the same things, but Timpson, as I saw myself when I was Justice Secretary and before that when I was Home Secretary—I was responsible for prisons on both occasions—did quite remarkable work. We need more of that kind of opportunity for those who wish to be rehabilitated and to contribute in future.
Does the noble Lord agree that the level of sentencing and the rate of incarceration have steadily increased in this country at a quite extraordinary rate in the 30 years since I held those offices, and even more remarkably since the many years ago when I practised at the criminal Bar? Although it is right that the public are entitled to see just retribution and punishment for crime, does he agree that it is equally important that the criminal justice system tries to stop these men and women reoffending, and gives whatever support is available to those willing to be reformed to lead honest lives and therefore not create victims of future crime? That is just as important as the punishment.
I will not go on. I give the noble Lord cross-party support; I agree with every word that he and the Liberal Democrat spokesman have said so far. I hope that the new prisons that he has to build will be designed to provide space for rehabilitation, training and the civilised opportunities that I am sure he wishes to provide. I am sure he agrees that the long-term answer is not just to lock up more and more people and have massive building programmes going on and on, with ever more people turning to crime as soon as they are released.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord; if he stays around long enough, he may find a mention of himself in my maiden speech—a positive one. So far as finding work, when I first started recruiting people from prison, I was the only one knocking on the gates of the prison. We now have a good problem: that so many companies have recognised that there are talented people who want to leave prison and get a job that it has become a very competitive process. That is a positive thing.
We will conduct a sentencing review; it needs to focus on cutting crime, and to be consistent and coherent. The noble Lord asked about the new design of prisons. Two weeks ago we went to Five Wells, a very new prison just outside Wellingborough. The facilities it has really help to reduce reoffending; it has fantastic workshops and educational facilities, and the maintenance bills are much lower. I look forward to having the conversations again that we had probably 15 years ago.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson—someone so brilliantly equipped for the task. I welcome this Statement and all the good sense contained in it as we lift this immediate crisis. I am all for new prison places, as long as they are not in addition to all the crumbling prison places. It was wonderful to hear him offer assurance that increased prison capacity will not become the main aim but rather, if I heard correctly, that we will have the courage to look at a whole-systems approach in a solution-focused way.
One of my concerns in all this is that unless we change the public perception and public narrative, we will not have support. Can the noble Lord say something about the thinking about how we change public education and perception, so that people understand what prison is for and not for, that two-thirds of people in prison are there for non-violent offences, and that we need to look upstream?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. New prison places are important and we will build more prisons—prisons we are proud of. So far as the public narrative goes, I could not agree more, but I have confidence in the fact that 20 years ago, when I first started recruiting people from prison, no one thought it was a good idea. Now, every company I meet thinks it is a good idea. It proves that changing perception when it comes to offenders and prisons takes time. I hope to be in this role longer than many other people who have done my role, and to be able to get into the detail and try to get prisons we are proud of.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, to the Dispatch Box as the Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation. From the noise the House made earlier, I think I am not alone in thinking that he is probably the best man for the job. I suppose I should draw attention to my entry in the register of interests; I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. In fact, I presently have another interest that I suppose is not yet registered, in that I have a pair of shoes in my local Timpson for repair.
Speaking to Channel 4 News earlier this year, my noble friend said that in his view only one-third of people in prison needed to be there. In order to emphasise that radically reducing the prison population is not impossible, he added that the Netherlands had halved its prison population while reducing crime. That contradicts what I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, implied in what I can describe only as a plea in mitigation on behalf of the previous Government, which was that these two things were impossible. I know the Minister has studied this. How did the Netherlands manage to reduce crime and reduce the prison population by almost half?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Before we look at any other countries and international comparisons, we need to fix the system we have first. Before we can do anything on reducing reoffending and having prisons we are proud of, we need to stabilise the system. It is our first priority. We need to fix it, and we need to fix the capacity so that we do not have this problem again. We need to enable our fantastic staff in our prisons and Probation Services to do what they want to do, to put the building blocks in place so people who go to prison have a much better chance of not going back.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has a great deal of personal experience to give, and his presence is greatly to be welcomed. I support the policy that he has announced; it is sensible in the circumstances. But, if it is to be safe, there needs to be proper provision for the accommodation and employment of released prisoners. Can he be a little more specific about that?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Having somewhere to live when someone is released from prison is vital, and we are planning to continue with all the schemes that are currently in place, including the 84 nights that are scheduled for people who leave prison. One of my concerns is that recently, because capacity has been so constrained, hard-working prison and probation staff have not always been able to manage the transition from prison to the community as well as I would like to see in future.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Lord to his new role and to this House. His considerable experience and reputation go before him and he is highly respected as a man who lives his values. Having said that, it has to be said that he has inherited a crock, and I am afraid it is not a crock of gold.
The Minister paints a truly horrific picture of the situation now facing this country and we on this side are looking forward to working with him constructively over the next parliamentary term. In time, we can further reduce the prison population by implementing the recommendations of the Justice Select Committee and conducting a resentencing exercise for the unfortunate indeterminate sentence prisoners still stuck in a limbo of uncertainty. Will the IPP sentencing review include indeterminate sentence prisoners? I know that is perhaps a discussion for another day, but right now we can do little other than agree to the release, with suitable support and safety conditions, of certain categories of prisoners who are towards the end of their tariff to make room for other individuals who present more of a threat to society.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am well aware of the issues around indeterminate sentences for public protection. I know that matter is of great interest to noble Lords. It would not be appropriate to make changes in relation to IPP prisoners, because they are a different order of public protection risk. I am determined to make more progress on IPP prisoners. As I say, we will build on the work done by the previous Government. We worked constructively with the previous Administration on sensible changes that could be made in the safest possible way for the public. Those changes were on the licence period and the action plan, and we will crack on with that as a new Government. Any changes that we make to the regime for that type of sentence, which has rightly been abolished, must be done while balancing the public protection risk, which we would never take lightly.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role. I want to bring up the issue of Dartmoor prison; I live six miles from it and have been very involved with it for over 30 years. The significance is that 175 people will be moved within the next two weeks. Does that mean there will be only 525 male places available in England? How long will it take to reopen Dartmoor, if at all? If it is not to be reopened, what are we to do to ensure that the skills and expertise there are used elsewhere in the prison service? Because of the potential challenges to the local economy, can we seriously consider a new prison somewhere nearby?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for her question. Interestingly, this week I have heard of Members of Parliament in the other place complaining about people wanting to build a new prison in their area, and then people also complaining that we are closing prisons in their area.
The circumstances at Dartmoor are exceptional and it is a very unfortunate situation that we are in. We spoke to the Prison Officers’ Association, which I met last week to discuss our plans to support the workforce there. It has been a very successful prison, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware; it has been very well run and has had very good outcomes. We need to make sure that we retain the talented staff who are there. I have also spoken to the local MP to assure him that we will inform him of everything we know as soon as it happens, and that we will maintain the prison while it is temporarily closed so it will be ready to be reopened if we can.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, which is already known to the Minister. Will he accept that it was a great pity that, under the last Labour Government— I was shadow Prisons Minister during part of that time—a large number of prison farms and gardens and equally rehabilitative facilities were closed, allowing prisoners to leave prison unable to get jobs with Timpson and indeed unable to get jobs at all? Will he make it a point that, first, he gets direct access to the Prime Minister on prisons policy—without that, he may drift—and that, secondly, he will reintroduce prison farms and gardens and introduce purposeful activity in our prisons? There are too many prisoners sitting in cramped cells, essentially living in a shared lavatory, when they ought to be getting out, training, reading, writing and learning how to fend for themselves once they have left prison.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I used to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, at the other end of a much smaller table when I was chair of the Prison Reform Trust. He sat in the middle on the right. This time he is straight in front of me.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
He is still on the right. In fact, he never sat on the left.
I accept that farms and gardens are very positive in prison environments. In fact, one of the prisons I visited recently is HMP Haverigg, a prison that Prisons Ministers rarely visit at all at the far end of Cumbria. One of my goals in this role is to go and see the prisons that Prisons Ministers have never been to. At Haverigg there is a big focus on gardening and market gardening, which creates not just extra skills but a great nurturing environment for the prisoners there. It is also a source of income, because they have a little shop at the gate. That is something I am a big fan of and I will be ensuring that we do all we can to support that
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I welcome the Minister to his place; it is a brilliant stroke by the Labour Government. However, I did not quite understand his reply on the IPP prisoners. Clearly there is an injustice there that needs to be sorted as fast as possible. It was created by the last Labour Government, so it would be appropriate for the current Labour Government to sort it out as quickly as possible.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The situation with IPP prisoners is of great concern. I know that huge numbers of Members on both sides of the House care about it deeply, and I share that concern. IPP prisoners are not caught by the changes that we are putting forward. I have spent a lot of time talking to IPP prisoners inside and outside prison—in fact, in my previous role a number of IPP prisoners were colleagues—so I know the complexity of the issues involved. I also know that we as a House need to be determined to find all that we can do to support IPP prisoners and their families, and to make sure that we still maintain safety.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister have an early meeting with his opposite number in the Department of Health, because the NHS has responsibility for prison health services? I regret that it is not always its highest priority, and the prisons are full, as the Minister will know, of people with long-term conditions, including physical and mental health problems. It is essential that they are given appropriate health understanding. Lastly, whenever he visits a prison, will he see whether he can find time to meet the chaplain? The chaplain has a unique role, supporting staff and families, as well as prisoners.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. I often meet chaplains when I go into prisons. The last time I had a long meeting with one was in Belmarsh, at a small part of the prison where terminally ill prisoners were living. I thought the kindness and compassion that they had was wonderful to see. As for health commissioning in prisons, one of the things that I want to work on in this role is understanding how commissioning works in prisons, as well as supporting governors, who are often managing multi-million- pound contracts, so that they can ensure that things are working well and people are accountable for what they do.
Perhaps I could leave your Lordships with one thing that I have seen in the last few years to support people with challenges. It was in Wakefield prison, where an autism wing has been set up. When the prisoners were put in this unit, having been very disruptive and moved around the estate all the time, they were very calm. They stayed there and made the whole prison environment much better. I agree that a lot needs to be done.
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 to the House to remind all Back-Bench speakers that the advisory time for today’s debate is five minutes. That means that when the clock has reached four minutes, noble Lords should start to make their closing remarks. At five minutes, their time is up. I have asked the Government Whips to remind noble Lords of this, if necessary, during the debate.
King’s Speech
(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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 Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate in my new role as Minister for Prisons, Probation and Public Protection. It will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention that, apart from the 40-minute session we just did, this is my maiden speech, so I will say a few words before moving on to the substance of the debate.
I start with a thank you—for the welcome that I have received from your Lordships but also from Black Rod, the doorkeepers, the catering staff and the many colleagues who work tirelessly to keep this place running.
I am here, I hope, because of my experience, including as CEO of the Timpson Group and having grown the family retail business from 300 shops to over 2,000. I learned a lot about leadership and responsibility, and let me say at the outset that trust and kindness are vital traits to me as a leader. As CEO, I learned that if people are happy in their jobs and feel valued, trusted and cared for, they will perform day in, day out. Sometimes, life throws challenges at us. If this impacts work it is the job of a caring company to offer support, not penalise the individual. I have found over the years that, when you care for people, they care back. It is an approach I intend to bring to this job in how I support the thousands of front-line prison and probation staff working hard in the system every day to keep the public safe.
I also bring experience as a former chair of the Prison Reform Trust. I am very clear that prisons must be available as a punishment and a deterrent, but currently our prisons are not working: they create better criminals, not better citizens. That makes the public less safe. We have to make prisons rehabilitative and make sure that, when offenders are given a second chance, they can seize it. That is good for society because it reduces crime.
The criminal justice system exists to keep the public safe, but it should not hold back the one in four working-age people in the UK with a criminal record from getting jobs. That is a huge, largely untapped talent pool. Let us not forget that nearly 80% of offenders are reoffenders. At the same time, ex-offenders are less likely to reoffend if they have a job within a year of release, so helping them to find work both cuts crime and supports our economy to grow. It is a win-win that we cannot ignore.
That was one of the drivers behind me setting up the Employment Advisory Boards network, which now operates in 93 prisons. I am grateful to all those involved: the board networks in England, Wales and Scotland, and every business leader, board chair and prison governor who has played their part. In 2021, when we started, only 14% of prison leavers had a job after six months of release; by March 2023, it was over 30%. Most importantly, I thank the prison staff across the country who make initiatives such as this possible, as well as their colleagues in the probation service, who continue the efforts to get people on the straight and narrow when they are released. They work every day with some of the most complex people in our country, inside one of its most complex systems.
I will mention the late Lord Ramsbotham, who was a Chief Inspector of Prisons before coming to your Lordships’ House. He encouraged me to carry on working with offenders when other people were not so convinced. I will also mention my friend the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, who is a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. I thank my fellow “justice league” members, my noble friends and sponsors, former Prisons Minister and deputy chair of the Prison Reform Trust, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and my Ministry of Justice colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for their sage advice and support.
Before I finish this maiden element of my speech, I thank my family, who support me in this endeavour and in all things—my wife, Roisin, and my children, Bede, Patrick and Niamh. I thank my dad, John, who, alongside my late mother, Alex, brought our family up in a mad house full of foster children, allowing me to see the challenges young people can face and the potential they have when someone gives them a chance in life.
I turn to the substance of this debate and the home affairs and justice elements of the Government’s agenda. I put on record my gratitude to His Majesty for delivering the gracious Speech. It has become immediately clear to me, on entering your Lordships’ House, that there is a huge amount of knowledge, experience and wisdom on these important subjects in this place. I look forward to a wide-ranging debate, with thoughtful contributions from noble Lords on all sides. Although I am nervous as I stand here for my first speech, I was more nervous about the prisons Statement, the contents of which I will not repeat now. I am telling myself that all noble Lords were once in my position and are still here, so it cannot be that difficult to get the hang of it.
Reducing crime is key to achieving one of this Government’s guiding missions: to take back our streets. Violent crime in our country, particularly knife crime, is too high. Over the last decade the most serious homicides involving knives have risen sharply, with young men most likely to be both the perpetrators and victims. As set out in His Majesty’s gracious Speech, we will tackle this scourge on our society by bringing in a ban on ninja swords and other lethal blades used in attacks, and by introducing strict sanctions on the executives of online companies which fail to comply with the law. To prevent young people being drawn into gangs, we will strengthen the law on those who exploit children for criminal purposes, and bring together services that support at-risk teenagers.
Anti-social behaviour also blights our communities. The police recorded 1 million incidents last year and the crime survey estimates that more than one-third of people in England and Wales have experienced or witnessed anti-social behaviour in some form. We will introduce new respect orders for adults who consistently offend and make it possible to fast-track public spaces protection orders, so that it is quicker and more straightforward to clamp down on street drinking.
Shoplifting increased by 30% last year compared to the year before, and the retail sector estimates the figure to be up to 40 times higher than that. This not only puts additional strain on businesses already struggling in a difficult economic environment; it can also lead to assaults on staff who try to prevent thefts. No one comes to work to be assaulted, so to counter this we will create a specific offence of assaulting a shopworker and introduce stronger measures to tackle low-level shoplifting.
His Majesty’s gracious Speech also includes a range of proposals to rebuild neighbourhood policing, get officers back on the beat, deliver higher policing standards and improve vetting processes to ensure that only the best candidates join the police’s ranks. We will also ensure that the police can respond robustly to domestic abuse, rape and other sexual offences and strengthen the law to improve how the police respond to secure justice for victims of spiking. This will aid our mission to halve levels of violence against women and girls within a decade.
Continuing on that subject, let me now turn to victims and the courts. In recent years, justice in our country has too often been delayed and, in the worst cases, denied. This has proved particularly true of women and girls who are the victims of violence and abuse. As your Lordships will know, lengthy delays for rape victims have become commonplace in recent years, which may cause additional harm to victims’ mental health and well-being. We will deliver on our manifesto commitments to allow associate prosecutors to work on appropriate cases and roll out specialist rape courts. We will work with the judiciary to fast-track rape cases, to make sure that the system can deliver swifter justice to victims of this terrible crime.
We will also strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to hold the system to account for how it delivers for victims, and make changes to require all offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. This will ensure that their victims, and bereaved families of deceased victims, see justice being done and that perpetrators face the consequences of their actions, just as the public would expect.
I turn to another matter of great importance to the public: borders and immigration. Noble Lords will be aware that the previous Government’s Rwanda scheme was not the deterrent to small boat crossings that it was intended to be. There have been no enforced relocations over the last two years and just four volunteers have gone to Rwanda. In that same period, the Rwandan Government have received £290 million of taxpayers’ money. Most asylum seekers who have arrived by small boat are currently stuck in a backlog under the previous Government’s Illegal Migration Act. They are eligible for accommodation but have little prospect of being removed, with asylum hotels currently costing the taxpayer nearly £8 million every single day. This Government are clear that we need a new approach.
We will bring forward legislation to fix the broken asylum system, making it more efficient so that we can end hotel use through clearing the backlog of asylum cases, ensure individuals from safe countries are fast-tracked for return to their country of origin, and end the agreements with Rwanda to save over £100 million in future payments. We will redirect that money into the new border security command, which will be given the tools to crack down on the criminal gangs at the root of this problem, including stronger powers to investigate organised immigration crime. We will ensure there is a strong deterrent for those involved, including offences such as advertising migrant smuggling services, and others relating to the supply of materials required by the gangs.
I turn now to the Hillsborough disaster, the victims of which suffered an unimaginable tragedy. The devastating impact on the bereaved and survivors was compounded by deliberate attempts by those in power to hide the truth and to put their own reputations first. The report from the former right reverend Prelate, Bishop James Jones of Liverpool, into what happened laid bare the horrendous experiences of the Hillsborough families, brought about by an unacceptable defensive culture in too many areas of the public sector. The recent report by the inquiry into the infected blood scandal, which affected thousands of people in our country, highlighted similar failings.
We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to implement a “Hillsborough law” to place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities. This will be a catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector by improving transparency and accountability, helping to ensure that no other family has to endure the same ordeal. We will take action to improve assistance for bereaved persons and core participants at inquests and public inquiries, to ensure that families are able fully to participate. This includes delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related death.
I now move on to another tragedy from which government, the emergency services and the events industry must learn important lessons. The country was horrified by the events at Manchester Arena seven years ago, when 22 people lost their lives and countless more were injured as a result of a senseless terrorist attack. This Government are determined to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. That is why we will bring forward Martyn’s law. This legislation is intended to strengthen the security of public premises and events. Our measures will require those responsible for certain premises and events to take steps to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack and to reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack occurring.
The measures required will vary according to the capacity of the premises or event, ensuring that the public are protected without placing unnecessary burdens on smaller businesses. In bringing forward this legislation, the Government are deeply grateful to Figen Murray, mother of Martyn Hett, who was murdered in the Manchester Arena attack. Her campaigning has been crucial in driving forward this legislation and raising awareness about security measures at public venues.
Before I finish, I would like to mention arbitration, which I know will be of interest to your Lordships. I am aware, however, that there will be plenty in His Majesty’s gracious Speech that I have not mentioned and which your Lordships will be keen to discuss. I welcome the debate to follow, and I would like noble Lords to know that my door is always open should they wish to discuss particular issues, either in this place or elsewhere.
Arbitration is a critical part of our legal landscape, enabling parties to resolve disputes privately and without the need for costly litigation. As your Lordships will be aware, the Arbitration Act 1996 has long been seen as a gold standard across the world; however, almost 30 years later, it requires reform to bring it up to date, as highlighted by the Law Commission’s helpful 2023 review. We are bringing forward changes to ensure that the law in this area is able to adapt to a changing business landscape, support efficient and effective dispute resolution, continue to attract international legal business to the UK and promote our economic growth.
His Majesty’s gracious Speech set out the new Government’s approach for changing our country through the justice system, with less crime, fewer but better supported victims, stronger borders and more security. It is a plan to set us on the path of national renewal and I look forward to debating it with your Lordships in more detail over the coming weeks and months.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I renew my welcome to the noble Lord on the Front Bench. As has been recognised by noble Lords across the House and by the right reverend Prelate who commented earlier, he will bring to our deliberations great experience in a number of important areas, including the rehabilitation of prisoners and the training and employment of disadvantaged people, in relation to which he was honoured by the award of the OBE. He is distinguished also in the field of business. We have heard of his work with the Prison Reform Trust, and I understand that he has also distinguished himself in the field of academia, acting as Keele University chancellor. He referred to that in replying to the Statement repeat, and noble Lords across the House—beginning with my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham—went on to speak very warmly of him. We welcome the noble Lord among us.
As the noble Lord said, his work in the field of rehabilitation of offenders builds on the work carried out by the Timpson family, including his father and others. I congratulate him on recognising the importance of families, which over generations provide a focus for endeavours in useful public service and public life—as the selfless service embodied in generations of our hereditary Peers amply demonstrates. I look forward to meeting the noble Lord properly and personally, but I know his brother, with whom I served for a time as a law officer in the previous Administration. We have two parliamentary brothers then, one Labour, one Conservative—a useful reminder to all of us that there are men and women of good will to be found inhabiting every shade of political opinion, and that no one party can command a monopoly of either skill or compassion. Indeed, no merely human body can claim to be an unchallengeable source of wisdom—not even the Cross-Benchers of this noble House, however much some of them sometimes contrive to give that impression.
I am sure that the noble Lord’s relations with his brother demonstrate that love transcends political differences. In that regard, they may resemble my relationship with my own brother. We get on famously, in a spirit of brotherly love, in spite of the fact that I am a carnivorous Tory and he is a vegan Marxist. I say of him, “Robin has some extreme ideas but basically he is a Conservative”. He says of me, “Keith has some extreme ideas but fundamentally he is a Marxist”.
A King’s Speech must necessarily be delivered in general terms and it would be wrong to demand that the noble Lord addresses specific matters in specific detail, but he touched on a number of points which I will do no more than touch on equally lightly in return. The establishment of a new border security command delivering enhanced counterterror powers to tackle organised immigration crime is, on a view, a laudable objective. However, as was pointed out several times during debates in this place on Rwanda legislation, Labour’s position was to call loudly, theatrically and repeatedly for steps the Government were already taking to combat organised criminal gangs and ensure co-operation with our continental neighbours.
The Government, in opposition, stopped short of taking the step that we identified as necessary, drawing on an analogy with the highly successful scheme in operation between Australia and Nauru, to genuinely challenge the criminal gangs. By contrast, that has been ditched. Creating a border security command sounds very much like deploying purposeful, urgent-sounding language to foster the illusion of activity. It sounds like a piece of subterfuge to disguise how out of touch and out of step Labour is with the country and its mood in relation to this vital matter. Instead, a treaty entered into with a sovereign, friendly country has been cast to one side without ceremony. We wait to see what the new border security command will accomplish in the face of that.
The noble Lord touched on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. These measures will seek to improve the safety and security of public venues to keep the British public safe from terrorism. The noble Lord, necessarily I think, referred to the Manchester Arena atrocity in that regard. I pledge on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition that we will work constructively where we can with the Government. We will do precisely what His Majesty’s Government did when they were in opposition; they subjected our proposals to scrutiny and test, and we will do the same. The House would expect no less of us.
I look forward to working with the noble Lord to make sure that the measures he describes do not impose unduly onerous duties on smaller businesses. In particular—I appreciate the noble Lord was careful to set this out but, as always, the devil is in the detail —we must be careful to make sure that it is not only smaller businesses that are excluded, which cannot afford the expenditure of time, money and expertise to conform to regulation which may not be effective in a way that it might be for larger companies, but also the voluntary sector, which is the very backbone of public civic life in our country. If anything prevents one person offering to take a hand in running a church hall or a village hall, to keep alive community life as best they can, that will be a step too far. We look forward to testing these proposals and making sure that they are not unduly burdensome on those who can least of all afford it.
We also look forward to discovering whether, in the wake of the Manchester Arena atrocity, we will have legislation to address other important matters that emerged from it. These include, for example, the response of the emergency services to the first 999 calls and the concern that the venue’s security staff had quite reasonable concerns about the behaviour of the man responsible which they were frightened to air lest they be accused of racism. We will work with His Majesty’s Government to address such a culture and make sure that people draw attention to emergencies in life in the way that they should.
His Majesty’s gracious Speech set out laudable objectives: strengthening community policing, working to address antisocial behaviour, increasing support for victims, control of our streets and tackling minor levels of crime. We look forward to bringing the necessary scrutiny to these proposals. In relation to the offence of assault on a shopworker, which the Minister mentioned specifically, while we recognise the importance of people being able to go to and carry out work protected from harm and in the knowledge that the courts and police will step forward to protect them, is it an appropriate use of legislative time to set out a specific offence of this nature? In the past, it has always been dealt with by the court’s sentencing considerations and by prosecutors’ decisions as to the level of court in which to indite particular cases. I stress that these are matter of details and I look forward to discussing them with the noble Lord.
The gracious Speech also said, somewhat starkly, that His Majesty’s Government will bring forward plans to halve violence against women. Again, this is a laudable aim but such a stark statement is essentially meaningless. We have to caution against the Government speaking as though they really believed that it is possible to accomplish such a pledge, given that it is a hugely complex area involving social, criminological and legal consideration, and suggesting that such a thing could be accomplished by legislative fiat, having set it out in the course of a single sentence.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord’s points about arbitration. Again, we look forward to working closely with His Majesty’s Government on that important matter.
Finally, going back to the concluding days of the previous Parliament, I think I will speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, in expressing my regret that the King’s Speech did not specifically feature the litigation funding Bill, which was in Committee when the procedural wash-up began and we moved and expedited only certain Bills. That important measure, which enjoyed cross-party support among all Benches, fell to the floor.
At the risk of repeating myself, I issue a warm welcome to a Minister who, it seems to everyone who contributed to the discussion on the Statement repeat, is extremely well placed to inform our counsels on the important matters for which he now has responsibility.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the new Minister and hope that the new appointments will lead to a fresh conversation about our police service. Policing in this country is not working properly: not for the public, who have little faith that the police will turn up, let alone solve their crime; not for the police, who are under attack from all sides and resigning at an unprecedented rate; and not for the wider criminal justice system. A quarter of police forces are in special measures, less than six in every 100 reported crimes result in a charge or summons, and 40% of cases are closed because the police cannot identify a suspect.
Let me outline some of the most pressing issues. The network of agencies we rely on to protect our most vulnerable has been stretched to breaking point, leaving no one but the police to cover the gaps. Over the last few months, I have spoken to dozens of serving officers, all of whom said that the wider system’s inability to meet demand has left the police with no choice but to take on significant amounts of extra work. They are spending hours, and sometimes up to three days, supervising vulnerable children while waiting for social services to find a safe place to put them, and spending whole shifts in A&E while detainees wait their turn for assessment and treatment. They are fielding call after call from people warning about somebody threatening to commit suicide. I heard from one police chief that almost every call to her force now revolves around mental health issues.
The police are also picking up the pieces from the court backlogs, full prisons and overwhelmed probation and prosecution services. The average time that the CPS now takes to make a charging decision is 44 days. It can take eight months to get a simple shoplifting offence to court. At a time when there is an epidemic of violence against women and girls, victims are seeing sex offenders out on bail for up to two years before their case can come to court.
The police have become the service of first resort, forced to pick up the baton for the rest of our crumbling public service. That is not understood by the public, who believe that the job of the police is to solve crime and catch criminals. They have no idea of the other work that the police are forced to take on. How could they? Is it any wonder that officers are crying out for a clearer definition of modern policing’s role and mission?
The Liberal Democrats have always been advocates for neighbourhood policing, so we welcome the Prime Minister’s community policing guarantee. However, police forces must be given the extra funding to pay for that on top of their current budgets. If chief constables are forced to find savings to implement this plan, the result will be more officers having to do back-office tasks at the cost of patrolling, prevention and proactive policing.
Fraud and computer misuse now make up nearly half of all crime, and almost every crime has a digital footprint, so having specialist staff in all police forces is becoming ever more vital. However, the police lack the skills and resources to tackle that head on. Even when forces manage to attract cyber professionals with the necessary skills, these new recruits almost have to be untrained to adapt to the old-fashioned, outdated IT systems that the police are still using. The UK is a world leader in AI, so why have our police not seen some of the benefits? Our police need 21st-century tools to fight 21st-century crime, which means having up-to-date technical solutions and being able to employ tech-savvy staff who understand algorithms and can penetrate the dark web to tackle child exploitation and other heinous online crimes.
Without a sea-change in approach, no amount of superficial fixes or even extra funding will result in a police service that is equipped to keep up with the realities of today’s criminal landscape. I hope the Minister will address these issues when he responds to the debate.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to be the first Back-Bencher to speak on this debate. I join in the chorus of approval and congratulations to the Minister. It is not just me: this morning, I went into Timpson to get a new battery for my watch in order to rehearse my speech so as to avoid the Chief Whip—he is not in his place—getting irritated with me for going over time. There, I spoke to my friend, who knows me by a different name and does not know that I am a Member of this House. He was very sad that the Minister will no longer be leading that business but thought that the greater interests of the country rested in this appointment. So I bring his congratulations as well.
I am going to talk a bit about national security. I was undecided whether to speak today or in tomorrow’s debate on defence, security and foreign affairs. I do not know how vulnerable we are—that is a good thing, because then, presumably, our enemies do not—but I am clear that the threats to our security are not diminishing; they are increasing. We need to face that reality and its implications. Despite the pressure on public expenditure, there will be some unwelcome decisions to be made. Like other noble Lords, I have confidence that the review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Sir Richard Barrons and Fiona Hill, who probably knows more about Putin than most people, will come up with some good recommendations. There is urgency attached, because we need to defend ourselves robustly against these threats.
What constitutes national security is undefined and evolves. We now worry, as the Government must do, about food security, energy security, health security and water security, but in MI5, in which I was privileged to be for 33 years, the law states its responsibilities. They include—I should know this by heart, but I just need to remind myself—
“the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy”.
To do this work, there have to be secrets. That will not come as a surprise to your Lordships’ House, but I do have some current concerns, which I wish to flag. There is some pressure from various quarters for greater openness and transparency. There is the view that the public interest, however it is defined, trumps all. We now have—and I completely understand why—the legislation resulting from Hillsborough, with a duty of candour to prevent, if we can, repetitions of the Post Office scandal, the Hillsborough scandal and others. However, unless we maintain secrets in intelligence work, we will soon have no intelligence.
Your Lordships will remember legislation from a few years back to consider covert human intelligence sources. These are people who are not members of the organisation but who provide, often at risk to their lives, intelligence that is life-saving and important. Their identities must be protected. I welcome the legislation on the security of public places. I caution the new Minister against saying, “We must never let this happen again”. There are lots of people determined to reduce those threats and to work against them, but there is never such a thing as 100% security.
If these secrets are to be kept, it is also important that the UK intelligence community is fully accountable for its actions, the things that it gets wrong and the things that it gets right, and nobody, I hope, would argue otherwise.
I end by picking out the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton—with which I strongly agree—that, as far as possible, the approach to national security should be cross-party and not party political. It is right that this House will pick over legislation, try to improve it and amend it. But in my experience in MI5, it was really important that—with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, who is not, who were among the Home Secretaries I worked for—I always briefed their opposition equivalents. We should continue to do our job properly but, where possible, we should do it in a cross-party, apolitical way.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, on his superb maiden speech, and I refer to my interest as stated in the register as Anglican bishop for prisons.
The gracious Speech began with the principles of
“security, fairness and opportunity for all”.
What does that mean for our criminal justice system? Much mention has been made of overcrowded prisons, an overflowing remand population and a void of rehabilitation leading to reoffending. In the past year I have convened cross-party, round-table discussions with key people in this and the other place, plus academics, those with lived experience and prison reformers. We are all agreed that we need a legislative definition of the purpose of imprisonment, and we need to improve the public’s understanding of sentencing. The concepts of punishment and vengeance are strong in the public narrative.
Beyond these doors, in the Prince’s Chamber, is the statue of Queen Victoria, positioned between the figures of Justice and Mercy. How would our criminal justice system be different if we allowed those two figures to properly dialogue? I recently visited the Netherlands, where there has been a huge reduction in the incarcerated population, not least through an imaginative rethink of sentencing, including different and appropriate care of those with mental health problems and addiction. Children are also dealt with differently, and I hope that in due course I will be able to share more of what I believe we could learn.
The narrative that our streets will be safer if we lock more people up and for longer is not supported by the evidence, and simply leads to doing more of the same thing. Just criticising the previous Government for not building more prisons is missing the point. A system that results in more imprisonment, continued repeat offending, more victims and no change in what is broken in lives and society is not only failing but is not cost effective. The government commitment to a
“justice system that puts victims first”
not only requires tackling reoffending with a fresh look at appropriate education, rehabilitation and purposeful training in prison and beyond the gate. It also requires whole-system change, with a public health approach focusing on what will make for stronger and transformed communities, including tackling root causes. I am sure the Minister is aware of the Better Justice Partnership and its work on whole-system change, and I hope he might commit to meet with it.
Over decades, the inequality of our society has contributed to the warehousing of the vulnerable. We need a whole-community approach, and the issue of relationship is key. We need to look at the big picture, including up stream. We need that long-overdue review of sentencing. We need courage to establish alternatives to the revolving prison door and the repeated pattern of fractured relationship, and this must include community-based alternatives as well as the presumption against short sentences, not least with their disproportionate impact on women.
We need to properly resource, train and value prison and probation staff. More needs to be done with them, and for them—it is the big picture. The ambition of security, fairness and opportunity for all needs a large, articulated vision for the society and world we wish to see. Even our debate on the gracious Speech is siloed across government departments. We need to do join-up. It would be wonderful if we could start from a person-centred way of doing things. How about saying, “For a child born today, how will all that we do enable their flourishing into adulthood?”
But back to reality. I applaud the acknowledgement of children of prisoners. They also often serve a hidden sentence, so identification is long overdue. I am sure the Minister will connect with the charities Children Heard and Seen and the Prison Advice and Care Trust, which bring much expertise. I also applaud the intention to expand the remit of the Victims’ Commissioner and the ambition to halve the violence against women and girls—but that too requires looking up stream.
Time is ticking. Even if people are not driven by mercy in dialogue with justice, perhaps finance will be the driver. Prison costs just over £50,000 per person per year, and the annual social and economic cost of reoffending is estimated at £18 billion. A different and more effective approach means not higher cost but a redistribution of funds. As a Lord spiritual motivated by my faith in Jesus Christ and my belief in every person created in the image of God, I am hopeful about the opportunities that we have to transform the system, holding fast to those principles of security, fairness and opportunity for all.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has demonstrated how sermons should really be delivered—in under five minutes. I offer a very warm welcome to my noble friend and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hanson, whom I welcome back to the Palace of Westminster after all this time. I too have connections with the Timpson family. I worked with Edward on citizenship and youth engagement and always thought he was a social democrat, so there we are.
I would love to speak about home affairs, immigration and security, but because of the time restraint I will concentrate on the elements of justice, first welcoming the words used by my noble friend on imprisonment for public protection. Earlier today, in response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Jones, he talked about cracking on with the agreement reached on 21 May, which was just in time as the election was called the following day. Had we not compromised, it would have fallen, including the drastic reduction in licence period, the action plan progression task force and all that went with it. That is a lesson in politics.
There is much more that we now need to do, including reversing the ridiculous executive action of Dominic Raab, which continues to hold up the Parole Board recommendations by sending them back for people to be sent into the open estate and to approved premises. We could immediately release quite a number of category A, B and C places. Let me give statistics to the House on which I will very quickly build. Last year 27,800 people were recalled. Almost 27,000 of them had determinate sentences; 600 had indeterminate sentences. It is a farcical system that has people recalled for 28 days for more serious sentences, and they are most likely released. It is a revolving door of the most ridiculous proportions, equalled by the farcical situation that we have at the moment where there are 16,500 people on remand, not yet to trial or sentence. There are now listings for 2026 for people who are held on remand.
In the 10-year review, I hope that we will very quickly look at the ridiculous recall—which is inappropriate, blocks up cells and does nothing to rehabilitate or help with the actions that have resulted in people being recalled in the first place—and change the approach. Of course we need the bigger prisons; I am familiar with the review by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, all those years ago. But if we want to get planning permission quickly and be able to recruit effectively and rehabilitate, let us build some smaller remand units across the country so that people are closer to home on remand and can be treated before their sentence in a reasonable and humane fashion. We could then release places in the main prison estate for those who need longer-term help. We could also reduce the frightening picture, mentioned during Questions earlier, in respect of those who are taking illicit substances. The highly respected former governing governor Ian Acheson believes that 50% of prisoners are taking illicit substances, so let us try to get it right.
The probation service is under enormous strain, led brilliantly by Martin Jones. Give it the backing it needs and the support to work with the voluntary and community sector. We know what needs to be done. If my noble friend can navigate the civil service governmental system, he will get the Francis Drake award for doing something that some of us struggled with for many years.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with whom I had many jousts in the past. We often found —speaking for myself at least—that we agreed with each other far more extensively than we cared to admit, and that goes for much of what he said this afternoon.
I congratulate the Government on their election victory and the Minister on his appointment and maiden speech. I echo the warm words of tribute which have rightly been paid to him for his astonishing work on the rehabilitation of offenders—an objective which we all share. I wish the Government well. As my right honourable friend, the leader of the Opposition, whose premiership will I think be treated kindly by history, has said, their successes will be our successes; we all want our country to succeed. It is in that spirit that I intend to offer the Government, respectfully, some advice.
One of the most intractable challenges that the new Government faces is that posed by illegal immigration, and it is to that that I intend to devote my remarks. All we have seen so far is the Prime Minister’s commitment of £84 million to help what is often referred to as tackling the matter at source. I welcome that. It was under my leadership that the Conservative Party first committed to the 0.7% target, so I support the measure and hope that, together with other sources of development assistance, it helps to improve living conditions in some of those countries which are much less well off than we are. But we must be realistic: those countries will, whatever happens, remain for the foreseeable future much less well off than we are, so there will continue to be people who want a better life and who are prepared to take terrible risks to reach our country. Rebadging the Border Force will not stop them, but there is one way which would, and I speak from experience.
In 1995, as Home Secretary, I reached an agreement with France, under which we undertook to return to each other those who illegally entered one of our countries from the other. It worked, even though the number returned to France was, of course, far greater than the number returned to the UK. What, you may ask, did we give France in return? Nothing. We were able to reach this agreement because I persuaded my French opposite numbers that it was in their interest to come to it. Why? Because no French Government could take pride in the number of migrants congregating on their northern coastline or the numbers making their way through France to Calais to get to the UK. I suggested, and they agreed, that if it became clear that getting to Calais was no longer a way of getting into the UK, there would be no incentive for these migrants to come to France in the first place.
The agreement worked; it worked for the two remaining years of my time as Home Secretary, but it had a wrinkle: it applied to those who claimed asylum and to those who did not. It contained a provision that it would not apply to asylum seekers once the Dublin convention came into force. The Dublin convention, which came into force after I left office in 1997, provided that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the first European member state they reached, and if they did not, they would be returned to that member state. Here I was guilty of naivety: I thought the Dublin convention would work, but it did not. In 2018, for example, 1,215 asylum seekers were transferred into the UK but only 209 out of it, despite the fact there were far more cases where the first country they reached was not the UK. The Dublin convention did not preclude bilateral agreement, and one was reached between Germany and Demark. My Labour successors could have sought to revive the application of my agreement to asylum seekers once it became clear that the convention was not working, but they did not.
I respectfully suggest that the Government might look at this agreement again. As far as I know, it has never been revoked, but the arguments that persuaded my opposite numbers in 1995 are as valid and strong now as they were then. There is no reason why the original terms could not be restored. It seems quite likely that the new Prime Minister of France will be a socialist. I think it was Clement Attlee who coined the phrase, “Let left talk to left”, so there may well be an opportunity—to use a phrase currently much in vogue—for a reset in our relations with France on this issue. I commend it to the Government.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the gracious Speech makes only limited reference to the criminal justice system and none to the crisis within it, but, even as it was being prepared, delivered and debated, the Government were making some significant steps. One that we have heard more detail on this afternoon is the release of 5,500 prisoners, not as part of a developing policy on the effective use of custody but as a crisis response to the fact that the prisons are full. This is clearly a disgraceful inheritance from the Tory Government and one that the Government have tackled with difficulty. However, the current Government cannot escape all blame for the situation: Labour ramped up the rhetoric on locking people up some years ago, which set a trend that has continued since and needs to be reversed.
One positive thing that the new Government have done is to appoint a Prisons Minister with knowledge, commitment and practical experience in rehabilitating offenders, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I congratulate him on his Maiden speech. I also welcome the appointment of our respected colleague the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, to the department, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, with whom I worked on these issues when we were both in the Commons. These Ministers will need firm backing at Cabinet level for the steps they will need to take to end the chaos and redesign the system with the objective of reducing crime, not of winning headlines for talking tough.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the report on community sentences from our Home Affairs and Justice Committee, and I apologise that I cannot be at Friday’s debate, when he will hear more about it from my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I also commend the House of Commons Justice Committee’s report, Public Opinion and Understanding of Sentencing. That is the issue I want to touch on now.
Parliament proposes, the Sentencing Council interprets, and judges and magistrates impose sentences, which may include custody. Custody is a massively expensive and huge commitment of resources, in a criminal justice system that is desperately short of resources, but it has often been the most readily available option. In a particular court area, there may not be a combination of measures that could be effective in dealing with an offender, so custody becomes the alternative.
Why does our system put and keep in prison more people than any other system in a western European democracy? There are several reasons for imprisonment. The first reason is the protection of the public from dangerous and violent offenders, but that protection is necessarily limited by the fact that most offenders will eventually be released, and therefore need the prison system to provide—the second reason—rehabilitation by means of courses, training and other activity that can reduce reoffending. An overcrowded and understaffed prison system cannot do this. The third reason for custody is the belief that the risk of a prison sentence is a deterrent. There are some crimes for which that may be true, but some of the crimes we are most anxious to deal with do not fall into that category: domestic violence is not cured or prevented by the fear of a prison sentence, nor is much alcohol or drug-related violence.
We need to recognise that there is a fourth factor—a powerful one—promoting the inappropriate use of custody: prison sentence and its length is used by the public and the media as a yardstick by which to measure the relative seriousness with which we take any particular offence. Custody and its length are used as a proxy for disapproval and for indicating how seriously we take a crime. That distorts the effective use of the remedies that are available. Relying on a community sentence, however effective, is seen as not taking a crime seriously enough.
This is compounded by newspapers. I refer to an article in a newspaper that takes all these issues seriously and is working on them: the Times, which has a commission on justice. Last Thursday, we had the headline:
“Asylum seekers who snatched Rolex watch walk free”.
It is that “walk free” that so distorts the debate. In fact, they were given five-year criminal behaviour orders, subjected to six-month curfews, required to live in Home Office accommodation, required to complete 150 hours of unpaid work and 40 hours of rehabilitation, and banned from the City of Westminster. That does not sound like walking free to me.
This makes me reflect on the other side: I am not convinced that four-year or five-year prison sentences for disruptive but non-violent environmental protesters is a very good use of scarce resources. We need to develop the understanding that the way to take crime seriously is to make sure that the sentence is likely to reduce reoffending. That is the measure. I hope that the new Ministers can encourage rational debate on this issue so that we can start to use custody where it needs to be used and not abuse it when other things would work better.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly about one issue that has not been covered in our debate so far—or, as far as I know, in this House for many years. I put it to your Lordships that our country now faces its most serious challenge for nearly a century, yet nobody seems to be willing to discuss it. I refer to the sheer scale of current immigration and its implications for the future scale and nature of our society.
Over the past 20 years, the UK population has grown by 8 million. That is roughly eight times the population of Birmingham. Some 85% of that growth has been due to the arrival of migrants and their subsequent children. As a result, the ethnic proportion of our population is now already 21%. Recent Conservative manifestos for 2010, 2015 and 2017 all promised to get net migration down to tens of thousands. In 2019, the manifesto promised that
“overall numbers will come down”.
What actually happened? Despite all those commitments, we now face by far the highest levels of net migration in modern history. The total for the last two calendar years taken together was nearly 1.5 million. That outcome is no accident. It results from specific decisions by the previous Government to cave in to pressure groups such as universities and the care sector. That is the result, and it has not yet been tackled.
The response of the new Labour Government has so far been non-committal. There are no serious measures to reduce net migration and no targets have been set. Instead, Labour has focused on asylum, which accounts for less than one 1/10th of the overall net inflow. Even if Labour was able to achieve a reduction in net migration, let us say to 350,000 a year—about a third of the present level—the population of the UK would increase by 9 million by the mid-2040s. That is roughly the population of London. The impact on housing and public services will be immense.
The social aspects are no less important. Unless the new Government get a firm grip on immigration, it is likely that children born today to an indigenous British couple will find themselves in a minority in our country by the time they reach their late 40s. Yes: a minority in their own country.
Change on such a scale, and against the oft-repeated wishes of the current majority, carries very serious risks for the future stability and cohesion of our society. It is now time for some courageous leadership from our new Government, including a clear commitment to get net migration down as close as possible to 100,000 a year. That is a goal which, as we know from surveys, 80% of the public would favour, including, as the Government must know, many of their own supporters. Action on this barely even addressed matter is essential if really serious difficulties are to be avoided in the future.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I wish the new Minister well. He started very well, and I am delighted that all the effort that many of us put into canvassing during the election resulted in people like him getting to where he is; it was all worth while. I differ very much from the previous contribution, but I am not sure this is quite the occasion when we can debate it. I welcome the chance to debate it on another day.
I want to talk a bit about justice and a bit about asylum. I clearly understand why the Government have had to go in for the early release scheme. I remember when I was in the Commons in the early 1980s, and the prison population went up from 40,000 to 44,000. We thought that we were heading for a disaster. Where are we now? We are getting nearer to 90,000. I do not understand why, relative to our population, we have the largest prison population in Europe. Surely our fellow citizens are not more criminal than those of other countries.
I am concerned about the extra pressure that the prisoner release scheme will put on probation officers. I know the Government are going to recruit some more, but there is another issue. I understand that the function or the role of probation officers has changed in recent years. It has become more limited and more a matter of making sure that people behave when they are under probation. I think probation officers had a wider remit in the past. I wonder whether my noble friend would look at that as part of his remit.
Some time ago, I spoke to a police officer who told me of a very distressing incident when a young man mugged an elderly woman quite seriously. The police officer said to me, “Yes, the young man was caught and will end up in Feltham”. The police officer also went to the home of the young man and found a terrible situation. There was just his mother, who was spaced out on drugs. The place was completely derelict. The police officer said to me, “After Feltham, that young man will go back to the same environment, and it won’t help at all”. Unless we tackle the environment and do something about distressing situations such as that, we will have the revolving door revolving and revolving.
We need a more radical approach than just an early release scheme. I know my noble friend is aware of that, but we do. A friend of mine, Andrew Coyle, wrote a book called Prisons of the World. I especially commend a chapter called, “Towards a better way”. I cannot paraphrase him, so I quote him:
“We need a more radical solution to the current prison crisis and it may lie in what has become known as Justice Reinvestment. Very broadly, this is a process which involves assessing the total resources, financial and other, that are currently expended on the criminal justice system; evaluating what benefits members of the public and taxpayers get from this expenditure; and considering whether there might be other ways of distributing these considerable resources to provide a better return on the investment”.
One day, when we have a longer debate on penal reform than is possible just now, I will develop those arguments. I think they may be helpful.
I turn to asylum seekers and refugees. The Home Secretary probably has the toughest job in government, and I very much welcome the advice she gave me over the years when I contributed to debates on this issue. Of course we are all shocked that the total cost of the Rwanda scheme has been £700 million. I am delighted the Government said, I think today or yesterday, that the 125,000 or so people who were prevented from claiming asylum by the Illegal Migration Act will now be able to do so.
I was in Calais a few months ago. It was a very depressing situation. Some of the people there said that they could not apply for asylum in France because they were fingerprinted on arrival in Greece or Italy. That meant they were virtually precluded from claiming asylum back in Greece or Italy, or from coming to this country.
I also met some young people, again in Calais, who had no money to pay traffickers. They said to me that they were hoping to be offered a free lift on a boat on condition that they steered the boat. They would be regarded as traffickers by us, but actually they are young people who have been caught in this very dangerous situation.
We need safe routes for child refugees. We need to establish a better way of achieving family reunion. I agree with the comments made about a better relationship with France.
One last challenge is that we need to find a way of supporting local communities who want to welcome asylum seekers, refugees and others in such a way that we have proper community cohesion. That is a real challenge for this Government.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister and congratulate him on a most outstanding maiden speech. I will briefly deal with two topics not mentioned in His Majesty’s gracious Speech: family justice and the efficiency of our courts.
Such is the pressure on the prisons and on our court system that family justice struggles very often to get attention. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, whom I also warmly welcome and congratulate on his appointment, is a distinguished family magistrate, but I first ask the Minister for an assurance that the family justice system will receive both the attention and the resources it needs under the new Government.
More particularly, the previous Government quietly embarked on an ambitious programme to improve family justice, including setting new objectives through the Family Justice Board; reinvigorating the local family justice boards; rolling out the pathfinder project in private family law across the country, which transforms the old adversarial system into a problem-solving system; instituting a pilot scheme for early legal advice, because in family law many litigants are unrepresented; encouraging mediation; and taking other measures. Will the Minister kindly assure the House that this programme will continue, that in particular the rollout of the pathfinder project across the country will be taken forward and that the Lord Chancellor will not take no for an answer, whatever the alleged lack of financial resources or other feeble excuses might be put forward? Our children deserve no less.
Similarly, and in the same vein, will the Minister consider closely reforming the adversarial system that exists in public family law to encourage a more conciliatory and cost-effective approach, including earlier resolution? Will the Minister particularly investigate why the cost of family law proceedings is so high and has risen so sharply, and why, in particular, some 13,000 or so cases in public family law consume about half the whole civil legal aid budget and cost almost as much as legal aid in the entire Crown Court?
I turn briefly to court administration. The general public, and indeed noble Lords, may not know or entirely appreciate that each year there is an extremely painful negotiation between the Government and judges as to how many days courts are allowed to sit, with a view to restricting the latter. Much emphasis has already been put on the appalling delays in our court system. Faced as we are with that, does the Minister agree that any system intended to restrict court sittings should be fully transparent and explained, and that the rationale for this system and the decisions made thereunder should be explained fully to Parliament and the general public?
Still on the subject of court administration, this is largely in the hands of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, HMCTS. Serious questions arise about the transparency and accountability of the present framework under which that system operates. Those questions are for another day, but the final question I would like to ask the Minister is this: is he aware that in our country which, as the Attorney-General emphasised yesterday, prides itself on the rule of law, our dedicated and hard-working court staff are the worst-paid public servants? Apart from anything else, that seriously undermines the efficiency of our entire court system. What do the Government propose to do about it?
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I too warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and I regard his appointment as Prisons Minister as one of the best decisions the new Prime Minister has made since he took office. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who will be winding up this debate. I wish to address penal policy, and I declare an interest as president of the Howard League for Penal Reform.
After decades during which, if we are honest with ourselves, we have to concede that both the UK’s main political parties were occasionally prone to weaponising criminal justice for electoral gain, the chickens really have come home to roost. Successive Governments created new offences, raised sentences, reduced remission and increased tariffs, and the result has been an epic failure of public policy, filling our crumbling prisons to capacity and forcing the new Lord Chancellor to announce emergency measures on remission—just to keep the system from complete collapse, as she made clear. But this response buys just 18 months until the prisons are full again, so on its own it looks rather like the sort of sticking-plaster politics that the new Prime Minister decried so often in opposition.
It is a crisis that was foreseeable. As we know, Alex Chalk, the estimable former Secretary of State for Justice, who is a great loss to Parliament, warned the Prime Minister that this would happen, and it was left until after the election. But this is precisely how we got here. Headlines before delivery, a sporadic arms race in punitive rhetoric—these were political choices made over many years by Governments of all stripes, quite disconnected from the pragmatic delivery of justice. As everyone now sees, a particular low was the failure to increase prison capacity in the face of a rocketing prison population driven by deliberate public policy. A bit like operating a brewery without manufacturing bottles, for 30 years Governments have been drunkenly good at increasing the flow of inmates, but without creating sufficient new spaces to house them. A government spending review in 2020 promising an impressive 20,000 new prison cells by 2025 has brought us fewer than 4,000, with one year to go. They claimed the full number would be operational by 2030: did anyone really believe that?
There are two reasons why prison-building is unpopular with Governments. First, it is mind-bogglingly expensive: each new cell costs over £600,000 of capital expenditure. At this price, who would choose a prison over a school or a hospital? The second reason is that for the great majority of prisoners on short sentences—those who are not dangerous, and those who are addicts, mentally ill or just a nuisance—prison demonstrably does not work, and successive Governments have known it.
We do not just have the highest prison population in western Europe; we also have some of the worst recidivism rates. For adults released from sentences of less than two years, no less than 50% reoffend. We know from research that recidivism rates are lower for those on community punishments. Why should this be surprising? As a notably right-wing Conservative Home Secretary, Lord Waddington, said many years ago:
“Prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse”.
Bereft of proper facilities for education or rehabilitation, strained to breaking point by austerity and neglect, ludicrously portrayed by some media outlets as holiday camps, and warehousing some of the most damaged people in our society, British prisons should be a stain on our collective conscience. Many of the chief inspector’s reports should be a source of national shame. What a tragic farce, then, that in so many cases they do not even work.
Perhaps something is changing. The Prime Minister is a careful and strategic man. He will have been well aware of the history of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as a prison reformer, and from what we know of the Prime Minister’s attachment to planning and process, and we know quite a lot, it seems unlikely that he would have brought someone with the noble Lord’s views into government if he did not intend to give him some space to imagine a fresh penal policy, less focused on incarceration and more directed towards punishment and rehabilitation in the community.
As the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, has said in the past, only around a third of those presently in jail truly belong there: those who are dangerous, are a risk to the public and must be confined for reasons of public safety. Another third should be receiving therapeutic mental health and addiction interventions in the community, and the rest should be on proper rehabilitative community sentences.
This watershed in prison overcrowding is a shared responsibility, and it is important to note this. It will not do for the new Government to try to blame everything on their immediate predecessors. The truth is that the previous Labour Government were also culpable, frequently criticising judges, introducing the policy of imprisonment for public protection and driving up tariffs with no adequate prison building programme to house the inmates their punitive policies were creating. I am confident that under the new Prime Minister and his law officers, attacks on the judges and the Parole Board will cease, but if this new Labour Government do not understand and accept their own predecessors’ role in this debacle, they will hardly start from the right place in what must become a shared process of broad and deep reform and a real change in the way we think about crime and punishment in our country.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome two superb new Ministers: the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, with whom I worked in government and in opposition, and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, an inspired appointment, who made a brilliant maiden speech. I share the view that he expressed some time ago that we are addicted to sentencing and punishment. Of course some people must be punished, but for too many people prison simply does not work. I hope that this prison crisis can be turned into an opportunity, with fewer people being sent to prison, including women, whose crimes often do not warrant imprisonment and whose families are torn apart, including by short sentences. If all offenders had proper access to training and learning while in prison and came out to a job and a roof over their heads, reoffending would decrease dramatically.
I co-chair the Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership. One issue on which we are working at the moment is to support prison leavers into employment, and we are redoubling our efforts in the light of early release. We were inspired by a speech at our launch by Darren Burns, who is the head of the Timpson Foundation. A few months ago, we organised a visit by employers to Bullingdon prison. They met staff, the governor, people providing training and offenders who were learning building and barista skills and hairdressing. At the end of the visit, one employer, who had never been in a prison before, said, “But they’re just like you and me”. Indeed, they too are human beings, just like you and me. Some fantastic employers in Oxfordshire train and support prison leavers, such as RAW and Tap Social, and more are being encouraged to do so, including the universities, in which I have a registered interest.
Access to employment and accommodation must go together if someone is to succeed and keep out of prison. The biggest block to employment is often the cost and availability of housing, and I pay tribute to charities such as Aspire. There is an excellent initiative at Bullingdon prison called Community Connections, an independently evaluated two-year pilot with a prison officer in the role of community connections officer. He opens up the prison to opportunities and resources in the community and breaks down barriers. This should be replicated in other prisons. Shortly, there will be a new Bullingdon project, a departure lounge in the visitors’ centre to support men with hot drinks, information, clothes, toiletries and phones immediately on release. Getting Oxfordshire Online and National Databank will provide the men with phones and SIMs with six months of calls and some data. I hope the Minister might consider visiting Oxfordshire soon.
Moving to justice, or rather injustice, for women and girls, yesterday a police report warned that violence against women and girls is a national emergency that for too long has not been taken seriously. I am proud that the Prime Minister spoke in the King’s Speech debate of this Government’s mission to reduce violence against women and girls by 50% in 10 years. He mentioned our mutual friends John and Penny Clough, who have courageously campaigned on stalking since their daughter Jane was brutally murdered by her stalker 14 years ago tomorrow. Since then I have campaigned on this insidious crime, and over that time an offence was introduced, various orders and reams of guidance were issued and countless demands were made that lessons be learned, but the violence, the stalking and the murders continue. Since 6 May, 18 women have been murdered in this country by men.
I welcome proposals in the new crime and policing Bill to ensure that we have rape and sexual assault units in every police station, as well as specialist domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms. I am delighted by Jess Phillips’s determination to improve the police and criminal justice system’s response to stalking, which will include strengthening the use of stalking protection orders and giving women the right to know the identity of online stalkers, but even more needs to be done. I hope that the Met’s V100 initiative will be rolled out in every police force. Claire Waxman, London’s victims’ commissioner said following her stalking review that the system has become compliant in allowing stalking cases to escalate. Together with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, she called for an improved approach to the use of technology to track and pursue high-harm and repeat perpetrators of violence against women and girls. I am in favour of tagging.
Justice and home affairs will have to deal with enormous challenges immediately and in the coming years. I am confident that this Government and our two excellent Ministers will do so with fairness, firmness and compassion.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, for whom I have very high regard. The Minister will discover that in the House of Lords the debates are much better than they are in another place. I know he does not have much experience in another place, but criminal justice, of all subjects, is an enormously complex problem, and the debates and the speeches on it here are always some of the best that we have. I welcome him most warmly. He brings a tremendous example to the House. I just hope he stays in post, because we have heard it all before. What we need is tenacity, continuity and delivery. We really were not sure whether we wanted the noble Lord as our Minister. We were quite tempted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, and we were thinking that if the most reverend Primate the Archbishop would allow that, it could be a constitutional innovation. She has consistency and dedication. She was the first woman bishop in this place and is a wonderful woman.
I want to say in passing that the Minister made an excellent maiden speech and that I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. I am afraid the shop steward for all matters relating to Hull—the noble Lord, Lord Norton—has already tapped me on the shoulder. I was chancellor for only 17 years. I know the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is chancellor at Keele. I knew he was at Hull, and I was going to mention it in passing—it is in my notes—as was another great entrant to the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika.
My noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy said so much in his speech that I care deeply about. I could go off on many highways and byways in this debate, but I have very little time. I want to say how impressed I have been by the appointments in this Government. Not many people are as old as me, but I remember 1997 when it was carnage. All the people who had done the shadow jobs were chucked out, and Tony’s cronies arrived. As Alex Aiken said, it was tears all the way down Downing Street, not from John Major and his team leaving but from all the people who thought they were going to get the jobs when the new people arrived. To my amazement, the shadows have been appointed—people who have served an apprenticeship. I think the credit for this goes to Sue Gray for ensuring that there has been a measured and sensible adoption of office.
I must declare an interest: as most people know, 25 years ago I decided that it was not just policies that matter but people, so I have been in executive search for 25 years. We appoint some important people. In 2008 we handled the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in 2018 we handled the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, and in 2003 I found the chief executive of the Refugee Council, so I am pleased that the Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, are all people who have been vetted—as I would say without that sounding like a conflict of interest, which I am terrified of in this place. We have the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and many others who bring expertise.
I envy the Minister. The only job I wanted in government was to be Home Secretary, but my problem is that I think prisons are throwing good money after bad. I was alienated about prisons for many years when it was very unfashionable for a Conservative to feel that. My experience was that I was chairman of the juvenile court in Lambeth at the time of the Brixton riots, when I was only 32. I sat at one stage with my noble friend Lord Waldegrave and the late Baroness Howe. These were children from the most appalling homes, or who had no home and no education. They could not read the oath. They had drawn the short straw and nobody wanted them. I wanted a levy on local authorities that had their residents in prison, because nearly always they had not invested in their education, healthcare or training. But it was not to be.
I had a bloodcurdling row with my very close and good noble friend Lord Howard when he introduced secure training centres. I am deeply sceptical about putting young people in prison. I admire those who have made such a difference. I pay credit not only to the Minister but to the wonderful Finlay Scott, who founded the Clink—I would like to speak for 20 minutes on the Clink but I cannot—and to Jocelyn Hillman at Working Chance. These are practical schemes that make a difference.
I also want to warn the Whips that I will be against them if they try to whip me on the Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is an error and a waste of money. It can be a little memorial but it must not be a learning centre. I am pleased that the King did not mention it and that the Prime Minister mentioned only a memorial, not a learning centre. Best wishes to the Minister.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, there is very little time to say all the things that I want to say today. Nevertheless, here I am, casting my own small pearls of wisdom before your Lordships. I still hope that they will somehow make a contribution to the workings of this House.
I repeat my welcome to the Minister. Just for a moment, I shall continue on the theme of prisoners. I belong to a small, doughty cross-party group determined to rectify the most terrible of injustices still being perpetrated on the suffering, lonely rump of 3,700 indeterminate-sentence prisoners. Can the Minister at least give some hope that he has not totally ruled out a resentencing exercise? It could be combined with some of the innovative alternatives mentioned by many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke about small local remand centres. Not a lot of people know this, but it was at one of those centres—which then rejoiced in the name of Pucklechurch remand centre—that I began my training as an assistant governor in the Prison Service. However, there is no time to go into that fascinating aspect of my career here.
I will leave the subject of prisons and turn to the area that I mainly speak on: equalities. There is much to welcome on equalities in the King’s Speech. I look forward to working constructively with the Government to make the lives of women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and members of the LGBT+ community more just and more free. During the last Government, I and the then Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle brought forward Private Members’ Bills to ban conversion practices, and I am absolutely delighted to see that return as a government Bill.
The employment rights Bill also includes many things that I strongly back, including greater entitlement to flexible-hours working, employee protections from day one and banning zero-hour contracts and the egregious practice of fire and rehire. We look forward to working with the Government on all these issues.
The draft equality race and disability requirement for pay-gap reporting for disabled and ethnic minority workers for larger businesses is most welcome. We have fought for that for a long time and we wish it every speed on its way.
I believe that the most challenging problem in the field of equalities facing the Government is the scourge of violence against women and girls. Only yesterday, as a noble Lord said, we saw in the news a sharp increase in the reporting of violence and a sharp decrease in prosecutions. The Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls. The Minister has given us a flavour of the coming measures and we all look forward to learning more.
There are many things that I would love to have seen in this King’s Speech—for example, equal marriage for humanists and the equal and inclusive treatment of children from religious and non-religious families in schools: I am hoping for a favourable wind for the return of my inclusive assemblies Private Member’s Bill.
Many challenges face this Government. My party will work constructively with them to make the new equality laws the most effective that they can possibly be.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the Ministers on their new roles and their maiden speeches today. I look forward to asking them many questions. I will focus my contribution on violence against black, Asian and minority-ethnic women. I declare my interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK.
I welcome the Government’s bold pledge to halve violence against women and girls. However, to be successful they will need to tackle the radicalisation of boys into extreme misogyny by online male toxic influencers, which is a problem in every community. How will the Government tackle this? To be successful, they will also need tailored approaches to different communities according to their needs.
I welcome efforts to date on tackling FGM, forced marriage and honour-based violence, but when it comes to minority-ethnic communities I notice that there is a greater tendency to focus on abuses linked to cultural practices. What is actually killing women is domestic abuse, but that does not get the same attention in minority-ethnic communities. In fact, when it comes to domestic homicides, minority-ethnic women are overrepresented by 22%. So I urge the Government to hold a public consultation to uncover the contributing factors to this overrepresentation and come up with recommendations across government departments and services. I also urge the Government to think about a legal definition of spiritual abuse. I will be holding a round-table meeting in September with minority-ethnic groups and I urge the Government to send policy advisers to that meeting to listen to what women have to say.
I turn my attention to hate crime. I was disappointed not to see this in His Majesty’s Speech, given that hate crime has been going up for over a decade now. But I shall focus my comments more on Muslim women. Police data actually shows that the vast majority of perpetrators are white males, so I consider this a form of gender-based violence, yet this type of hate crime tends not to be included in violence against women and girls strategies. I urge the Government to consider putting it in.
The Labour manifesto talks about improving the way that Islamophobia is monitored. I welcome that, but what action will the Government take to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice? For example, will they engage with Muslim communities and groups around the country and engage with Muslim women? That is something that the previous Government did not do. Instead, from 2011 they focused on funding one project, Tell MAMA, which is now given £1 million a year even though Muslim communities do not have trust and confidence in that project any more. There are concerns over transparency, governance, how funding is being spent and the quality of the data.
I was so concerned that I asked the previous Government 31 questions, which were not answered. That caused me a lot of anxiety, and I hope that the new Government will answer those questions. In fact, recently, an academic, Dr Nafeez Ahmed, tried to write articles about my concerns. The project spent a lot of money hiring Mishcon de Reya, which has expensive lawyers, to try to block the articles. Thankfully, that was not successful. I think I am on to something and that we need to look into this very deeply and carefully. What are they hiding? Could it be the inflation-busting pay rise of the CEO? That went from £77,000 to £93,000, which is a 21% pay rise.
I urge the Government to review this expenditure of public funding, to talk to Muslim communities around the country and to set up alternative hate-crime reporting hubs within communities. I am more than happy to support the Government to engage with and to speak to affected communities, in particular Muslim women.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as a non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police Service. I warmly welcome the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint and Lord Timpson, to this House. This House values experience, and both Ministers have relevant experience in abundance. I also warmly welcome this Government and their declared principles of security, fairness and opportunity for all.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to make streets safer, although I believe it will take more than just legislation to strengthen policing, to give the police greater powers to deal with antisocial behaviour and to strengthen support for victims. It is the implementation of such measures, and the holding of police forces to account for achieving these laudable goals, that may prove difficult.
We still have 43 operationally independent chief constables, almost all of whom are overseen by elected police and crime commissioners or elected regional mayors, each of whom has their own political mandate. The former tripartite arrangement of chief constable, Home Office and police authority that was in place when the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, was previously Minister for Crime and Policing, no longer exists. The current complex governance arrangements not only allow the Home Office to absolve itself of responsibility, as happened under previous Conservative Governments, but make it much harder for the Home Office to drive change, achieve savings and focus policing on the Government’s priorities.
The operational independence of chief constables and the political independence of police and crime commissioners, who now appoint chief constables with little Home Office input, together create a potential barrier to national policing reform if police chiefs and PCCs decide to resist them. In His Majesty’s gracious Speech and in the accompanying documentation and commentary, including the very useful Library briefing, the Government apparently intend to introduce a crime and policing Bill as one of their first laws, enabling the Home Office to take a “more active” approach to crime and policing. Can the Minister explain how that can done within the current governance arrangements?
The Government’s determination to tackle knife crime is also welcome. Can the Minister explain how executives of online companies that break new rules on the supply of ninja swords, lethal zombie-style knives and machetes online will be personally held to account if those companies are based overseas, as many of them are?
The neighbourhood policing guarantee is also welcome and crucial in a policing system based on policing by consent, where trust and confidence in the police is inextricably linked to police effectiveness. New police officers, police community support officers and special constables are to be paid for by setting national standards for procurement, and by establishing shared services and specialist functions to drive down costs. Can the Minister explain how this is to be done when the financing of police forces is in the hands of elected mayors and police and crime commissioners, and the deployment of those resources is a matter for operationally independent chief constables? Similar constitutional difficulty appears to lie in the proposal to compel operationally independent chief constables to follow the recommendations of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Royall of Blaisdon, have said, the breathtaking extent of violence against women and girls, as set out by the National Police Chiefs’ Council yesterday, is deeply concerning. Can the Minister say what, if any, evidential test will be applied to the proposed automatic suspension of police officers being investigated for domestic abuse or sexual offences, or whether an uncorroborated allegation with no supporting evidence would be sufficient?
I only raise these issues as matters which I respectfully ask the new Government to consider, in the earnest hope that any difficulties can be overcome, so that they can achieve their policing goals, which I wholeheartedly support.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I await with some expectation, as he does, the answers to the relevant questions he asked.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Timpson on an excellent maiden speech and, before that, an excellent maiden Statement. I can pay him no higher a compliment than to say that he clearly has the ear of your Lordships’ House. Mind you, from my conversations and reading since his appointment was announced, it seems that he has the ear of quite a large proportion of the population in this country as well.
Attempting to describe even a small percentage of the challenges bequeathed to this Government would more than exhaust my allotted time. Among them, I suggest that nowhere, perhaps, have the new Government been saddled with a more unenviable inheritance than in the sphere of justice and, more specifically, prisons. Of course, I acknowledge that it is common practice for Governments to take office bemoaning the parlous state to which their opponents have reduced the country. Indeed, your Lordships will recall the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and his Sancho Panza, George Osborne, carrying around and flourishing copies of Liam Byrne’s valedictory note for years afterwards.
What the last election and the public mood demonstrate is that not only is Labour in step with the country, but there is no need for such spurious props today. The electorate has grown tired of living in a country in which so many critical services simply do not work. The failure of the last 14 years is as observable as it is evident. Our prisons are in crisis. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, that there is no ticking time-bomb. The ticking stopped before the election took place and we are in a much worse situation than that. Ten prisons are operating at over 140% capacity; Leeds, designed safely to accommodate 641 inmates, currently houses over 1,100; Durham, designed to accommodate 573, currently houses 970. This means that prisons are more unsanitary, violence is more common and disease can spread more easily.
Equally, when hard-pressed staff are seeking to achieve safety and order, the things that are sacrificed or neglected are those elements of incarceration that are most conducive to rehabilitation. The prison library and opportunities for prisoners to learn skills or simply to pursue knowledge for its own sake are the first casualties in a system that has been asked to do far too much with far too little.
Wandsworth is the subject of an urgent notification from the Chief Inspector of Prisons. Only a couple of months ago, many of its inmates began to be locked in their cells 24 hours a day and 80% of inmates were sharing cells designed for one. The inspectors found vermin, failing security, drugs and rising rates of self-harm. It is just one prison, but that description shames the entire country.
A quarter of prisoners across the prison estate are held in Victorian facilities with no in-cell sanitation, forced to use bins as makeshift toilets. More than half report feeling unsafe. More than a quarter have received threats or intimidation, 13% of which have escalated into physical assaults. This is the inheritance of my noble friend the Minister, the Secretary of State and the wider ministerial team, and it is against that context that their future performance should be judged.
My strong belief is that, while prisons remove people from society, the welfare of prisoners and their successful rehabilitation should be a matter of universal interest. I believe it is equally true that an improvement in the prison education system is a necessary precondition for any substantial fall in recidivism. Over 50% of the prison population have a literacy level below that of the average 11 year-old. This fact, perhaps more than any other, allows us to understand the cycle of poverty and alienation that too often ends in jail.
Churchill, in his Edwardian incarnation, was a reforming Liberal Home Secretary. In his autobiography My Early Life, he describes his approach to prison reform by saying that
“when I was Home Secretary … I did my utmost consistent with public policy to introduce some sort of variety and indulgence into the life of their inmates, to give to educated minds books to feed on … and to mitigate as far as is reasonable the hard lot which, if they have deserved, they must none the less endure”.
This strikes me as a pretty useful starting point for any determined programme of prison reform.
I know I am not alone in your Lordships’ House in greeting the appointment of my noble friend Lord Timpson with great enthusiasm and optimism. I have confidence in him and the wider ministerial team effecting a real and lasting change to our prison system, as well as widening access to justice. This will have my full support in this House and outside as they engage with these challenges.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I gladly follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I could have made exactly the same speech that he has just made when we came into government in 2010. I spent quite a time as shadow Prisons Minister studying the state of our prisons in the period from 2005 to 2008, and I wrote a paper called Prisons for a Purpose. I suggest the noble Lord reads it; he will find a lot of what he has just said in it.
Before reading the Henley report into the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s conduct in the Andrew Malkinson case, I had intended to speak about prisons and indeterminate sentences for public protection. But I will now concentrate on the CCRC and rely on other noble Lords to say what needs to be said on those subjects —save to say that I reject the new Lord Chancellor’s assertion that the current state of our prisons is all the fault of the last Conservative Government. As I indicated to the noble Lord so politely, the Blair-Brown Government still have plenty to answer for, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, knows that as well as I do because he was the Minister for Prisons for part of that period. That said, I genuinely welcome him to your Lordships’ House. I shadowed him in the other place when he was Minister for Prisons and he was an honest and hard-working opponent for whom I have and had the greatest of respect. I know that he will bring his skill and determination to his work in the Home Office.
I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, the former chairman of the Prison Reform Trust, of which, as I said in earlier business, I am a trustee. He has spent his adult life and fortune thinking constructively about caring for the welfare of prisoners and former prisoners. I congratulate him on his appointment and the Prime Minister on making that appointment. I also congratulate him on his fine maiden speech this afternoon. I urge him to achieve direct access to the Prime Minister on prisons policy, as he must be seen to be speaking with the direct authority of the Prime Minister. Without it, he could well be lost in the quagmire that is Whitehall. For far too long, under Conservative and Labour Governments alike, prisons policy has been delegated to Ministers without adequate political power—as a job to fill, rather than a central part of the conduct of good government. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, needs no welcome, but I congratulate him on his appointment within the Government.
The Henley report opens to urgent public examination a state of affairs that those in charge of the CCRC should be ashamed of. It should lead them to consider their positions. In 2023, the Court of Appeal quashed Andrew Malkinson’s rape conviction. In 2004, he had been sentenced to life imprisonment, and he spent 17 years in prison before he was released, with a further three on probation. Throughout that time, he steadfastly maintained his innocence, but it took 20 years and two Court of Appeal hearings for his conviction to be overturned. He made three applications to the CCRC in 2009, 2018 and 2021 to refer his case to the Court of Appeal. The first two were refused, and the third resulted in a successful appeal hearing in July 2023.
From 2021 to 2022, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and I co-chaired the Westminster Commission on Miscarriages of Justice. We were set up to review the work of the CCRC after 25 years of operation. It can refer a case to the Court of Appeal if it considers that there is a real possibility that the court will quash the conviction or reduce the sentence in the case. It receives over 1,000 applications every year.
Our report was written in ignorance of the Malkinson case and before the 2023 Court of Appeal decision. We recommended that the roles of the chair and commissioners should be strengthened and that the processes for their appointments should be reviewed. We also found that the CCRC was underfunded, a problem exacerbated by the financial restrictions on the public provision of advice and representation for applicants. But one has only to read the 2024 Henley report on the Malkinson case to see that, even without the hideous facts of that case, we reached very similar conclusions.
We urge that the test for the CCRC should be altered to something less predictable. It should refer a case if it considers that the conviction rate may be unsafe, that the sentence may be manifestly excessive or wrong in law, or that it is in the interests of justice to make a referral. That would encourage a more independent mindset. The CCRC is presently too deferential to the Court of Appeal. It needs bold and determined leadership. It is my experience, having read the Henley report, that it is simply not getting it.
After the 2023 Court of Appeal decision, I publicly criticised the chair of the CCRC, not least because she said nothing in public to recognise what had happened to Mr Malkinson or to atone for the CCRC’s failures. I met her so that she could explain her position, but I came away from that meeting even more convinced that the CCRC needed new leadership. Had the Westminster commission known in 2022 what Mr Henley now tells us, we would have been less kind.
Having read the Henley report, it is now my view—in this I agree with the new Justice Secretary—that the CCRC unquestionably needs new leadership. If the chair and the chief executive will not resign immediately, they should be replaced. The CCRC cannot move forward with them in post. We need a full-time executive chair, with at least the standing of a High Court judge, and full-time salaried commissioners rather than the current part-timers. It needs better and better-resourced case managers. The CCRC, as presently organised and managed, is moribund.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Given the scale of the emergency facing our prisons, the Lord Chancellor has been forced to set out new measures, which we heard about earlier in a Statement from the Minister. When resources are so stretched, we must make sure that we are using them in the best possible way. In my view, the Government should legislate to make the Sentencing Council take account of the capacity of the prison system. This proposal is not new. It was made by the Carter report on the prison system in 2007, and it still makes sense.
At a time when all other areas of public services have to work within the reality of limited resources, there is no reason why courts should be exempt. Sentencing guidelines should scale down the number and length of prison sentences, except for the most serious crimes. This may be a short-term solution, but it is not a long-term remedy. The corresponding impact on other criminal justice agencies will remain great.
Let me take one such example. There is admission on the part of the Government that this change will not take effect until early September, giving the Probation Service time to prepare. This is overoptimistic. In many parts of the country, the Probation Service is overstretched and overworked. The annual report of prisons and probation has just been published. There were 4,575 complaints about the services, an increase of 2% compared to last year. These include complaints about Probation Services, immigration removal centres and secure training centres. The level of suicides and self-harm is an unacceptable feature of our custodial system. How are we dealing with mental health issues in our prisons?
I wish to draw the House’s attention once again to the issue of the overuse of imprisonment. Of the 41,000 people who were sent to prison in the 12 months to June 2021, 40% were sentenced to serve terms of six months or less. These short sentences do little to reduce crime, as they are too short for any serious rehabilitative work to take place, yet they can result in offenders losing jobs and accommodation, which increases, rather than reduces, their likelihood of reoffending. The previous Government projected an increase in the prison population to over 98,000 by 2026. Sentences have become significantly longer. Community sentences result in significantly lower reoffending, which has more than halved in the last decade.
Let me spell out my main concern. Numerous research studies have shown that offenders from minority-ethnic groups are disproportionately likely to receive custodial sentences. Previous estimates published by the Ministry of Justice indicated that black people were over 50% more likely to be sent to prison for an indictable offence at the Crown Courts, even when higher not guilty pleas were factored in. The Ministry of Justice publication estimated that, if the prison population reflected the ethnic composition of the general population, we would have 9,000 fewer people in prison, the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons. The question we should ask is how we have produced this anomaly within our criminal justice system.
The primary aim is for the court to send to prison only those whose offending makes any other course unacceptable, and, secondly, those who are sent to prison should not stay there any longer than strictly necessary. We had an opportunity to look critically at our criminal justice system. In April 2020, we were promised a royal commission on the criminal justice system. We all know that it was kicked into the long grass; instead, we have had a piecemeal approach to legislation in this field. It is not too late to revisit this option.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I begin my contribution to this debate on justice by calling Lord Bingham, a noble and learned Lord, as my expert witness. He is in glory. Thankfully, his incisive and illuminating legal mind speaks with authority on justice. He says at page 174 of his excellent book, The Rule of Law:
“The rule of law is … one of the greatest unifying factors, perhaps the greatest, the nearest we are likely to approach to a universal secular religion. It remains an ideal, but an ideal worth striving for, in the interests of good government and peace, at home and in the world at large”.
I humbly suggest to His Majesty’s Government that The Rule of Law should be the golden thread that runs through the legislative programme outlined in the King’s Speech, as well as in the governance of our four nations. It is the perfect glue that binds together governance and the laws passed by Parliament. The Attorney-General’s excellent maiden speech chimes in well with this, as does the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Bravo!
Take poverty, for example. President Nelson Mandela said:
“Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life. While poverty persists, there is no true freedom”.
Now then, what are we to understand by the rule of law, a phrase that we regularly use? My expert witness says the existing principle is
“that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts”.
Further:
“State observance of the rule of law requires the availability of effective and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that citizens must be able to access the courts, and be heard by independent judges, under a fair process”.
A manifesto commitment to put victims first, supporting them at every stage of the criminal justice system, is a good innovation, but surely it must treat all alleged perpetrators of crimes as innocent until proven guilty, and therefore supported as well.
Building more prisons will ease overcrowding. However, as a former chaplain in the 1980s of a sizeable remand centre that was full beyond capacity most nights, I know that building new prisons must go hand in hand with increased funding for the courts system; legal aid; the rehabilitation and education of offenders; a fully funded and renewed Probation Service; a regular training review of all prison officers; a rigorous refreshing of the workings of the Crown Prosecution Service; and the renewal of restorative justice—
“To no one will we … deny or delay right or justice”.
The rule of law is not an arid legal doctrine but the foundation of a fair and just society, and a guarantee of responsible government. It makes an important contribution to economic growth, as well as offering the best means yet devised for securing peace and co-operation. My expert witness in The Rule of Law advocates eight conditions which capture its essence. I will give you four:
“The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable … Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve … Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers”.
Finally, there must be
“compliance by the state with its obligations in international law”.
When it comes to justice, the rule of law guards, protects, drives and guarantees its delivery. Love without justice is self-indulgence. Justice without love is tyranny. The rule of law holds both justice and love together in a creative tension.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my former boss.
As a trustee of the Clink Charity, where we help prisoners build skills for employment in the catering industry, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and congratulate him on a powerful and hopeful speech. He might wish to know that the Clink restaurant at Styal prison won the Cheshire Life restaurant of the year award earlier this week. If his team can draw my remarks to his attention, I hope he will accept an invitation to dine with me there later this year, so he can see for himself. However, as my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester has spoken eloquently about prisons already, I will focus elsewhere.
As co-chair of the national police ethics committee, I am deeply committed to the principles that Sir Robert Peel set out two centuries ago. Our police are civilians in uniform, not paramilitaries; they are servants of the Crown and society, not tools of government policy. Those distinctions have not always been clear in recent years, not least during the Covid pandemic. Hence, if we are to recover the levels of confidence in policing that Peel’s vision requires, visible neighbourhood policing and responding to every crime is vital. I welcome measures in the gracious Speech to those ends. I also welcome efforts to divert young people away from the criminal justice system at an early stage, and a focus on violence against women and girls.
One mark of a mature society is that it is willing to listen and learn when things have gone badly wrong. Hence, I am pleased to see proposals to extend the duty of candour. This, as the Minister has said, was a cornerstone of the report which the former Bishop of Liverpool produced in response to the Hillsborough tragedy. I will never forget meeting bereaved families at the stadium, as a young priest, seeking to offer such comfort as I could. I will also be supporting measures to improve safety at public events, and especially Martyn’s law, named, as we have heard today, after a victim of the Manchester Arena attack. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who addressed the point about proportionality for voluntary and faith community venues in that regard.
Meanwhile, there are other past failings that we need to consider. I would be pleased to hear Ministers indicate how they wish to take forward the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I would further urge His Majesty’s Government to set up the long-needed inquiry into the events that took place at the Orgreave coking plant during the miners’ strike—it was the parish next door to my own—so that we can guard against attempts to politicise policing in future.
I applaud the ending of the Rwanda scheme. Setting aside any moral concerns, I hope we will never again see a Bill before this House that the responsible Minister cannot confirm to be fully compliant with international law. Meanwhile, I and many others will continue to argue for safe and legal routes, so that genuine refugees who have firm reasons why Britain is the best place for them to begin rebuilding their traumatised lives can do so here. Given that refugee numbers remain a small fraction of net migration, I am confident that we can do this within the total migration numbers that Britain can absorb. Mindful of the skills that many refugees bring, I urge His Majesty’s Government to allow those who have spent months—or longer—waiting for a claim to be processed to contribute to our economy by taking paid employment.
On a wider matter, I welcome the commitment to ban conversion practices. I welcomed its appearance in the previous Government’s programme, not long after the Church of England General Synod had called by a huge majority for such a ban. Progress stalled, of course. I have met too many people suffering lifelong damage from such abuse. I and others stand ready to help frame a law that will outlaw these disgraceful practices while not criminalising medical practitioners and registered therapists, or private non-coercive prayer.
Finally, I am delighted to be followed today by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who will make his maiden speech. I remember, during my time as Bishop of Dudley, when he was in the other place, he came to visit my diocese. I was so impressed by his work supporting faith communities. I look forward to the significant contributions that he will make to your Lordships’ House, both immediately following my speech and in times to come.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, to be a Member of your House and to make my maiden speech today. I begin by thanking all the officers of the House, from Black Rod all the way through to the doorkeepers— I am told that one should never neglect the doorkeepers. I also thank my supporters, my noble friends Lord Howard of Lympne and Lord McLoughlin, who are here today, and other noble Lords for their courtesy, not least my noble friends Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, Lord Gascoigne and Lord King of Bridgwater.
I am told that in one’s maiden speech, it is customary to introduce oneself to the House, but I prefer instead to introduce my grandfather: Sam Goodman who, family legend has it, was the first Jewish private soldier in the Life Guards. He wrote to his family on 16 December 1916 from the Somme, where he had been dragged from the mud by French soldiers and hauled to safety. The horror and Holocaust of the last century has made a mark on my imagination in two particular ways. First, I believe that the institutions developed on these islands organically over time have helped to shield us from the worst of some of the suffering endured by our neighbours. Secondly, the crust of civilisation is thin, as we all know from looking across the channel towards Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s bloody war there.
My own path may have diverged from my family’s somewhat, but it was an interesting experience, given my background, to be for 10 years the representative—the right reverend Prelate has just alluded to this—of the largest number of Muslims in any seat represented by the Conservative Party. I am grateful to all my former constituents in Wycombe, the true home of one-nation Conservatism, for it is there that Hughenden Manor, where Disraeli lived during his political heyday, is to be found. During those 10 years I acquired a great love of the traditional, classical Islam, one of the world’s three great Abrahamic religions. However, those 10 years were not all plain sailing for any of us. I arrived a few months before 9/11, I left a few weeks after an Israeli incursion into Gaza and in between came the Afghanistan and Iraq wars; and terror incidents carried on after I left the House of Commons. That was a very hard time for all of us.
I now turn to the King’s Speech. The Home Secretary, among her other responsibilities—in respect of which I wish her well—is responsible for countering extremism and, I suppose also, therefore, for building moderation, integration and cohesion, which are the opposites of that extremism. I recommend to the Government Front Bench and to the Minister, whose own maiden speech I look forward to hearing later today, the wise words not of Disraeli but of Bing Crosby, who, the House will remember, sang “Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive”. On eliminating the negative, I hope to see a consensus between the two Front Benches on identifying, confronting and calling out extremist actors and ideologies. By the same token, we must strive to accentuate the positive. That may well mean being open to new and radical ways of living together and finding that cohesion and integration, perhaps in more contractual ways than the British political tradition has hitherto allowed.
I hope that that is a suitably one-nation flavoured way of ending my maiden speech today. As I take my seat, I am haunted by the great contrast in time, space and circumstance between the plushness of these red Benches, on which I am lucky enough to sit today, and that field in France on which my grandfather lay over a century ago.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, we are all lucky to have been here to listen to the notable maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe. On the grounds of transparency, I must tell noble Lords that I have known him for many decades, and we are friends. Over those many years, he has developed his thinking, and his maiden speech is evidence of his very deep knowledge of those key issues of social cohesion and community integration, following, as we heard, 10 years as an MP of Jewish heritage representing an awful lot of Muslims. Faith and trust matter to both those heritages very much indeed. Then, much to my surprise and delight, I next saw him when he popped up as an interviewer for my favourite newspaper, the Catholic Herald, showing his extreme breadth of interest in these matters.
Before addressing the pressing issue of prisons, I want to make two points of a more general nature that are relevant to the topics of both today’s debate and every other debate on the King’s Speech. First, I heartily wish to hear no further—we have heard much too much of it—excoriation or abuse of civil servants as the “blob” or, worst of all, as experts. I rather like experts, particularly if they are about to operate on me surgically. Needless to say, there are good, bad and indifferent civil servants, just as there are good, bad and indifferent Ministers—I am tempting myself, but I will not go on—and good, bad and indifferent businesspeople and academics, but none should be caught up in the vulgar crossfire of culture wars. I would like to see all that pushed to the footnote of debate. Political culture wars are, to use the jargon of my daughter, so yesterday. We do not need them any more.
I would also like to see very much more transparency. I talked about transparency as I began my speech, and we have an awful lot of think tanks now that send us valuable information and brief us, but we have very little information about the think tanks that exist—who they are, why they are there and who pays for them. I am not suggesting the regulation of thinking—some sort of Ofthink variant of Ofwat—but what I would like to see very much is absolute transparency in where think tanks get their funds, because more and more they are moving to the centre of our political discourse: they are often quoted in the mass televised media almost ex cathedra, as able to make judgments on Governments and Oppositions. I believe that they are almost morphing into some new fifth estate. So I would like to know where the money is coming from that pays for the briefings that we get.
On prisons, so much has been said and will be said again that I do not want to go over the same ground, but I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, said in his admirable opening speech: prisons are key to our internal security and we should be very grateful indeed to all the prison governors, prison officers, prison chaplains, educators and others who strive, very often in filthy and disagreeable conditions, to make sure not only that dangerous inmates do not escape but that other inmates come out hopefully not wanting to go back inside again and, indeed—that old-fashioned but good word—are actually reformed.
I know there has been no proper evaluation since the two government departments that we now have were sprung out of the old Home Office back in 2007 and I would love to see that—from a think tank, perhaps, if I knew where the money was coming from. What I do know is that all the good-will words about the need to do good in prisons, to do good in crime prevention, are not worthless—but they have to be substantiated, and the sums of money that are needed is the one sum that dare not speak its name, which is how much it is going to cost. We have heard nothing of that from the Front Benches on either side.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome both my noble friends to the Front Bench. As a former Prisons Minister myself, I am in awe of my noble friend Lord Timpson’s pioneering work on the rehabilitation of offenders and congratulate him on his maiden speech. My noble friend Lord Hanson is a former ministerial colleague of mine. It is an enormous pleasure to see them both here today and I look forward very much to working with them.
Until recently, I served as Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester, responsible for policing and criminal justice. I welcome all the police and justice measures in this King’s Speech. They will enable local areas such as mine to rebuild neighbourhood policing, tackle violence and anti-social behaviour—child criminal exploitation, for example—support victims and raise policing standards. However, I will focus today on violence against women and girls, an enduring global epidemic that affects women and girls of all ages, races and cultures in many different contexts, perpetrated mainly by men, who may be intimate partners, family members, colleagues, strangers or, as we have seen now, police officers charged with keeping us safe. It also damages those who witness that abuse, particularly children and young people. It includes a wide spectrum of behaviours, from street harassment, domestic violence, coercion and control, rape, sexual assault, child sexual exploitation, femicide, online abuse and more.
The common thread linking all these diverse behaviours is a culture of entitlement and misogyny among many men, who feel they can do whatever they wish to women with impunity. The need for urgent, robust action was laid bare this week, as we have heard, in the national policing statement on violence against women and girls. It painted a stark, horrific scenario: a national emergency, it said.
The report estimated that at least 2 million women every year, one in 12, will be a victim of violence. In 2022-23, about 3,000 crimes were recorded every single day—almost 20% of all recorded crimes except fraud. This is a staggering increase of 37% over the five years to 2023, and this is only recorded crimes. Many incidents go unreported because of the crisis in confidence in the police, courts and CPS, and the awareness now of police-perpetrated abuse. This is a national scandal that shames us all. The report also highlighted some worrying new trends. Perpetrators are getting younger, drawn in by toxic influencers on social media and powerful men on the world stage promoting misogyny and discrimination against women.
In Greater Manchester, we launched our 10-year gender-based violence strategy in 2021 and our experiences highlighted some valuable lessons, which I hope I can share as the Government develop their approach. The previous Government did take some steps towards tackling violence against women and girls, but these were fragmented, too weak and frankly lacked political drive. So I welcome this Government’s commitment to halve, at least, the incidence of violence against women and girls in the next decade, but our ambition must surely go further and faster when we know the risks that exist for our daughters and granddaughters, and indeed all women. I hope the Government will soon set out how they intend to achieve this aim.
From my experience, I believe it requires a high-profile, cross-government, whole-system approach, led at Cabinet level and replicated in every locality by a strong inter-agency partnership. It must address the abject failings in policing and criminal justice, but go way beyond that to include health and social care, housing, education, better support for victims and children and better management of perpetrators. It must involve survivors and draw on their lived experience and the expertise of specialist organisations, such as the excellent charity SafeLives. This is especially important for women from minority ethnic backgrounds, as we have heard already from the noble Baroness on the Cross Benches. It must also include men and enable them to voice their support for women and condemn male violence. Most importantly, it must be underpinned by a robust, sustained campaign, not only in schools and colleges but in the wider public arena, to challenge the underlying culture of entitlement and misogyny that is actually the root of violence against women and girls in all its forms.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, this debate takes place in a world that is so uncertain for so many people and brings heartbreak to many others, vast numbers of whom circumstances have treated harshly. The question I want to ask is: how can this House contribute to making it a better world for countries and for their people? As Members of this House, we are privileged to be able to influence this world in which we live. For millions of people, life is harsh: in wars, famines and unsettled disputes, with diseases yet to be conquered. This is not a life to be enjoyed. This world is not fit for millions of children to grow up in. It is a world often so divided that some gain but the vast majority lose. While some struggle under the weight of their riches, others have tables that are empty. Millions weep as they and their children starve.
I am delighted at the news that the “Bibby Stockholm” ends in January and also that the first announcement of the new Government—I welcomed it very much—was to end the flights to Rwanda. I am glad they have said they want to work with European countries on more humane and cheaper ways, possibly, to help those who are seeking asylum. We look forward very much to a humane programme developing on the Government Benches—something we have not known for quite a few years. This House has the opportunity to bring about real, life-saving change. Too often, our task is to repair a damaged society. We could do more than that. Mother Teresa said, “I can’t change the world but I can throw a pebble into the stream”. What is stopping the UK being a world-changing power for good? This can be a House of opportunity and of hope.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Timpson. It was a great maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has yet to make his maiden speech but, coming from the other place, I know he will be a true professional.
This debate comes at a critical time for our criminal justice system. There is no hiding from the fact that there is a prison population crisis. I recognise that when our prisons are full there are serious consequences for the whole criminal justice system, especially the police and our courts. As Victims Commissioner, my focus is on the impact that this crisis will have on victims.
My concerns are twofold. Victim safety must never be compromised, and this crisis must not be allowed to further erode the victim’s confidence in our criminal justice system. Victim attrition from the justice process is already at a record high. I am reassured that changes to the release point in the standard determinate sentence will not apply to offenders convicted for a sexual offence, stalking, controlling and coercive behaviours, non-fatal strangulation or those who have received a sentence of more than four years for a violent crime.
However, these exclusions, as welcome as they are, have limitations: they cannot address every potential risk once released. This is why it is so important that no early release takes place before appropriate release plans have been put in place. That will enable the Probation Service to manage these offenders effectively and with confidence while they serve their sentence in the community. Before release, a conversation with the victim should take place, not only to tell them about the change in release date but to give them an opportunity to request protective licence conditions such as exclusion zones, no-contact conditions and the safeguard of electronic tagging, where it is needed.
I now turn to the King’s Speech. I was encouraged that victims were mentioned. Colleagues in this House worked tirelessly on the Victims and Prisoners Bill, now an Act. I believe that this piece of legislation can achieve a great deal, but it left me and other noble Lords with a sense of unfinished business, although I stayed here until the very end to make sure that it never fell off a cliff edge. I hope that the Government’s programme will have the scope to enable us to complete the work we have begun.
I now turn to victims of antisocial behaviour. I am pleased to see that in their manifesto the Government specifically pledged more support for this group of victims. During the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, I called for the victims of persistent antisocial behaviour to be recognised as victims of crime and provided with their Victims’ Code rights. Many of these victims are not treated as victims of crime, because the agencies—from the police to the housing providers— choose to treat the matter as “low level” or as a neighbour dispute, so it is not pursued further. Victims are not informed of their statutory entitlements, such as to be referred to victim support services. However, we failed to convince. The new Government’s legislative programme gives me a chance to have another go. I remain resolute.
I move on to the Government’s commitment to reduce by half the level of violence against women and girls. As a mother of three daughters, it saddened me to listen to the news this week, but I will focus on one important issue. For far too long, many of these victims have faced intrusive scrutiny of their behaviour and personal history, and they become so disillusioned with the justice system that they walk away.
In the Victims and Prisoners Act we established legal safeguards that ensured police can access therapy records only in the most exceptional circumstances. I hope that the Government will move quickly to commence this important provision. However, we need to go further. Police routinely access other sensitive information—medical notes, social service records and education files—held by individuals or institutions other than the victim. These records can span decades and often contain not just facts but professional opinions potentially coloured by their biases about the victim. Victims are unaware that these records exist, let alone of their content and the potential impact on an investigation. Is it justice or their right to privacy that has to change?
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 includes safeguards against excessive requests for victim’s personal digital data. Since its implementation, practitioners have reported a significant decrease in these requests, demonstrating their effectiveness. We must have similar protections for third-party materials, and free legal advice.
In 19 days, it will be 17 years since I had to turn off my husband’s life-support machine. Gary is not a statistic, nor are the victims and survivors I have met over the years. Every statistic has a human face and represents a tragedy. As legislators, we owe it to them to try to rebalance our justice system.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate our new Ministers. I suspect they will not have a bed of roses, but nevertheless I wish them well. I know they will make an honest attempt to do what is right, should the stars fall.
In my opinion, the British justice system, once viewed as the finest in the world and the envy of many nations, has been brought into disrepute by the political contortions of consecutive Governments, particularly in Northern Ireland, since the early 1990s. Indeed, on one occasion in this very House I heard a noble Member call for inquests into the fatal shooting in June 1991 of three terrorists in the small rural village of Coagh, which is in my home county of Tyrone. These terrorists were intercepted by the army while they were engaged in a murderous attack in 1989 on unarmed men, two of whom were pensioners having a conversation in a garage, but there was no call for a public inquiry into their deaths. I thought that quite ironic, and I suspect that many in this House think that too.
It seems that justice, in Northern Ireland in particular, is now defined as justice for the perpetrator. Victims are relegated to the second division or treated like second-class citizens. It is time that the Government promote true justice for victims and not demean our justice system by seeking new ways to distort the justice system; I am speaking about the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a system that seems to placate the enemies and those who carry out these dreadful deeds. I hope that the new Government will bear this in mind—I am hopeful that they will—when they consider new legislation in repealing the legacy Act. We have had enough amnesties in Northern Ireland to do us for three lifetimes.
Unless the law is changed between now and November, this is the last King’s Speech before a profound and disturbing home affairs development which the new Government inherit from their predecessors. In March 1972, the Westminster Parliament intervened to collapse Stormont. I can just about remember it. The Stormont Parliament was dismissed at the fell stroke of a pen. Since that point, there has been an absolute principle of Stormont that, on matters of controversy where a proposition is regarded by either community as constituting an existential threat, no decisions can be made at Stormont on a majoritarian basis. We do not do majority government at Stormont.
However, this important protection of devolved government was not convenient to the European Union and so it is to be swept away. At some point between 1 November and the end of December this year, Northern Ireland is to be propelled back over 50 years, and the first majoritarian decision at Stormont is to take place since 1971-72. I was informed just today that the actual date has been set.
To really understand the enormity of what is proposed, we must understand two things. First, we are looking not only at the first majoritarian vote in 50 years on a matter of controversy but at the most controversial vote to ever come before Stormont in its 103-year history. The effect of supporting the Motion that the Government are currently required by law to send to Stormont in November will be for MLAs to effectively renounce their rights and the rights of their constituents to be represented in the legislature making the laws to which they are to be subject in some 300 areas. I am not talking about 300 laws; I am talking about 300 areas —and they will extend, I think, to well over 1,000 laws, when calculated.
If this is not enough, those laws will be made by a legislature that, while not involving any part of the United Kingdom, involves the Republic of Ireland. The most immediate effect of the legislation is the creation of an all-Ireland economic nationality. Simply put, that means the joining up of two economies—a de facto united Ireland by another name.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, before I come to say a word of congratulations to the new Minister, I must say a word of congratulations and welcome to my noble friend Lord Goodman, whose moving speech showed those in the House who did not know him before what a profound and thoughtful voice of modern conservatism his represents. He will be very welcome here.
I also welcome the Minister. His appointment has raised great hopes among the huge network of voluntary workers who try to do things to improve the prison estate; I must mention that my wife is a trustee of Give a Book, founded by Victoria Gray, which does reading groups in prisons. So many people are welcoming his appointment that the hopes are very high. I have to make a declaration of interest—or of thanks; I am not sure that it is in order in the House—because my daughter is a serial social entrepreneur. Her latest venture —having co-founded Now Teach, she has now co-founded Now Foster—is a charity that would not have got off the ground without the help of the Minister, his father and the Alex Timpson Trust, so I thank him for it.
The only piece of advice I give to the Minister is this: do not throw out the baby with the bathwater—if I may refer to some of my right honourable friends in that way. He inherits some very good things, and he should keep them. One excellent thing he inherits is a first-rate Chief Inspector of Prisons in Charlie Taylor. He inherits also Charlie Taylor’s report of 2016, from before he was the inspector, the Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. The previous Government accepted the principles of that report, but imitated the actions of a snail somewhat in pursuing it; eight years later, only one of the new secure schools in Kent has actually been opened. There has been a rather pointless argument as to whether academy chains or local authorities should run them—who cares, if they do the job?
That point helps to address one of the critical failings of our present system. The previous Government brought down radically the number of children in the justice system, which was very good. However, according to the good work of the staff of, for example, the Children’s Commissioner and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, there are probably around 1,500 children locked up—no one quite knows where all of them are, or even their exact numbers—often far from home, and without any education or wraparound care. As Charlie Taylor said in his report all those years ago, we are doing nothing, or worse than nothing, for them if they are locked up without education around them. Many are locked up—necessarily so, I fear, in many cases—by the use of the High Court’s inherent powers, with no proper placement available for them at that time. That causes what Sir James Munby, the former President of the Family Division, called in June this year a “shocking moral failure” in our treatment of those children.
This is not a very large problem in numbers—it is a failure of interagency working and of the complexity of bringing people together to do it—so solving it really is doable. Charlie Taylor laid out a good policy, the previous Government accepted it, and it should now be done. I urge the Minister, among all the many other pressing priorities that he will have, to look at this aspect of the failure of our current system, because it is rectifiable. He and his colleagues could put it right—not easily, otherwise it would have been done—with the resource available to them. If they can do that, they will have done something very important, alongside all the other things that they have to do. Those 1,400 or 1,500 of the most vulnerable children in our system need the most care of all.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, having been a family judge for some years, I welcome the opportunity to endorse what was just said about deprivation of liberty orders concerning children. I have had to make such orders myself, and they are very worrying. What is required is further inquiry into how that jurisdiction works.
I turn to the main topic of the debate. In the latter part of the last Parliament, useful work was done to produce what is now the Victims and Prisoners Act—the framework on which the new Government can build, and now have the time to do so. The greatest disservice to victims is caused by delays in getting their cases to and through the courts. There is no time now to analyse the reason for such delays—the backlogs, and what has become a chronic inability to catch up—but I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, said, when he provided an impressive warm-up act for his own maiden speech. I urge the Government to take note of the Bar Council’s recent Manifesto for Justice, which proposes a requirement for Crown Court trials to start
“within six months of the first hearing”.
Surely that can and should be properly seen as an attainable target.
Avoidable delays cause most distress and strain in cases of sexual assault. Rape cases have a high rate of not-guilty pleas, requiring jury trials. The Government’s plan for designated rape courts is welcome, but it is unclear whether those specialist courts will be additional to, or simply part of, existing court capacity. Few court buildings have spare space suitable to the requirements of sensitive rape trials, in which defendants and witnesses have to be isolated and separated. Will these courts be confined to rape cases, or will other serious sexual offences be similarly dealt with there? This is an important part of the Government’s stated ambition to curtail violence against women and girls. Without a restoration of confidence in the processes facing victims, allegations will continue to be unreported. Ultimately, the measure of the success or failure of the Government’s plans will be how many victims of such offences would still say in future that they would not again participate in the criminal process.
The crisis of overcrowding in prisons that has prompted the need for early release, as well as a welcome promise to reinvigorate the probation service, has already been spoken to at some length. Therefore, I will not say more about it, other than to add that sentencing decisions, which can be difficult enough, should be governed by established and considered principles—with guidelines developed to ensure consistency and public confidence—rather than by the fluctuating size of the prison estate.
As is well known, and as the Lancet recently reported:
“People with mental health disorders are disproportionately represented in prison populations and are more likely to have poor physical health and social outcomes after prison”.
It is therefore crucial, to prevent reoffending and recidivism, that proper measures exist to prepare prisoners for release and to support them after release, at the very least in their first few weeks outside. It serves nobody if the first person to meet a newly released prisoner is his or her former drug dealer.
In that regard, we should commend and reinforce the work done by organisations such as the St Giles Trust and Unlock, which help those with criminal records lead stable lives; I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about that. On a separate note, I would inquire how the Government propose to revisit the problem of convicted criminals who resist, sometimes physically, attending court for sentencing. The last thing victims need or want is disruption of a sentencing hearing by a defiant defendant trying to attract attention. The imposition of an additional penalty for those facing long sentences will be no more than a token gesture; perhaps, therefore, the best answer for such conduct is to have some impact on parole.
I will not proceed to speak about family law, which I know most about, other than to say that I endorse most of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. However, I hope he would accept that the judiciary do their best to keep costs down.
I hope that the change in government will see an end to ill-considered attempts to curtail and disapply the Human Rights Act and the regard to be had for the European Convention on Human Rights. It has served us well in raising standards within the legal system and beyond, and should not be diluted.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, to his new role. Frankly, when I heard of the appointment, I was shocked—and delighted, actually. I thought, “Well, this is a good start”. We hope it will continue. I also welcome the experienced noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, to his role and congratulate my noble friend Lord Goodman on his excellent maiden speech.
Standing back, as we need to do at the start of a completely new Parliament with new Ministers, there is no doubt that a new approach to prisons is needed. My first question to the Minister is this: can he confirm that the prisoner-to-prisoner mentoring being pioneered, particularly in our north-eastern cluster of prisons—last week, I was at Deerbolt, which continues the good relationships revolution to reduce reoffending—will continue?
Ministers also need to address the contribution that father absence makes to the level of crime and imprisonment in our society. In 2018, the US National Institutes of Health reported that research consistently finds that children raised in homes where at least one biological parent is absent are more likely to be young offenders. Fatherless children are three times more likely to be imprisoned than children raised by both parents. It is not just about money: senior police officers say that absent fathers are a major risk factor across the socioeconomic spectrum and that we do not talk enough about this issue. Criminal justice reform that ignores this is doomed to under-deliver. Adults not being responsible for their biological children is part of the deeper problem of the demoralisation of our society. The sense of right and wrong in our cultural zeitgeist has given way to expressive individualism—the socially validated priority that the great “I” must be able to express itself freely without any regard to wider social impact.
Decreasing the number of women and girls who are subject to violence and abuse, and who receive prison sentences because of their vulnerability, is an admirable policy goal. However, we treat violence towards men and boys and male incarceration completely differently. Few argue that the many men who have also been victims, as well as perpetrators, should be spared prison. The figures speak for themselves: there are fewer than 4,000 women in prison but around 85,000 men in prison, of which 25% are care experienced. We also need to hold this Government to account for their manifesto promise to ensure that young people whose parents were in prison are identified and offered support to prevent them being drawn into crime and to break the cycle.
The Government emphasise prevention in health policy. Again, UK and international research has established that safe, stable and nurturing relationships are a health asset—hence the need to do more to prevent family breakdown and to strengthen families by continuing with family hubs. As these were pioneered by many Labour-controlled local authorities, can the Minister confirm ongoing support for family hubs?
Finally, His Majesty’s gracious Speech refers to a draft Bill to ban conversion practices, yet Ministers should be aware of the danger that this can be inherently anti-family and persecutory, particularly of Christians. Activists pushing for this want to haul loving parents before the courts and social services for expressing reservations at their child’s demand for puberty blockers. They want to criminalise church leaders for discussing or praying about Christian sexual ethics with a member of their church family. The Government need to listen carefully and respectfully to voices on all sides of the debate on this issue.
A letter to the Prime Minister on his first day in office from church leaders representing hundreds of Bible-believing churches lamented
“the lack of religious literacy in British public life and the unwarranted hostility this can breed towards those in Bible-believing churches”.
They said:
“One of the major presenting issues is the way people talk about a legislative ban on so-called conversion therapy. Campaigners often imply that expressing mainstream, traditional Christian beliefs on sexuality or gender identity in pastoral conversations is, inherently, a form of ‘conversion therapy’”.
Banning conversion therapy is, for activists, a way of attacking biblically based Christianity. The Ban Conversion Therapy campaign has said that
“‘spiritual guidance’ is really just religious speak for conversion therapy”.
This is inaccurate and reveals a worrying drift towards persecuting Christians through our legal system, work- places, education, social services and other key institutions.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, my congratulations go to all three noble maidens this evening—if I can describe them that way. It is a privilege to address the gracious Speech of a Government who must, if they are to restore faith in politics, foster a better understanding of and commitment to the rule of law, whose reach no one, including the most powerful, is above and whose protection no one, especially the most vulnerable, is below.
This was eloquently promised by my noble and learned friend the new Attorney-General yesterday, but history suggests that, in the practical reality of justice, home affairs and foreign affairs, our “rule of law” values are most seriously tested. I welcome the Bills and hope that they will include not just new laws but a great deal of repeal. I know that all noble Lords will want carefully to examine the devil and the virtue in the detail, as well as the resources that must follow for vital services that have been underfunded for so long, but, in a difficult fiscal landscape, I also look forward to a significant shift in vision, rhetoric and approach—especially in relation to our courts, police, lawyers and other relevant professionals, including parliamentarians and all those whom they must serve.
Let our judges, whether domestic or international, no longer be hobbled and hectored. When, inevitably, government loses occasional cases, as with matches, let us please respect the referees. The European Court of Human Rights is no more foreign for being situated in Strasbourg than is the United Nations for being in New York and Geneva—or, dare I say it, than is D-day for marking historic British and Allied landings in Normandy.
Let us restore discretions too often obliterated by an overcrowded statute book to the appropriate decision-makers, in compliance with both the international and domestic rule of law.
Notwithstanding the vital importance of dealing far more effectively with people smuggling, casework and responsibility sharing with our neighbours, let there be no more deliberate demonisation of asylum seekers and refugees. They, like other desperate people, are not “illegal”. The new Government would be wise to abandon dehumanising language and lengthy incarceration, alongside snake-oil statutes.
Police chiefs’ diagnosis of a “national emergency” in violence against women is both a scandal and a priority, as is ensuring that social media empires take more direct responsibility for incitement and indoctrination on the platforms they monetise. If chief constables continue to request new powers to discipline errant officers, surely these should finally be provided. The development and deployment of AI and facial recognition technology in policing must, like conventional police powers, be regulated by statute. Equally, let there be an end to seeking cheap political capital via ministerial interference in independent public order operations, with endless Home Office press releases and summonses to chiefs to hear the Riot Act read at No. 10.
Let the continuing injustices of IPP and joint enterprise be ended. Attention is needed in legal aid and crumbling court infrastructure after years of disastrous cuts. When most people lack timely access to justice when facing the loss of their liberty, home, child, livelihood or safe environment, the rule of law becomes mere fairy tale.
There is so much more, but I end with my best wishes to the new Ministers. May my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer, a highly distinguished attorney, reinspire the Government Legal Service, of which I am a proud alum. May my noble friend Lord Hanson and his colleagues ensure that the Home Office is no longer nicknamed “North Korea” by beleaguered public servants. May my new noble friend Lord Timpson bring the spirit of rehabilitation, with which his family name is so synonymous on the high street, to the darkest recesses of the prison system—a failing prison system unworthy of an ambitious, wealthy and compassionate United Kingdom.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to respond in this debate on His Majesty the King’s gracious Speech. In doing so, I declare my interest as chair of the executive committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers.
It is a pleasure to welcome the new Government Front Bench. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who has distinguished himself in his work in opposition. I welcome the noble Lords, Lord Timpson and Lord Hanson. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, on his excellent maiden speech and look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, shortly. Finally, but not least, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, whose maiden speech I particularly enjoyed; it was very moving. We will benefit from his arrival.
I commend the ambition of the crime and policing Bill, which continues the good work of the last Government’s Victims and Prisoners Act. However, my focus today is on what is not in the gracious Speech. To protect victims and run effective criminal courts, we need properly funded and competent prosecutors and defendants require competent defence lawyers. However, for serious sex offences, there is a real shortage of lawyers who are “ticketed”—in the jargon—to appear in such cases. Delays follow, justice suffers and victims suffer. Thus, Ciara Bergman, chief executive of Rape Crisis England & Wales, recently called for a government strategy to retain barristers in this field. A recent Criminal Bar Association survey of 780 criminal barristers found that almost two-thirds of prosecutors said they would not reapply to be ticketed on the rape and serious sexual offences list. These are skilled professionals who can sell their services in the market elsewhere. Government must act fast. Pious aspirations and new laws are not enough.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier has already addressed Mr Malkinson’s appalling case. That and the postmasters’ scandal have highlighted the need for top-quality prosecution and defence lawyers. Worse still, Mr Malkinson’s case was let down badly by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. That commission has been forced to apologise following Christopher Henley KC’s inquiry, which found grave shortcomings in its conduct. That body needs better resources and new leadership. I ask the Front Bench to please note that.
The sub-postmasters’ scandal would not have been uncovered but for the judgment in the civil action they brought. That action was possible only because it was backed by litigation funders. A Supreme Court decision last year, by a side wind, has thrown the market of funding into confusion. Before the Dissolution, there was a short Bill before Parliament to put that right. It was lost. There was no mention of it in the King’s Speech. What plans do the Government have? Where is the Bill, and why is it not mentioned? We need it now.
Next, on private prosecutions, we do not need to await the outcome of Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry to know that there must be a major change in the way that these are conducted. The Post Office was a private prosecutor, and it highlights what can go wrong. It had a vested interest in the outcome; it should have been the CPS. What plans do the Government have to review the extent and use of such powers? We do not need to await the result of the inquiry—so action, please.
On SLAPPs, we have heard already that a Private Member’s Bill that was going through was lost. We have been assured that such a Bill is a work in progress, and I do not doubt Ministers’ good faith. However, they should note that there are plenty on all sides of the House who will make them subject to questions and pressure if such a Bill is not forthcoming soon.
Lastly, on coroners’ courts, we must do much more to achieve an efficient coronial system. In fact, we must do as the recent senior coroners have urged and put the coronial system on a proper national footing. It must be taken away from the ambit of local authorities; they do not have the resources. The Government must have plans for that, and I would like to hear what they are.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the three new Members to the House who have spoken today, but also, importantly, I welcome a new Government. I welcome them in the broad sense of a refreshing change, but also welcome Ministers to their seats and wish them luck in their task. Clearly, the Liberal Democrat Benches will look to hold them to account but will blow wind in their sails to go further and faster than they might otherwise on many issues on which we broadly agree.
I want to touch on two fundamental existential issues facing not just the Government of the United Kingdom but Governments more broadly, particularly western Governments and those of developed countries around the world. The first affects all of us: the threat of catastrophic climate change, which is accelerating fast. This week we have seen not one but two successive days on which the world has been hotter than ever before since humans have been able to record the temperatures of this planet. The context in which I flag that is that a lot has been said recently about migration, asylum seekers and how we deal with the flow of people into this country. I associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti: these are not “illegals” but desperate people—hopeful people who are trying to change their lives.
However, in the context of catastrophic climate change, we are seeing record numbers of people moving already. A decade ago, it was measured in tens of millions as people had to move because the places in which they lived and farmed became untenable. By 2022, we broke through the 100 million mark in a single year of movement. The projections are that this will accelerate further and faster as we move from, broadly speaking, 1% of the planet being too hot to live in comfortably to about 20% being too hot to live in comfortably by about 2050. The precise figures and timings are argued about, but the truth is that, as people are unable to survive, particularly in Middle Eastern countries and sub-Saharan Africa—there are other parts of the world as well, but these are the areas most affected and the largest numbers and relatively near to us—people in desperation will seek to move. Some will move to cities, but that will just exacerbate the problems. Others will seek a better life—on the whole, the wealthier ones, leaving behind the poorest.
The issues we see today, as people flee conflict and regimes’ intolerant and inhuman treatment of individuals, will get much worse when it is the climate that is becoming intolerable and unliveable. I do not think that people are recognising the impacts that there will be on all of us from these movements and how we will deal with them. These people will be starving, unable to live, unable to drink. As well as the threat of famine there will be the threat of war over diminishing resources and water. That means all power to the Government in moving as fast and as far as they can on climate change, but we must start thinking really seriously about how we will deal with issues that we have not seen since the Second World War, when we saw people fleeing Germany as the Nazis advanced across Europe. Historically, we have been a welcoming and understanding country. I fear that the debates in recent times have not been of that tenor and it will become harder, not easier, as the numbers grow.
There is a second existential threat that we face. I do not have long to talk about it but we need to touch on it. I believe that we are reliving the 1930s in terms of what Putin is aiming to do. It is not just in Ukraine. Read what he says. It goes far beyond that, with attitudes that are entirely parallel to those of the Nazis and Adolf Hitler in terms of seeing the people in the surrounding areas to Russia as sub-Russians who should be reincorporated into a Russian empire and treated not as equals but as secondary and there to meet Russian needs. We have seen people in large numbers flee Ukraine. All we have done so far is give enough to hold off Putin but not defeat him. If we do not take a more robust approach to stopping him quickly, he will learn lessons and so will Xi in China. They will go into more countries and nations and more people will flee. We need to rearm. The head of the British Army has said it. It has been echoed by military leaders in western democracies across the world. It is urgent that we take this seriously. We are in danger of isolationist America and we need to deal with it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, to his new role. I declare my interests as chair of Amey, a provider of complex facilities management services across the public estate. As chair, I visit our teams working on the estate and have recently been to Styal, a closed category prison for female adults and young offenders, as well as Leeds prison, where I benefited from spending time with the highly impressive governor, Rebecca Newby.
The challenges that the Minister faces are well known to the House—the vital importance of mental health referral support, reducing overcrowding and capital investment to make our prisons places of rehabilitation and places where people want to work are certainly high on the list. Kiosks or in-cell IT in prisons revolutionise the place, freeing up staff time, speeding up responses to queries to reduce frustration and safety concerns and creating agency among prisoners.
With overcrowding, prisons are in danger of becoming care homes for prisoners. Crowd management confines the culture of rehabilitation into the shadows, which in turn fails to reduce recidivism. Take some of the strain out of the system, as the Minister’s Statement recommends, and you can then be more impactful by creating purposeful activity. The challenge is to create career paths. The bigger challenge is scalability.
The good news is that there are few people throwing their hands in the air when the Minister openly speaks about reducing the prison population, while recognising that society needs protection. In politics, if the national mood music is in harmony with you, there is the possibility of real change and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is well placed to drive change management. We need more projects such as our Clean, Rehabilitative, Enabling and Decent—CRED—programme, which arms prisoners with the skills and valuable work experience they need to successfully enter the working world on release, which the Minister knows so well. Of vital importance is that prisoners work alongside our prison maintenance teams while they serve their sentence, improving their employability and well-being.
In this year alone, the CRED programme has delivered £67 million in social value, substantially impacting the lives of individuals within the justice system, and has delivered 64,000 hours of work activity each month, supporting 374 prisoners in 44 prisons. This programme has further facilitated full-time employment positions once those people have left prison, not least within Amey’s supply chain.
On a second subject, currently there are 44,000 young people in contact with the criminal justice system in the UK, with youth reoffending rates remaining high. This not only impacts the individuals but costs the taxpayer £15 billion per year. Those not in education, employment or training are five times more likely to obtain a criminal record compared with their peers. This programme helps to reduce that.
Following a meeting with His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and his team last year, we are now working with them to develop a new programme that aims to join the dots in the current judicial system and give offenders real opportunities to transform their prospects post release. Working alongside HMPPS and prison teams, the team are co-creating a tailored programme that aligns qualifications with vocational work experience and the personal development skills passed on by the Duke of Edinburgh bronze scheme. It will create a scalable, replicable pathway to employment blueprint and develop a UK-wide rollout plan that can be offered to other industry and strategic partner organisations, delivering social value programmes in the secure estate in other sectors. The country needs more aligned supply chain partnerships and scalability is critical.
In closing, I hope that I have the agreement of your Lordships’ House to convey every possible success to Team GB as I leave for the Olympics in Paris tomorrow. I wish our athletes and the Minister and his team every success.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, to his job. We have worked together in the past and he is well placed to do everything that he has set out to do. I have never met the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, but I welcome him. We will come back and endorse his approach later.
I ask the Minister to look at projects from other countries. A tip would be to look at the Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco—magic. It provides accommodation, mentoring and tutoring in running a business and trading for profit. It has a Christmas tree planation in Oregon and does all the Christmas trees for the corporates in San Francisco. Tiffany’s has let Delancey’s people in to decorate its store, which shows its track record. So please have a look at that. It is very good and does not cost the Government anything. It does not take one dollar of government money—and you are not going to get too many offers like that.
I turn to the promise of a draft conversion practices Bill, which would create a new criminal offence. I should begin by saying that I am pleased that, because it is a draft Bill, there will be much-needed scrutiny of the proposal—although there are some in the House who would sooner be rid of it entirely.
It will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention entirely that this very thorny issue has been under discussion for six years. Over that time, it has become more problematic and not less. The previous Government decided to wait for the Cass report before publishing a Bill. Given the warnings issued by Doctor Cass on the issue, this was, in my opinion, the right decision. The Cass report and the subsequent remarks of Hilary Cass on the prospect of a criminal ban on conversion therapy have probably shown it to be impossible to safely legislate on this issue.
Many noble Lords have raised their own concerns. Indeed, when we debated the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, some two-thirds of the speakers in the debate did not support it. My noble friend Lord Forsyth observed:
“in nearly 40 years in Parliament, I have never seen a more badly drafted or dangerous piece of legislation.”.—[Official Report, 9/2/24; col. 1845.]
This was the first of more than two dozen speeches raising concerns about the Bill, and when the concluding remarks were made there was an admission that it was not well drafted.
This is not just a problem with the quality of the various proposals put forward; it is also a problem with the inevitable effect of this type of legislation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission quite rightly warned of unintended consequences. It would not be the first time that good intentions delivered harmful consequences for our young people, and it is those young people who we must protect. Increasingly, we are hearing of young people—often young women, although it can be young men too—who have been harmed by medical interventions that are supposed to alleviate gender distress. Several noble Lords have cited the story of Keira Bell in this Chamber. She is just one of many whose lives have been permanently scarred.
The great risk of the conversion therapy law is that we prevent people like Keira from being able to have the kinds of conversations troubled young people need to have, whether with parents or professionals. This is precisely the effect of criminal laws on conversion therapy in other countries. Inordinate care must be taken in this area. The role of criminal law is surely to protect the vulnerable, not to push them towards harm, or to restrict those who would protect them. We must not pursue a law that contradicts the Cass review. We must protect our young people. My father was a furrier; he made fur coats—do not have a go at me—and on this particular Bill I would adopt his mantra, which was measure twice and cut once.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare my interest as the unremunerated chair of the board of Leicester Community Advice and Law Centre. I particularly welcome the two Ministers who are speaking for His Majesty’s Government today. They both come with great reputations.
It may not surprise the House that my remarks will be devoted to an issue that, frankly, has not yet arisen this afternoon and does not receive anything like the notice and interest that it should, because it focuses on fundamental issues of access to justice and the rule of law: namely, the manner in which our system of early advice and social welfare law has been effectively trashed and almost destroyed over the last decade as a direct result of government legislation.
The LASPO Act removed from the scope of legal aid a huge amount of law, with the result that early legal advice, assistance and representation were no longer available in cases of debt, housing, welfare benefits, employment and immigration. Add to all that the removal of legal aid in private family cases. I am not exaggerating when I say that the consequences have been disastrous, especially for citizens who are poor and simply cannot afford to assert their own legal rights. The number of legal aid cases to help people to get the early advice they need and are entitled to dropped from almost 1 million people in 2009-10 to just 130,000 people in 2021-22.
The number of people having to go to court without representation has trebled. The number of advice agencies and law centres doing this important work has fallen by 59%. We all know that advice deserts now exist in many parts of our country. It is estimated that the number of people helped by legal aid in that period has dropped by 4.5 million. Not surprisingly in that context, by next year, according to the Law Society, a single person will not be eligible for legal aid unless he or she earns less than £9 a day, or £268 a month. That is 81% below the minimum income standard.
Over the years, the coalition parties that forced LASPO through Parliament have, to varying degrees, seen the errors of their ways. The Liberal Democrats have recanted completely, which is excellent, and from the Conservatives I want to pay credit to the last Lord Chancellor and the last Lords Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy. They began the process of mitigating the effects of the 2012 Act.
I was privileged to chair a commission that reported in 2017 in a Fabian Society report entitled The Right to Justice. Its central recommendation was the establishment, perhaps in the long term, of a right to justice Act that would set up a new individual right to reasonable legal assistance without costs if they cannot be afforded. It also proposed shorter-term policy changes to LASPO that could alleviate the cruel effects of that Act of Parliament. These proposals are still necessary and relevant today, and many go to the idea, which I think we all approve of, early legal advice. If put into effect, they would save overall public expenditure as well as an enormous waste of court time.
I am particularly pleased that under the gracious Speech legal aid will be available to victims of disasters or state-related deaths. I know that the legacy bequeathed to the Government means that they have to be very cautious in this area, as in others. However, it is worth remembering that it was Labour and other Members, the Cross-Benchers in particular, who fiercely opposed LASPO and who predicted accurately its dire consequences. I ask Ministers to take this issue back to the Ministry of Justice and invite the department to look at The Right to Justice report I have mentioned, and other excellent reports that have been produced, including one by the noble Lord, Lord Low, with a view to considering putting right the worst elements of the present system. To do so would not only save overall public money but would be further evidence that we now have a Government who believe in access to justice as an essential part of the rule of law.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming the new Ministers I want to address two critical issues highlighted in the King’s Speech. One is irregular migration, the other the state of our criminal justice system. But I also want to mention the relevance of data and AI in our security. These matters are of utmost importance and all demand collective attention and action.
On the pressing issue of irregular immigration, as the Immigration Minister between 1995 and 1997 I deployed policies that I described as firm but fair, so I welcome the new Government’s collaborative approach in our relationship with the EU. The recent European Political Community summit at Bletchley Park with European leaders marks a positive shift in tone. As someone who never liked the Rwanda scheme, I am encouraged by the Government’s commitment to explore a number of the alternative tools to stop the boats, some of which, to be fair, were already being implemented by the previous Government. Irregular migration is not unique to the UK; it is a global challenge that requires a co-ordinated response. Our European neighbours face similar pressures, and it is only through co-operation that we can find solutions.
The Government must work hard with the EU to reach a returns agreement. My experience as one of the architects of the Dublin conventions, which have been referred to previously—I am the first to admit that they had flaws—has taught me that such agreements are complex but essential. Perhaps we should look at the EU-Turkey deal, which reduced boat crossings by over 90%. The reference earlier today by my noble friend Lord Howard, who was Home Secretary when I was Immigration Minister, to the deal we reached with the French is salutary. This model could inform the Government’s whole approach and help mitigate the migration crisis.
I must stress the importance of careful language. Conflating immigrants and Immigration Rules, where the Government have great freedom and discretion on who to admit to our country, with asylum seekers, who are protected under international law, can lead to harmful misconceptions and undermine humanitarian obligations. These are distinct categories, each with unique needs and rights, and must be treated as such.
Regarding our criminal justice system, there are significant strains. I believe it is imperative that we reassess our approach to crime. The proposed Bill that aims to grant police new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour and make assaulting shop workers a specific offence is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we must also address the root causes of crime and consider broader reforms to our system. This must include investing in rehabilitation programmes, improving prison conditions and ensuring that our sentencing policies are effective. In that, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is in his place and well placed to assist in this.
In today’s dangerous world, we really need effective ways of combating serious international crime. It is my deep regret that the United Kingdom no longer has full access to the Schengen Information System, SIS II. The vital database contains palm prints, fingerprints, facial images, DNA data and alerts on vulnerable or missing persons. Our European Affairs Committee in this House reported that, in 2019, the UK police checked SIS II 603 million times, and the loss of access to this resource hampers our law enforcement capabilities. I urge the Government to expedite the rollout of the I-LEAP programme and explore avenues for the UK to regain access to this crucial database.
Then there is the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence. I note that this is not strictly part of the home affairs brief, but it ought to be. As technology evolves quickly, it is crucial that we have regulatory frameworks that are not only comprehensive but adaptive. Smart regulation is a key to ensuring that we keep pace with technological advancements while safeguarding public interest and protecting rights. Criminal elements are already active. My experience in helping to shape the GDPR when I was an MEP has shown me the importance of having adequate protections in place. The GDPR set a global benchmark for data protection, and we must have similar standards here in AI regulation. AI holds immense promise. However, it also poses risks such as biases in decision-making algorithms, threats to privacy and misuse for criminal or terrorist advantage. We must harness the benefits of AI while mitigating its dangers.
These issues are complex. They require thoughtful and proactive approaches, which I very much hope the Government will display.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint. I went to school in Flint, so there is a special connection there. Also, I am full of hope listening to how the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, handled the earlier Statement on the prison crisis, especially on hearing his previous knowledge of and engagement with the nearly 3,000 IPP prisoners still languishing in jail indefinitely. A friendly warning: the Minister should expect to be pestered by many of us on this issue until Parliament’s admitted mistake—an actual miscarriage of justice—is put right.
This focus on prisoners is pertinent while discussing criminal justice in a debate on the humble Address. As legislators, we should be suitably humble about nodding through laws that can potentially imprison ever-greater numbers of our fellow citizens and turn erstwhile innocent people into criminals for activities that have to date been lawful. In that context, the proposal for the full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, as we have heard, is worrying. The law is unnecessary, as gay and trans people are already protected by existing laws from those vile abuses described by campaigners for the legislation. The dread is that, instead, we risk criminalising medical staff, teachers, therapists, religious support workers, even parents—and even free speech—for helping gender-confused young people and not simply affirming the disquieting and wrong-headed notion that they are born in the wrong body. Meanwhile, hard-pressed shopkeepers in the future could be punished for selling tobacco products to a 28 year-old and a 27 year-old—one legally, the other illegally. This is a recipe for chaos, let alone creating a thriving black market in cigarettes. As a non-affiliated Peer, I look forward to lampooning this particularly daft law, pushed as a flagship piece of legislation by Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Government and now enthusiastically embraced by the new Labour Government.
Sometimes we should ask: are we creating new laws as a substitute for tackling deeper problems? In his speech on the humble Address, referring to the proposed crime and policing Bill, the Prime Minister declared that we will take back control of our streets. That is good, but how? By giving the police new powers, he says. But are the undoubted problems we have on our streets really because the police do not have enough powers? Would the recent grotesque and disturbing scenes of violence and rioting in Harehills really be solved by the police waving around those proposed new respect orders when, on the night, officers retreated from the streets of Leeds, seemingly abandoning the local community to frenzied criminality?
It is just not serious to suggest that you can solve the deep-seated cultural problem of declining respect in society—a crisis of authority, as it were—by resurrecting those discredited Blairite ASBOs, rebranded as respect orders. What is more, over recent years there has been a proliferation of these quasi-criminal behaviour orders, about 30 at the last count, yet anti-social behaviour is soaring. In terms of civil liberties, these behaviour orders do not specify particular offences, which means that the police can use them in a subjective, expansive and arbitrary fashion, often reinforcing a sense of unfair two-tier policing. On the night of the Euros final, the Met issued a killjoy anti-social behaviour dispersal order banning football fans from the Westminster area, yet it claims that it does not have enough powers to disperse Just Stop Oil or pro-Gaza activists from anti-social disruption here at Westminster on a regular basis.
Finally, it is only weeks since we witnessed one of the most chilling examples of out-of-control streets. That was, sadly, in the build-up to the general election. We saw unprecedented levels of ugly intimidation that mired electoral campaigning. To give a few examples: a trembling rabbi, a Conservative candidate, was surrounded by a hostile mob, screamed at and called a snake; a Labour candidate was hounded off the streets to chants of “Zionist devil”; young female leafleteers were harassed and filmed by older men bellowing “genocide” in their faces; tyres were slashed; campaign offices were daubed with blood-red painted anti-Semitic libel, “Zionist child killer”. This Islamist sectarianism that has burst into public life and poisoned the democratic process must be confronted, not by laws but by courage. Those who try to silence concerns with the accusation of Islamophobia ignore that many Muslims were themselves threatened with Allah’s wrath if they voted for Labour’s infidels. We cannot allow this menacing trend to be swept under the carpet, so it was gratifying to hear the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, addressing extremism and to hear the Secretary of State, Shabana Mahmood, defiantly declare that:
“British politics must … wake up to what happened at this election”.
Hear, hear. Taking back control of our streets means more of this honest plain speaking and political leadership, and rather less of mealy-mouthed platitudes and performative lawmaking.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Timpson, to their ministerial posts and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and my noble friend Lord Goodman on their maiden speeches. I would also like to say how grateful I am to have the opportunity to respond to His Majesty’s gracious Speech by highlighting one of the important issues it raised—indeed, it was raised in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Shoplifting is a growing problem. It is now often referred to as retail crime because, I am told, calling it shoplifting no longer captures the serious nature of the crime wave hitting the retail sector.
There is no doubt that communities up and down the country are becoming increasingly alarmed by the growing impact of retail violence in their local shops. These days, dangerous individuals and gangs operate across the country, very often arriving at their chosen shop armed with knives or other weapons. Anyone who tries to stop them may well be attacked. They disappear within minutes, often having planned their visit by checking out the premises in advance. Their loot is then sold on, typically from a car boot or a shed, or online.
Police-recorded crime figures indicate that there were more than 430,000 retail crime offences last year—an increase of 37% over the previous 12-month period. Meanwhile, retail sector surveys put the figure up to 40 times higher, with the British Retail Consortium crime report for this year estimating that it rose to 16.7 million. That is well over 45,000 incidents a day. This tells us just how seriously this criminal activity has already got out of control. The disparity between the two sets of figures also suggests significant under- reporting of incidents to the police. I hope that another benefit of the very welcome new stand-alone offence for attacks on retail workers—it was originally to be introduced by the former Government before the election got under way, but I am delighted to see that the new Government will continue with it—will be to help to encourage retail workers to record and report every incident to the police for a more accurate record.
There is, in fact, already a retail crime action plan in place that has brought together retailers and senior police officers. The police have pledged to attend scenes where retail workers have been attacked or an offender has been detained. Pegasus, set up last year with government support, is a partnership between retailers and specialist police officers to share intelligence, photographic evidence from in-store cameras and training for retailers, including how to provide the best possible evidence, including CCTV footage of incidents. This can help to identify the perpetrators.
But so much more needs to be done to deal with this growing problem. The police are central to it. They must put this issue higher up their agenda. I think many of us would like to see more police back on patrol on our local streets, knowing their patch, providing important reassurance, and being ready to respond and call in support on our streets when necessary, including being able to call up assistance if a local shop finds itself under attack.
This new Government have taken an important step as they start out by recognising that retail crime is becoming a major problem in our towns and cities. Now that they have declared their intention to introduce a new law that makes an attack on a retail worker a specific criminal offence, what will the penalty be? If it is to be an effective deterrent, it will certainly need to be robust and preferably custodial for serious and repeat offenders.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, since I will focus yet further, I am afraid, on our failing prison system. My emphasis will be on the need for a new sentencing policy.
I congratulate the Minister on his outstanding maiden speech. He has had the ordeal of having to combine his maiden speech with a maiden Statement and a speech outlining the Government’s ambitious agenda for justice and home affairs—no mean feat, given that he was introduced only a couple of days ago. The Big Issue magazine of 29 April this year carried an article about the noble Lord, and it starts with the intriguing line:
“James Timpson wears Doc Martens”.
What many people may not know is that when customers go to his shops for theirs to be mended, they are apparently sent to a prison in Warrington—that is the shoes, not the customers—whose prisoners handle the expert yellow stitching required. This tells your Lordships everything about his commitment to give offenders the expertise they need to find a job after release. He comes to his new role with a deep understanding of why our prisons are failing and a burning desire to make things better. He is warmly welcome.
The gracious Speech referred to planning reform, and the Lord Chancellor has subsequently indicated that the Government will ensure that the planning system does not prevent more prisons being built. Prisons are apparently to be classified as being of national importance. My question is whether building more prisons is purely to deal with the capacity crisis or to continue a policy of sending more and more people to prison for longer and longer sentences.
Everyone knows that our prison population is the highest in western Europe; the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, made that point earlier. Ministers often justify longer and longer sentences by saying they maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, but are the public really more confident in a criminal justice system that costs £50,000 per prisoner per year and results in such huge levels of reoffending? As we have heard, nearly 80% of crime is reoffending—a staggering figure—so the truth is that long sentences do not help to prevent crime in society.
The Lord Chancellor’s Statement contained encouraging words about improving rehabilitation of offenders who are in prison, but many of these people should never have been sent to prison in the first place. Of course dangerous people should be locked up for as long as necessary, but 58% of those sent to prison in the year to June 2023 had committed a non-violent offence. They are there because they made bad choices, but the reality is that these were often the result of poor mental health, drug addiction and dysfunctional backgrounds.
If we are to address this prisons crisis, not just today but for years to come, we need to take a long, hard look at sentencing policy. The Government have encouragingly said that they will have a review; I hope it will look at bold and innovative alternatives to prison, with a wider range of disposals, which in appropriate cases can avoid the criminal justice system altogether. Radical reform of sentencing like this, with more non-custodial options, will work only if it is combined with a highly trained, properly resourced and effective Probation Service, not a Probation Service that is failing in 97% of areas.
In conclusion, the Labour manifesto correctly said that
“prisons are a breeding ground for more crime”.
Building more prisons may be necessary as a short-term measure to cope with a capacity crisis, but let us have a long-term strategy of gradually closing quite a lot of prisons. Sorting out sentencing policy would be an excellent start.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the change of government. There is much evidence that an eight to 10-year period in power is the maximum before “time for a change”, that clarion call of democracy, echoes in the polling booths. We now have the opportunity of reducing the toxic divisiveness that threatens coherence on a global scale; the US and France are two current sad examples in the West.
More than 2,000 years ago, the Roman poet Horace advocated the golden mean as the route to avoid both the squalor of poverty and the arrogance of wealth. We have a Labour Government who have, as did the Blair Government, discarded the dogma of the hard left. I hope we have a Conservative Party that will unite under the middle way of Harold Macmillan, within the frame of Disraeli’s one nation.
I will focus on one problem that is a threat to our national cohesion: uncontrolled migration. Basic economics suggests that those living a life of poverty or deprivation in their own country will seek to migrate to third countries where the standard of living is substantially higher. The UK, of course, is such a country. These are economic migrants. Then there is the different category of refugees, who should of course be allowed the sanctuary they need—for example, the Christian community in Pakistan.
The Government have inherited a backlog of more than 80,000 migrants who have arrived since June 2022. It is obvious that economic migrants will pose as refugees. Distinguishing between them has proved quite beyond the Home Office, which sadly has not only proved incompetent but been demonstrated to be substantially corrupt in its immigration and borderland force, with more than 50 officials sent to prison for misconduct in public office. I therefore congratulate the Government on creating a fresh start with the new border security command. The commander of that group must be given a free hand as to who he chooses to hire.
All those arriving will at once create additional demand on the services of the host country, in the first instance on housing, health and education. Whether the demand can be met without impacting the availability of these services to the population of the host country will depend on the scale and functioning of migration. The incentive to migrate will not diminish until the living standards of the host country have been diluted to a level that no longer justifies to migrants the costs, hassle and risks of the journey. Obviously, in a democracy, long before that point is reached the electorate will refuse to tolerate the process. That is one of the reasons we now have a new Government. One obvious example as an indicator is the National Health Service, in which there is a great pressure for GPs being provided for new migration.
Some argue that our national wealth is the product of centuries of colonial exploitation, so we neither deserve nor are entitled to it. That is the line being orchestrated by Putin’s fascist regime in Russia, which is using sophisticated and ruthless diplomacy, coupled with the even more ruthless paramilitary Wagner operation, to convert the BRICS group into an aggressive anti-western movement. This year BRICS recruited four new nations; it now covers 30% of the world’s surface and 45% of the population.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I reference my entry in the register of Members’ interests as the Government’s independent adviser on anti-Semitism, a role to which the Prime Minister reappointed me yesterday. I join the welcome to the three new Members of the House. I have known my noble friend Lord Hanson for a very long time and I have known the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for even longer. I have never been afforded the opportunity to meet my noble friend Lord Timpson in his many prison visits. I think all three will enhance the quality of this House.
I want to say a word on illegal immigration. There has been a bit of an old-fashioned debate going on recently about identity cards. We have identifiers in vast numbers of forms these days. The difference from when my noble friend Lord Blunkett raised the issue of identity cards nearly 20 years ago, when I was one of those who supported him, is the digitisation of the world. We have digital passports. The vast majority of people who wish to work in this country have digital passports and I am at a loss as to why I need digital identification for virtually everything I have to do in my life other than get a job. It seems to me that the pull factor in this country could be removed by requiring a form of digital identification for everyone who gets a job. I think that, rather than the various gimmicks that have been tried or huge expensive things, will in itself be the fundamental difference.
On the Government dealing with small boats, I say that we had a family business. We used to take trucks across the channel and to Holland regularly. They had 7 x 4 x 3 flight cases in which you could fit a body. In fact, we had a false body in them with ventilation. It would have been easy to smuggle people through, because trucks were virtually never stopped. There is some indication that the problem is being shifted back from small boats to lorries, which is where the problem was before. I think that the debate on identification and identifiers will take place and that this House should spend a good amount of time discussing how best that can take place. There is a certain inevitability, in my view.
I also want to talk about extremism. There is a new form of extremism in this country. It is not recognised across government, it is not recognised structurally and we do not put resource into it. We see extremism in relation to criminality and terror—rightly so. We are rather good at dealing with terrorism and that kind of extremism. We are not perfect and we never will be perfect, and the more resource is allocated to that, the better. That is one form of extremism, but there is what I call the soft belly of extremism as well: people who do not intend to break the law and who are not terrorists but whose entire approach and ideology is to destroy democracy, the system and society that we live in, and who have other aims and objectives. In my work, I am seeing the ongoing targeting of people in the Jewish community who dare not speak out because of what has happened to them, particularly in the workplace, purely because they are Jewish. That is organised, and it is done by extremists. The state does not know how they are organising, where they are organising or who they are because we have no system, unit or resources. It is imperative that government takes hold of this and understands who the people in this country are who wish to destroy our democratic system not by violence but by other means, who we will never catch through criminality and therefore who we will have to deal with in other ways. Critically, we need to know who they are and how they operate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I welcome our three new Peers this evening. I also welcome our new Labour Government. I think they have made some moves in the right direction, for example the Hillsborough law and appointing the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I hope he is given the powers to do his job properly.
However, there are a few issues that were not covered in the King’s Speech that ought to have been. I shall raise those and would like to hear the Government’s response and, hopefully, what they plan to do about them. The first on my list is civil liberties. As many noble Lords will know, a lot of repressive laws were passed in this House by the former Government. Just recently, Just Stop Oil activists were treated abominably in court and given very long prison sentences—much longer than many sexual predators get. The judge who jailed them said that
“the end of the world is neither here nor there”.
Personally, I disagree about that. He showed how draconian the sentencing guidelines are, given that 60% of the population think that an average imprisonment time of four and a half years for these people is simply too much.
That judge has ensured that, the next time a case like this goes before a jury, the jurors could ignore the judge and find the defendants not guilty, which they are entitled to do according to their conscience. That right was established in the early days of Quaker dissent and is inscribed on the walls of the Old Bailey. Jurors can use their common sense to defend the actions of ordinary people when the law is being used to suppress their beliefs or actions. That judge has also highlighted the stupidity of throwing climate protesters in prison at the same time as we are releasing thousands of criminals early because of overcrowding.
I am not keen on putting huge numbers of people in prison—just the violent ones—but we have not yet jailed anyone for the Post Office scandal, Grenfell Tower or the infected blood scandal. What about the obscene rip-off of taxpayers over the PPE ministerial fast track, or the parasites in our water industry, with companies making billions from poisoning our rivers? People are seeing their taxes go up and the NHS collapsing, while those who walked away with our money stay free to spend it. I see trauma and long years of suffering for sub-postmasters, while those who let them down get to keep their corporate pensions. I remember the flames at Grenfell Tower, but the building and development industry that allowed the cladding scandal to happen is as profitable as ever. Clearly, I do not blame the new Government for this, but they have to deal with it. We have scandals, inquiries and taxpayers picking up the bill for compensation, but those responsible at the heart of these scandals get to keep their money and rarely face jail time.
So I do not understand why there is a draconian clampdown on climate protesters, at a time when the climate crisis is accelerating. Essentially, it is because the oil and gas industry bought the last Government. The corruption of dirty money being pumped into the political system via party donations, MPs’ second jobs as lobbyists and Tufton Street think tanks means that we have a polluted system. So it is time to ditch those sentencing guidelines and the whole package of laws passed by the last Government. We need our civil liberties restored. People have voted for change, so please do it.
My second issue is the problem of misogyny, which we heard about earlier. The “spy cops” inquiry has been fascinating because it has demonstrated the appalling misogyny shown by many police officers, some very senior. Now the Treasury is pushing for that inquiry to be closed down because it is costing so much and has gone on for so long. That is mostly because there has been so much damaging material on the part of the police, and the police themselves have blocked disclosure. There are a lack of prosecutions for rape and sexual assault and threats to women politicians, and daily violence against women and girls has reached record levels. Misogyny must be made a hate crime as fast as possible.
My third topic is the scandal of IPP prisoners, which I raised with the Minister earlier. The criminal lawyer Peter Stefanovic has made films about this issue that have had 20 million views, and the people who have seen them are appalled at the persistent persecution of IPP prisoners. This was a Labour Government’s terrible mistake, and the new Labour Government have to fix it. No one should get 11 years for stealing a mobile phone; that is outrageous. We need to see a government action plan as fast as possible, and perhaps resentencing to get these people out of prison.
Finally, I want to make a bid for restoring the refugee scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—we urgently need safe routes for refugees—and I would like to hear more from this Government on restorative justice.
I wish this Government well and I look forward to offering them many more constructive Green Party ideas in future.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I give congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, on his maiden speech, and to what is now a very formidable Front Bench, with the noble Lords, Lord Timpson, Lord Hanson and Lord Ponsonby, answering on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, has the great advantage of being appointed by a Prime Minister who himself has a deep knowledge and experience of the working of the criminal justice system, so I am sure that his appointment is not some window-dressing but a commitment from the very top to give priority to prison reform. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was quite right: any reforming Prisons Minister must have the clear and unequivocal support of No. 10 if he is to make progress. Believe me: there will be other voices whispering in the ear of the Prime Minister about what damage this rampant liberalism is doing in constituency X or constituency Y, so make sure that your lines to No. 10 are good, open and constant.
Along with expressing general good will to the Ministers, I will use my short time to make three short points. First, my noble friend Lady Burt and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, among others, have talked about violence against women. It would be worth the Minister asking his colleague Jess Phillips MP to look at the recommendations of the Corston report. It is nearly 20 years since our colleague Jean Corston suggested that the problems that have led to women offending are more likely to be resolved through casework, support and treatment than by imprisonment. Is it not time to revisit the Corston recommendations and update them as a basis for a concerted programme to reduce the number of women in prison? This could go hand in hand with the promises of action against an upsurge in violence against women.
Secondly, the Minister could look at the success of the Youth Justice Board and its holistic, interdisciplinary approach to youth offending. He could bring in the chair of the YJB, Keith Fraser, and his predecessor, Charlie Taylor, now His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, to see how the best practices of the youth justice services can be developed and expanded.
Thirdly, when the Minister meets the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, he should ask his advice on dealing with those imprisoned for public protection. I was the Minister in the Lords who thought that I had abolished IPP sentences. It still puzzles me that we have not been able to find an equitable formula to deal with those trapped in the system. As has been said many times, it remains a stain on our penal system and breaking this logjam must be a major priority for the Minister.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, a long and successful term of office. Prison reform is not a task for an ever-changing whirligig of short-service Prison Ministers. It can be a bed of nails, with an often hostile press pillorying even the most sensible reforms as being soft on crime. He has already experienced hearing the truths he has spoken
“Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”.
My word of encouragement to him is that the good will he has now has a momentum that he should seize. It will not last for ever, but it will, in this House, be strong in what he is trying to do. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, slightly stole my thunder by quoting Winston Churchill’s memoirs, but it was that great Liberal Home Secretary, Churchill, who said that one can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners. That is still something worth keeping in mind.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to His Majesty’s gracious Speech and particularly to join in the pleasure of the House in welcoming my colleague and noble friend Lord Goodman, whom I have known for over 40 years. The pleasure is particularly great because he was an outstanding Member of the lower House, an outstanding constituency MP and an outstanding shadow Communities Minister. His time in that role ended all too quickly, so his advent here is a wonderful closing of the circle, not least because, as he pointed out, as MP for Wycombe he dealt with many of the issues of faith and communalism that he referenced in his remarks. We will have much need of his expertise and wisdom on those matters in the years to come.
I join in the congratulations across this House to the two newly minted Peers and Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, in the Home Office, and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, in the Ministry of Justice. Their track records belie the idea that politics no longer attracts people of high calibre into public service, and we wish them well in their responsibilities. They too will have to address some of the thorniest issues in our country, which my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe addressed in his maiden speech.
From his period of service in the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, in particular will recall that the matters referred to by my noble friend Lord Goodman were sometimes as controversial within the Government as they were between the parties across this Floor, and indeed between the bureaucracies at hand. In this regard, noting the change a fortnight ago in the name of what was DLUHC and is now MHCLG again, I ask him how the department’s balance will work in respect of counterextremism vis-à-vis the Home Office. I understand that this is still not settled between those departments, so I would be grateful for his guidance on that tonight. It is rightly of interest to us in this Chamber.
However, what really matters to the public and what really has changed is the growing incivility of our public life, alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, opposite. It is illustrated by the abuse that candidates from all parties, particularly women candidates, endured in the recent general election. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, also served in the Northern Ireland Office, and the levels of physical and verbal abuse hurled at candidates, their families and supporters in this year’s campaign bore at least a family resemblance, at times, to some of the abusiveness of Northern Ireland during the worst of the Troubles. His Majesty’s Government are therefore right to carry out a rapid review of extremist intimidation and violence during the election and to mobilise the defending democracy task force, as has been described.
The Government’s investigation of extremism in the context of the general election campaign certainly has the advantage of specificity, but it is not enough on its own, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Mann. The Government’s approach needs to encompass the wider issues of the spread of destructive ideologies and disinformation, as well as sophisticated and malign authoritarian forces from overseas trying to undermine our country.
As is well known in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, the government commissioner on political violence, has rightly argued that what took place during the election was not a sudden rise in isolated acts of intimidation and harassment but rather, in his own words, a
“concerted campaign by extremists to create a hostile atmosphere for MPs within their constituencies to compel them to cave in to political demands”.
The noble Lord made a range of practical recommendations to defend our democracy against rising extremism, including the better protection of Parliament and other spaces that serve our democracy, such as constituency offices. I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s early thoughts, in his early days in office, on the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Walney.
The orderly and dignified transfer of power in the recent general election is one of the great virtues of true democracies, but what happened along the way is obviously a cause for grave concern. In particular, I am concerned that the rise of explicitly communalist appeals from campaigning groups such as the so-called Muslim Voice has had too large a part in our deliberations. This was not the only such campaigning body—indeed, hardline Hindutva ideologues have also played their part in this process.
Why should we worry here? It is worth recalling that, over 50 years ago in Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley, later Lord Bannside in this place, changed the name of his political party from the Protestant Unionist Party to the Democratic Unionist Party, precisely because the sectarianism inherent in the previous name was too raw, even in those polarised circumstances in the Province. Now, however, too many candidates in this month’s general election have sought to ride this sectarian tiger. This legacy will be one of the new Government’s greatest challenges to ensure that, in Great Britain, we do not go back to old, far off and unhappy things that we thought we had seen off after the Second World War.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for his pragmatism and common sense and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for his business acumen and philanthropic endeavours. I wish them well and congratulate the Minister on his fine maiden speech; similarly, my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe made an excellent and erudite maiden speech.
I want to talk about two issues today: very briefly, the small boats saga and illegal immigration; and, more substantially, the prison estate. I read with great care on Monday the Home Secretary’s Statement on immigration and the possible fast-tracking of 70,000 asylum seekers, a policy which is ill thought-out, uncosted and a short-term fix—and it was not in the Labour manifesto. What consideration has been given to public safety, national security, community cohesion, the public good and the financial burdens placed on central and local government by that policy? Administrative reorganisations and press releases about smashing the gangs are unlikely to act as a realistic deterrent to the people smugglers’ business model. Securing bilateral and multilateral agreements and new legislation is both time-consuming and expensive. Nevertheless, we await with interest the border security, asylum and immigration Bill later this year.
We know the prisons estate is a mess, with too few new prisons built, overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, too many drugs, extremism, poor leadership and mismanagement, and not enough education, training and rehabilitation. I wish Ministers well if they seriously dealing with the issue of foreign national offenders. There are 11,000 of them in the estate, costing more than £40,000 each per annum. I urge Ministers to look at the excellent Question for Short Debate we had on 25 April, when we focused on the poor record-keeping and lack of proper data collection when developing policies for removing foreign national offenders.
Labour’s mantra is “change”, so I was very disappointed not to see in the King’s Speech bespoke legislation envisaged on recidivism, citizenship, support for families, literacy and numeracy and meaningful work—all meat and drink to the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. Of course, I am realistic enough to suggest, too, that we need proper funding for new prisons and new staff. Ministers will have to take that up with the Treasury.
By contrast, the Lord Chancellor said on Monday that there would be the early release of 5,500 prisoners later this year—again, an emergency measure. Again, this is without a proper budget or timescale, and important details such as licence conditions, curfew arrangements, electronic tags and so on are also absent from the policy. Again, that was not in the Labour manifesto.
Emptying prisons is not the answer, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, says. It will drive up crime and disorder and damage society, alienating the law-abiding majority. It is quite permissible to think that the most egregious criminals should go to prison for longer, but that those who are in prison have a meaningful path to a better life. I do not see any discordant thinking in that.
The liberal mantra is that there are too many people in prison; it is a liberal shibboleth and demonstrably untrue. Prisons protect the public and keep crime down. Only one in 10 prisoners are first offenders, and half the prison population are there for violent or sexual offences. Some 53% of criminals have 11 or more previous convictions or cautions, and only one-third of career criminals with 15 or more convictions or cautions received other than a caution or non-custodial sentence.
In conclusion, Ministers need to focus on sentencing and management of hyper- and ultra-prolific offenders, a realistic capital building programme, education, training and rehabilitation, and, of course, on the removal of foreign national offenders. I note that, nine years ago, the UK Government did a deal with the Jamaican Government to build a new prison in Kingston in order to repatriate Jamaican nationals to that country. It has still not been expedited after nine years. I blame the previous Government for that, but I do not think that a Labour Government would have been any different.
If Ministers take up this challenge, they will have strong bipartisan support. In any event, the public are watching; blaming the Tories will only go so far, and this Government will of course be judged on their results and not their rhetoric.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I join many in the Chamber in congratulating the three maiden speakers today, particularly the new Minister, who is an inspired appointment in the shape of my noble friend Lord Timpson. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Mann on his reappointment as the Government’s adviser on anti-Semitism.
The subject of today’s debate, justice—and particularly access to justice—lies very close to my heart. I set up a legal practice over 40 years ago. To that extent, I declare an interest as a partner in a firm of solicitors where approximately 50% of our income is from all types of legal aid. Within that 50%, 20% comes from criminal legal aid. I am well aware of the Government’s fiscal rules and the Chancellor’s limited room for manoeuvre, but I seek to advance the case for an increase in criminal legal aid be treated as one of the more urgent priorities.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, and as we have heard this evening, our criminal justice system is starved of resources and investment and is collapsing, whether it be crumbling courts, overwhelmed prisons or overstretched court staff, justices, judges and lawyers. Criminal defence lawyers attend police stations, at all hours and at short notice, to represent those arrested. They are often undervalued until needed—often very urgently. As a result, they perhaps do not appear to be the most obvious beneficiaries of public funding. They remain, however, an essential part of our criminal justice system, without whom police stations and courts would simply grind to a halt.
Lawyers, committed to their work, have been the glue keeping the system going, but criminal legal aid lawyers are leaving the profession at an unprecedented rate, demoralised by the stress of long hours—often overnight and then going to court the following day—and often very low rates of pay. These stresses have had an adverse impact. There are 26% fewer duty solicitors in the criminal court system than in 2017. The profession is ageing, with more projected to retire and fewer juniors choosing to enter. Poor rates of pay make recruitment of new solicitors in criminal legal aid work almost impossible, especially given the very large student debts that they are forced to qualify with. Firms are competing with far higher salary rates in the City and elsewhere, as well as the Crown Prosecution Service. Many firms are close to collapse. Put simply, representation for those arrested is at risk, and at a time when it is likely that investment in other areas of the criminal justice system will lead to more arrests as the police carry out their duties.
The independent report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy KC, in 2021, recognised the structural problems and warned of the likely huge strains on and possible collapse of the criminal justice system if something was not done immediately. It recognised the underfunding over many years and recommended a minimum 15% increase in fees to the criminal legal aid system, something that the previous Government failed to implement in full. The Law Society of England and Wales had to judicially review the Government, with the High Court finding that the Government’s decision was irrational in the way that they treated the request for more funds.
The change of government to one that recognises the value of defence lawyers and their role in the criminal justice system is an opportunity to again urgently look at legal aid remuneration; consult stakeholders, including the Law Society and Criminal Law Solicitors Association; implement the Bellamy report recommendations on fee increases; and review the structure of payments for work done.
This must be set in train, as we are now three years further forward from the publishing of that report. Underinvestment in the court estate over the last 12 years has left fewer available courtrooms and judges, leading to huge delays in cases coming to trial. Currently, 67,573 Crown Court cases are waiting to be tried and 373,000 magistrate hearings. Today, I learnt that a colleague’s case had been adjourned for trial in July 2026; that is two years away. This is not an isolated example but indicative of the problem that will undermine further the financial viability of firms, as they wait until the conclusion of a case to be fully paid at what are already low rates of pay. Such delays do not help complainants and witnesses either and are a stain on our justice system. Proper early advice in a police station and though the criminal process is vital to ensure proper representation and the avoidance of miscarriages of justice: justice delayed is justice denied.
The need for investment in rates of pay and some structural change, as recognised by the Bellamy report, is overwhelming and urgent if all parts of the criminal justice system are to operate properly and fairly. I appreciate that the Ministers have a very large in-tray as they try to deal with their unwanted inheritance of funding issues. Perhaps the next time one of them meets the Chancellor, they could invite her to look behind the Treasury sofa to find £l billion or so. Please tell her that I am happy to give her any help she needs in her search.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in the debate on the humble Address and I welcome the new Ministers to their place. I was pleased to see this Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls. However, I am keen to understand whether the renewed focus on VAWG will include tech-facilitated abuse, as I was disappointed that no reference was made to the growing crisis of image-based abuse. Over the last few years, we have seen a piecemeal approach to legislating on this issue, with up-skirting, cyber flashing and the sharing of intimate images now illegal but the non-consensual taking of sexually explicit images, as well as the solicitation to create and the creation itself of sexually explicit deepfakes, remaining gaping omissions in our patchwork of law in this area.
I was pleased to see the Labour Party manifesto make a commitment to legislate on the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes. Ninety-nine per cent of all sexually explicit deepfake videos feature women. If the Government are to succeed in their plan to tackle VAWG, they must not treat online violence in isolation. It can often form part of a much wider picture of abuse. Every day that we delay introducing this legalisation is another day when women have to live under the ever-present threat that someone will steal their picture to create sexually explicit images or pornographic videos of them. Every woman should have the right to choose who owns a naked image of her.
I have been privilege in my work in this area to meet Mariano Janin, who understands that sexually explicit deepfake videos were used to bully his beautiful 14 year-old daughter, Mia, leading to her tragically taking her own life. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. I have also been entrusted by “Jodie”, whose case may be familiar, as she was brave enough to speak to the BBC about the trauma of being deepfaked by someone she counted as her best friend. Jodie discovered that pictures had been taken off her private Instagram page, overlayed on to pornographic images and posted on Reddit and other online forums, with comments asking people to rate her body. Jodie endured this abuse for five years, finding hundreds of pictures of herself, her friends and many other young women.
While it is illegal in the UK to share sexually explicit deepfaked images, it is still not illegal to create. In Jodie’s case, the perpetrator was soliciting the creation of images from others. It is of the utmost importance that solicitation becomes an offence in itself to prevent deepfakes being solicited from jurisdictions where they may not yet have legislated. We must not underestimate the real impact this digital content has on those such as Jodie whose image has been stolen. The content is often used to bully, harass and even extort money. It is not a one-off experience. Survivors often have to manage the trauma of this digital content trending, or being subject to further digital abuse, at any given moment.
We must become more agile in our response by ensuring that we view tech-facilitated abuse as a cohesive whole; we must work to find the balance between Parliament having legislative oversight and a regulator having the power to act quickly to not only remove harms but to anticipate and future-proof against them.
I am determined that we should close the gaps on the taking of non-consensual intimate images, as well as the creation of, and solicitation to create, non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes. My Private Member’s Bill, being introduced on 6 September, seeks to address this. Urgent legislation is required as part of this new Government’s VAWG strategy to ensure the safety of women and girls online. It is not enough to react to this abuse; we must prevent it happening in the first place.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I applaud the speech made by the noble Baroness and I look forward to seeing her Private Member’s Bill. I too warmly welcome the new Ministers.
I was as delighted to hear the Attorney-General yesterday promise that the new Government would respect and uphold the rule of law as I was to hear the new Prime Minister do the same in regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. The display last week at the European Political Community summit of the London treaty—the London treaty, note—which set up the Council of Europe, which hosts the convention and the European Court of Human Rights, sent a massive and very welcome signal of intent.
I also applaud the fact that not only have the Government scrapped the Rwanda scheme, but yesterday they made regulations to amend the ill-named Illegal Migration Act such as to ensure the processing of asylum seekers.
I very much welcome the proposed Hillsborough law to impose a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities, although can the Minister explain how it will be enforced?
The London Victims’ Commissioner has reported on the inadequacy of action against stalkers—most of whom, although not all, are men—and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has called out an “epidemic” of violence against women and girls, as we have heard often today.
Sky News reports that misogyny, harassment and sexual abuse are even rife in the ambulance service, which is so utterly depressing as it should be all about keeping people safe. A young woman told the “Today” programme this morning that if an objection is made to boys quoting the extreme misogynist Andrew Tate, they are told, “Boys will be boys”, and, “You can’t take a joke”.
What are the Government’s plans to tackle this distinctly unfunny epidemic of violence, not only through the criminal justice system but socially and through an education system aimed at changing the behaviour of some men and boys with a warped perception of masculinity? Can the Government also look at the violence, threats and intimidation from supposedly trans rights activists—often very frightening men in black balaclavas—who have physically attacked women and threatened to rape and kill the TERFs? Has the police response been adequate? I do not need to refer the conversion therapy Bill, as I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott.
Women in the criminal justice system are described by the Ministry of Justice as among the most vulnerable in society, with complex needs that include trauma, domestic abuse, mental health and substance misuse problems. The fact that this trauma has been increased in some cases by male-bodied prisoners being placed with them shames those in charge of such decisions. I agree with my noble friend Lord McNally in calling on the Government to revisit, and hopefully accept, the recommendation of the 2007 Corston report on trying to avoid custodial sentences for women.
To continue on the subject of women, will this Government amend the Equality Act to clarify that “sex” means “biological sex” in order to resolve some of the problematic interactions between the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act?
I will cite in detail the Howard League’s recent valuable paper on options for a lasting solution to the prisons crisis on Friday, when we debate the report on community sentences by our Justice and Home Affairs Committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Wearing my European enthusiast hat I hope that the Minister’s plans will include looking at practice on community-based and diversionary schemes in the Netherlands and in Scandinavian countries. I also hope that the Government will try to get back into at least some of the EU justice and home affairs instruments and bodies, such as SIS II, which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned.
I share the outrage at the IPP scandal, and I would like to hear more detail on the Government’s plans to expedite the safe release of post-tariff IPP prisoners. Will the Government set up a royal commission on the criminal justice system, as suggested by the Bar Council? Will they invest in a sustainable and resilient justice system recognised as a vital public service that truly serves the public? There is as yet no promise of more money.
My last remark is on the need to dig all those agencies supervised by the Ministry of Justice out of the 19th century and get them into the 21st century. Among them are His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which includes the Probate Service, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Passport Office, which includes the General Register Office. Many of us only encounter some of those agencies on the death of a loved one, and we can have a very unhappy experience of bereavement bureaucracy, as I did, at a time when we need less stress, not more.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, this has been a long debate, and it is not over yet. By now, the Minister can be of no doubt that he is genuinely very welcome in his important role. Nevertheless, I add my voice to that chorus. I have long appreciated what his business can do to give a new lease of life to my shoes, but far more important is the new lease of life that it has given to so many offenders—a remarkable achievement.
The Timpson example has encouraged other companies to employ ex-offenders—companies as diverse as National Grid, Virgin, Tesco and the Royal Opera House, which all welcome ex-offenders. The charity Working Chance does great work getting women ex-offenders into employment. However, there are still some companies, including large ones, that plead that their existing staff would not want to work alongside ex-offenders, and they use that as an excuse not to take them on. The Minister may now find that he can encourage people rather more forcefully to change their minds about that. The scheme described by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is surely a blueprint that other companies could emulate by providing work training in prisons and then employing people when they leave.
I shall address most of my remarks in my limited time to the issue of offenders, but, first, I will offer a brief thought about asylum seekers. Near my home in Kent, hundreds of migrants are housed in a fairly dilapidated barracks. They are mostly young and able-bodied, often well-educated and certainly brave. They are in limbo, waiting for their cases to be processed. Yet they could be, and most would like to be, usefully employed, filling the many vacancies in our workforce. They could be net contributors, rather than a vast cost, to our economy. As the Minister understands the value of work to morale, will he reconsider the attitude to employing asylum seekers, albeit temporarily?
Dostoevsky wrote:
“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons”.
How would the author of Crime and Punishment judge our society had he ventured inside the overcrowded institutions that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester put it, are warehousing our vulnerable, in appalling conditions in many cases? Half of prisoners are addicts, and more than half—57%—are largely illiterate. Some 31% of women prisoners and 24% of male prisoners were taken into care as children; that figure is only 2% for the population at large.
So these are people with deep-seated problems. They need help if they are to become useful members of society. Instead, they are locked up then turfed out—with nowhere to go, in many cases—with £82.39 in cash. Recent statistics from the Government showed that 17 prisons met the target for providing accommodation on the night of release; 98 did not. Performance against the target for ex-prisoners being in employment six weeks after release was little better. Is it any wonder that our recidivism rates are so high?
We have a Minister who understands the dire failings in our prison system. I trust that he will be able to bring about change—that is what the Government came to power promising—but I ask him to look in particular at whether people should be in prison in the first place. Others have made the point that our sentencing is completely wrong. It is absolutely having the wrong effect and it needs revisiting now.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow three such powerful speeches from noble Baronesses. I am duly put in the shade.
I have very happy memories of facing the Labour Front Bench on these issues in its last incarnation. I mention in particular Lord Williams of Mostyn, for whom I had the highest possible regard, and the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, in their roles as Prisons Ministers. I perceive that the current Front Bench is up to their standard and I am absolutely delighted by that. Not only that, but we have the prospect of a Prisons Minister who will stay in role for a decent length of time. That will make such a difference. I really think that a Government being prepared to use this House to put specialist Ministers in place and allow them to really command their subjects—because these roles are never good for MPs; they are always something they are trying to escape from—is a good thing. So, please, let us enjoy the company of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for a good long time.
I declare an interest as a patron of Safe Ground, a charity working in prisons that my wife founded about 30 years ago and which is now part of the Social Interest Group. I am also a patron of the Better Hiring Institute, which the Minister will have come across. It is an offshoot of Reed, which is a very Timpson-esque company in its attitude and a real pleasure to deal with; it is very much dedicated to getting prisoners into jobs and persuading companies that this is a good idea.
I remember, in my early days with Safe Ground, trying to persuade the noble Lord’s ministry to take on one of our graduates as an employee. It refused to take on a prisoner, so perhaps things have changed—but, if not, I very much hope that the noble Lord will quiz his ministry and bring it up to Timpson standards. The prisoner got a job with me later, so he turned out all right; he was a great man.
The many underlying causes of offending cannot be solved through punishment alone. Prisons are there to house the most dangerous, obviously, but they also provide opportunities to initiate reform. You take advantage of the fact that people are abstracted from the surroundings that have fed their criminality. You have them in front of you. You have their time. Going back to the early days of the last Labour Government, time out of cell was really quite extensive. Prisons would facilitate the education and the bringing out of prisoners who showed promise for redemption. The current state of affairs is not that way at all.
Safe Ground specialised in building up family ties. It is my observation, looking at its work, that by the time men are 25, but not much before, they begin to develop a sense of responsibility and interest in the world. At that point, you can really activate their interest in being part of their families, whichever bits of their families are still prepared to work with them—their children, often their wives, mothers, cousins or whatever—and you can build that into a structure that will nourish the prisoner once they get out of jail. A job, family and housing: get those three right and you have a real chance of getting someone on the right road. That was the experience with Safe Ground. Not only did it reduce reoffending, but what was really noticeable was that it improved the behaviour of prisoners in prison, so it was very much supported by officers because having Safe Ground in your prison made it a much nicer place to be.
If I were to give a few other suggestions to the noble Lord, they would be: focus on making life good for prison staff. Focus on the programmes in prison being of good quality. Get prison governors to stay in post for seven years like a good headmaster, not two or three years like a professional civil servant. Have a look to see whether all that money that is being spent on the central bureaucracy might not better be spent in prisons.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble Lords now occupying the Government Front Bench, and in particular congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, on his maiden speech. We last met, as he may remember, when he was chairman of the Prison Reform Trust. We discussed much, including the rise in the prison population—then thousands fewer than today—and the quality of political debate on sentencing. As Lord Chief Justice, I characterised it publicly as amounting to little more than the Government saying, “Lock everyone up” and the Opposition agreeing and saying, “And for longer, please”—a caricature, I know, but not far from the reality, which was driven by raw politics. The evidence of the debate today suggests that that may now be changing.
Yet we have a prison population that is twice what it was when the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was Home Secretary. Since the autumn of 2022, we have been living with the daily possibility that the system will grind to a halt in various parts of the country for want of somewhere to take prisoners from our courts.
I hope that the noble Lord’s appointment represents a signal of intent from the Government to look seriously at sentencing in the context of the statutory purposes that we all understand: punishment, the reduction of crime, the rehabilitation of offenders, the protection of the public and the making of reparation by the offender. Punishment is not the only purpose.
The subject of the impact, both immediate and wider, of different sentences is the subject of academic research the world over. The United Kingdom, and England and Wales in particular, is out of step with almost all advanced democracies when it comes to the use of prison. We lock up more and we lock them up for longer. That would be a good thing only if it were supported by evidence of an overall benefit. But it is not. I welcome the review to which the Minister referred much earlier this afternoon, and his comments following the Statement on prison capacity.
One part of the prison population that has grown substantially is the number on remand awaiting trial. Other noble Lords have referred to that already. That is the result of the rise in the outstanding caseload in the Crown Court. There are many causes, but among them are Covid, the increase in more complex cases coming into the system, and the action by the Bar in 2023. Of two things we can be sure. The outstanding caseload is at least 50% higher than in March 2020 and, even more worryingly, the proportion of cases taking more than a year after entering the courts has grown from below 10% in pre-Covid days to more than 25% now. In the years before 2019, the work entering the criminal courts was in steady decline. That is no longer the case.
The time has come for radical thinking about how to try criminal cases in our courts. The balance between those dealt with in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court needs to change. That is despite the Crown Court sitting more days now than it has done for almost 20 years. Restoring the sentencing powers of magistrates, reversed last year, would be a start, and there is much scope for tinkering to retain more in the magistrates’ courts; but more should be done. The Government should reconsider proposals made in the 2001 review by Sir Robin Auld to try a range of less serious cases now dealt with by judge and jury with a judge and two magistrates. Such cases would take less time; the backlog would fall. Radical change requires political courage but without it, I fear that unacceptable delay will become endemic.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, the former Lord Chief Justice. One of the many pleasures of this House is that, unlike in my professional life, judges do not always get the last word.
I declare two interests: the first, obviously, as a practising barrister and therefore user of the justice system; the second as a long-time admirer of the Minister who opened this debate. I congratulate him on his new role and his excellent maiden speech. I also very much enjoyed the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe, and look forward to the maiden speech of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint. We have a debate bookended by maiden speeches. Without getting into the vexed question of House of Lords reform, it is only in this House as currently constituted that one can hear, in the same debate, some of our nation’s leading repairers of “soles”, both spiritual and now also temporal.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
They are just catching on.
I do not know whether the noble Lord occupies my old room at the Ministry of Justice, but we share a firm commitment to justice and the justice system. There is of course an overlap with yesterday’s debate on the constitution, because the rule of law is not actually a law at all but a constitutional principle. In that sense we should all be declaring an interest, because we all have an interest—a financial one—in the maintenance of the rule of law. Without the rule of law there would be no security in transactions, no enforceable right to property. But it goes well beyond matters financial. Without the rule of law, there is nothing to separate or protect us from despotism on the one hand or anarchy on the other.
That brings me to the first of three short points arising out of the King’s Speech. The first is the safety of public venues and keeping the public safe from terrorism. The Minister referred to what he called the appalling and horrific terrorist attack in the Manchester Arena, which he also called senseless. I am afraid, however, that there are too many people who see in their warped and twisted vision some sense in that sort of attack, and that means our response to terrorism must go beyond merely steps to keep people safe. We must be unyielding against those who commit terrorism, but also those who fund terrorist attacks; those who advocate for them; those who explain them away; those who equivocate about them; or those who fail to assist the authorities in their efforts to thwart them. That means we need to engage with those in all communities—and they are the majority in every community—who support the rule of law and stand against those who seek to subvert it.
The second point concerns leasehold and commonhold reform, the draft Bill on which I await with interest. We must ensure that we have a system of land ownership which is fit for the 21st century. I remember from my university days that in land law, the devil really is in the detail, and it changes slowly. I remember talking about my land law essays with my father, who still referred to the Law of Property Act 1925 as the new property legislation. No doubt any change will be viewed with horror in some parts of Lincoln’s Inn, where they still have flying freeholds—a concept which is too arcane for discussion at any time, but certainly at a quarter to 10 at night. I hope the proposed legislation will be clear, concise, modern and will provide us with a useful system of ownership of land.
Finally, a short word about the Arbitration Bill. I welcome this very much. When I was a Minister, I helped the Law Commission set up its work on arbitration. London is the global centre for international commercial arbitration. The 1996 Act is the gold standard, but like many things made of gold, it does need a bit of polishing from time to time. There is one point which I was going to mention about the Arbitration Act, but my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate warned me that if I mentioned again what he regards as the esoteric legal topics of monism and dualism, he might not be responsible for his actions. I do not know how he would react if I more than merely mentioned tonight the difficulties presented by an arbitration agreement having what lawyers call a floating governing law, but I am not minded to find out. I will take that up with the Minister offline, and leave the detail for another day, although I suspect it will be a day on which my learned friend finds he is unavailable to attend your Lordships’ House.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I had the pleasure of welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, during the discussion on the prison Statement much earlier today, and I now add my congratulations to him on his powerful maiden speech. His extremely warm and enthusiastic welcome from the whole House is a tribute to his long history of achievement in rehabilitation and reform, and his appointment gives fresh heart and hope to those of us—and in this House there are many—who have argued this case for a very long time. My hope is that we can now look to government to direct our criminal justice system towards reducing reoffending and turning lives around. That is not achieved simply by banging up offenders for as long as possible to keep them away from the public, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, just succinctly made clear. Taking dangerous offenders out of society for an appropriate period is, of course, a proper function of punishment, but I only wish more of the popular press would climb off that bandwagon.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, on an interesting and thoughtful maiden speech, in which he drew inspiration from his grandfather’s history to express his commitment to intercommunity cohesion. We also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, at the end of a very long debate.
I will concentrate on justice; my noble friends Lady Doocey, Lord Taylor and Lady Ludford, and others from these Benches, have spoken on home affairs. But before I turn to the substance, I wish to make a point about the Arbitration Bill and the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, thought I might, because I have a serious criticism of our processes, which we must, I suggest, change.
The Arbitration Bill follows detailed recommendations made by the Law Commission for improving and updating our highly regarded Arbitration Act 1996. Legal services, and arbitration in particular, make an important contribution to the UK economy. London has long been the pre-eminent seat for international arbitrations—tied for the first time this year with Singapore. It is vital that we maintain our position.
The Bill was introduced into this House in the last Parliament following the special Law Commission procedure. A special committee was established under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and we took lengthy evidence in writing and orally from a long and distinguished list of witnesses. Two Government Ministers and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, were also members of the committee. We agreed important amendments, all of which are now incorporated into the new draft. Huge amounts of time and money were expended. The Bill was non-controversial, and everyone was happy to agree it. Yet, when the July election was announced, the Whips in both Houses could not make the time to agree that it should be put before them in the wash-up. Why not? It was because of an absurd and outdated convention that, if a Bill has not gone through all stages in one House, it cannot be introduced in the other so as to go through the speeded-up wash-up procedure, however much the Bill is needed and however uncontroversial it is. We could have completed the passage of the Bill in a couple of hours of parliamentary time before the Dissolution, but no: we lost it, and months of time, and we have sustained significant damage to our economy and loss of prestige for our legal services as a result.
We lost the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in the same way, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have said. The litigation funding companies are, on any view, really important for access to justice, supporting litigation such as that brought by the sub-postmasters arising out of the Horizon scandal, which otherwise would not have got off the ground. They may need regulation in future, about which we may argue, but no one doubts that they should be permitted to function. Yet they are now an industry in limbo. That is because of the Supreme Court’s decision, in a case called PACCAR, that their agreements are unenforceable. The Bill, supported by all parties, would uncontroversially have reversed that decision. We have to change this absurd and outdated approach to the wash-up at the end of a Parliament to avoid a waste of time and money.
Turning to the substance, we welcome the proposed crime and policing Bill. Liberal Democrats have long been committed to community policing. Fostering close relationships between police officers and their communities is a proven and important way to build and maintain trust in the police, and so to increase the flow of information to and public confidence in the police. That is crucial after the number of horrific incidents over the last few years.
The victims, courts and public protection Bill will build on the Victims and Prisoners Act, which was a good example of cross-party co-operation in this House, but there is unfinished business. Strengthening the power of the Victims’ Commissioner by statute will give victims a more powerful voice. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and welcome her speech today and her unflinching commitment to improving support for victims.
I have some reservations about forcing offenders to attend sentencing hearings. It is probably right in principle that they should, but I am not sure what courts would do when they refuse. Are we to drag such offenders to court by force? It might be better simply to make it clear that a refusal to attend could properly be treated as a sign of a lack of remorse.
Commitment to reducing delays in the court system is an important priority—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, stressed that—but it will not be achieved only by allowing associate prosecutors to work on appropriate cases, as is suggested in the briefing. It will need more resources, yes, but also new efficiencies and new thinking, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, suggested.
The emphasis on tackling violence against women and girls is particularly welcome. We need a far more understanding, sympathetic and determined approach to protecting women and girls from harm. Over the years we have failed in this, and the results have been underreporting of offences because of an unsympathetic approach to victims and, furthermore, very low conviction rates when offences are prosecuted. I hope that the Government listen carefully to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, that far too often women and girl victims find their privacy and digital records invaded and violated, which acts as a deterrent to victims becoming involved in the criminal process.
We should not forget that underreporting inculcates an arrogant overconfidence among sexual predators that they will get away with abuse and violence in both public and domestic contexts. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, made the important point that tackling violence against women and girls depends on measures to change the attitudes of male perpetrators throughout diverse racial communities.
I add a word on psychotherapists, about whom I have spoken to the House before. I hope there will be an opportunity to secure in one of these Bills a requirement for the regulation of unqualified people holding themselves out as psychotherapists, and for the criminalisation of abusive coercive control by psychotherapists using their power and influence over vulnerable and usually young clients and patients to cut them off from their families.
Turning—or returning—to prisons and the penal system, many noble Lords have made a strong case for a complete change of approach to prison and punishment, starting, of course, with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester eloquently made the point that reliance on imprisonment as a complete answer to criminality is not supported by the evidence, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, repeated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned the role of a number of voluntary organisations in Oxfordshire, some of which I know, but her speech raises a wider point, which is that local organisations have an important role in supporting the rehabilitation of prisoners and in fostering linkage between prisons, prisoners and the communities in which they work. The noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Meston, made similar points. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, spoke of purposeful activity, training for employment and life within prisons. We have heard mention of farms, gardens and libraries, but there is also scope for sports, music and drama.
My noble friend Lord Beith made a number of points about sentencing and the importance of a sentencing review. We must reverse the trend to ever-longer sentences. My noble friends Lady Burt and Lord McNally, and other noble Lords, made the clear point that not enough has been done to end the stain on our justice system of the continued incarceration of IPP prisoners.
My noble friend Lord Dholakia stressed the role of probation services in delivering community sentences and emphasised the degree to which the Probation Service is stretched. We also need through-the-gate support from probation officers, with contact with clients both before and after release. Three things help prisoners most to avoid reoffending: a job, a home, and family and community ties. Release into prisoners’ communities is very important, but that needs the prison capacity crisis to be addressed so that we can get over the shuffling issue.
On a general point that I call “spend to save”, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, mentioned the unwelcome effect of the capital cost of new and better prisons—unwelcome for Governments, that is. Yet that and the annual cost of imprisonment, currently £47,000 for a prisoner, are only part of the picture. Reoffending has been estimated to cost the country £18 billion, and that is not including the knock-on cost to the public of social care, family housing and lost tax revenues. I hope the Treasury will learn to adopt a more holistic approach to spending on rehabilitation that is less bunkered and more cross-department. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on legal aid, on which more liberality would avoid significant unnecessary costs, not to mention widespread unhappiness.
I close, finally, by saying that on these Benches we are greatly encouraged by this Government’s clear commitment to the rule of law, including international law, as stressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and in particular to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, which I for one regard as one of the finest triumphs of the Labour Party. We hope that in Government we will have some more.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lords, Lord Timpson and Lord Hanson of Flint, to their places, and congratulate them on the excellent maiden speech already delivered and that that is no doubt yet to come. They have been garlanded with tributes this evening and I look forward to getting to know them both and working with them on home affairs matters.
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to their shadow predecessors, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—who I welcome back to his place, although I have to admit I would prefer it if it was this place—and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. They always worked very constructively with me and when we disagreed, we disagreed well. I was slightly sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has moved to the MoD, because he was very good at castigating me for spouting nonsense from the Dispatch Box—which obviously I did only very rarely—but I had looked forward to reciprocating, and indeed kept a Hansard scrapbook of some of his finer rhetorical highlights. On the subject of rhetorical highlights, I commend my noble friend Lord Goodman on his powerful maiden speech. He made many important points, but one struck a personal chord: that his great-grandfather lasted six months longer on the Somme than mine.
I cannot deal with the entire humble Address in the time available, and justice was dealt with very comprehensively by a number of my noble friends, including the noble and learned Lords, Lord Stewart, Lord Bellamy and Lord Garnier, and the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. There were many other noble Lords who made very important contributions on the subject of justice as well; I cannot name all of them in the time available. I wonder, having heard all of the discussions, whether the ambitions of the noble Lords opposite will clash. There is obviously tension between what the Government are proposing with regard to so-called minor crimes and what they are saying about not imprisoning for minor crimes. I wonder how that tension will be resolved.
I say that we will work with the noble Lords opposite because that is the intention of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Matters of national security, public safety, border integrity and criminal justice are too important to be party-political footballs. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, will say, national security is the first duty of government. To that end, I was very pleased to see that the new Home Office team includes the Member for Barnsley North, Dan Jarvis, as the Security Minister. I have watched his career from afar and am reassured by the last Security Minister, my right honourable friend Tom Tugendhat, that he will do a first-class job.
While it is invidious to single anyone out, I will also say how pleased I was to see the Member for Birmingham Yardley, Jess Phillips, be given the crucial role of leading the Government’s efforts on violence against women and girls. I wish her well. I hope she will acknowledge that there was progress under the previous Government in this area, but I also acknowledge that there will always be more to do, as was also eloquently expanded on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, and my noble friends Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lady Newlove. I am very much looking forward to the Private Member’s Bill of my noble friend Lady Owen. I also say how personally sorry I am that abortion clinic safe access zones were not commenced when I was in post. I hope the new Government will be able to overcome the bureaucratic inertia where I failed.
I will also take this opportunity to praise the civil servants in the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, inherits a first-class private office. I hold them all in very high regard, but more broadly I say that it was a pleasure to work with so many very good people who really do have the country’s best interests at their core. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Patten reminded us all of that. I will return to this theme.
The loyal Opposition will work with the Government. We will of course also scrutinise the legislative programme to the best of our abilities. In terms of the crime and policing Bill, it is to be regretted that the previous Government did not have the time to pass our Criminal Justice Bill, which contained important measures, including on anti-social behaviour, assaults on retail workers and deepfakes, among many others.
I join my noble friend Lady Bray in applauding the intention to focus on neighbourhood policing, but I also note that the previous Government delivered on our promise to recruit 20,000 more police officers. Indeed, this country has more policemen now than ever before. Unfortunately, it is not just about numbers. As I am sure the noble Lord has already found out, it is also about culture, so I welcome the Government’s intention to sort out the many cultural failings that we have seen in the police. Police leaders have a job to do in rebuilding public trust, not least because they owe that to the vast majority of good men and women who serve. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made some important points on accountability, which were reinforced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and, very powerfully, by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Godson also reminded us that there is a good deal of work to do with regard to defending democracy.
Crime is a fast-evolving landscape, so I hope the Government will continue to work with our online fraud charter, a world-first agreement with 12 of the biggest tech companies to proactively block and remove fraudulent content from their platforms, with Facebook, Instagram and Amazon among the signatories. If I may, I also suggest that the noble Lord visits the City of London Police who lead on fraud. I went earlier this year and wish I had gone sooner to get an idea of what their excellent teams are up to, particularly with regard to victim support.
The Opposition also broadly support Martyn’s Law, as my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart noted, which we intended to introduce in the previous Parliament. The previous Government also introduced the National Security Act, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act and the Investigatory Powers Act, all of which will make the Government’s efforts on these important subjects a good deal easier. I thank the Government for their support on these subjects when they were in opposition.
I thoroughly endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, about the threat landscape and how to prepare for its evolution. She is entirely right.
I now turn to migration and borders. When in Opposition, those in the party opposite voted against the Government on this subject on more than 130 occasions, all while claiming that they shared our ambition to stop the boats and smash the gangs. So far, as my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary has noted, they have cancelled the Rwanda scheme without bothering to notify the Government of Rwanda, in effect announced an amnesty for illegal migrants and yesterday announced the closure of the “Bibby Stockholm” next January. On a more positive note, I join my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne in commending the Government’s announcement of the aid—although I do not think £84 million will go anywhere near far enough.
Returning to the other matters in turn, as my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary noted, would the Government have treated one of our European partners as they treated the Government of Rwanda? I doubt it, but I am not entirely surprised. My noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton and I sat through 47 hours of debate on that Bill and are well aware that noble Lords did not like it very much, but we were both shocked by some of the intemperate language that was used—not, I stress, from the Front Benches—which we often charitably described as “post-colonial”. I suggest that many noble Lords need to reflect on their contributions to those debates.
Noble Lords might not have liked the Rwanda Bill, but it was starting to work as a deterrent, which was its stated intent in the Bill. It is not just we who are saying that; the Irish Government said so too. As the noble Lord will have discovered by now, it was also of considerable interest to our European allies, who were quietly supportive and are actively exploring similar schemes. Before I am informed that arrivals were up this year, let us not forget that the people who run these gangs may be venal, but they are not stupid, and they are also evidently dedicated psephologists who predicted the new Government’s amnesty. My noble friend Lord Jackson asked some very pertinent questions on this and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them.
As to the “Bibby Stockholm”, which, I remind noble Lords, was good enough to house oil rig workers, two specific questions spring to mind. Where are the 400 occupants going to be sent? Have conversations been had with relevant local authorities?
We want to see the gangs smashed and the borders secured, and Rwanda was one of the tools designed to achieve that. The new Government have made much of the border command that they intend to establish, but this is simply reinventing the wheel. The Small Boats Operational Command already exists and does all that it is claimed the new body will achieve. I hope that, amid all the focus on this new wheel, the men and women who serve in the Small Boats Operational Command, so ably led by General Duncan Capps, Phil Douglas at the Home Office and Chris Tilley, do not get lost in the noise. They are in the channel every day risking their lives to save others. I had the privilege of visiting them recently, and I intend to campaign to make sure they are considered for the new Wider Service Medal, which the last Government introduced in March this year and which is available to civilians
“working outside the traditional criteria of existing operational medals”.
I invite the Government to work with me on that.
On the day I visited, we rescued 67 people in the middle of the channel, 57 of whom were young men from very safe countries. They were not desperate; they were economic migrants. The few women were mostly Vietnamese and, believe me, their stories were harrowing. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that they had all left the safety of France on an unseaworthy boat. They were treated with kindness and respect, as is quite right, but they should not have been there in the first place. The Minister will argue that the Government will quickly return all those arriving from safe countries, and of course we wish them well with that. However, the criminal gangs will merely intensify their advertising efforts in countries that are not on the safe lists, so to my regret I predict that the boats will keep on coming.
Speaking personally—this is not official opposition policy yet—I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about the need for ID cards. One of the principal reasons why people leave France in the first place is our, frankly, lax approach to identity.
While on the subject, I commend the efforts of the French authorities. They have done a significant amount of work that does not get reported. In many cases they are confronted with significant violence and threats from migrants who are about to board boats. That obviously necessitates a slightly more intense policing effort on their behalf and, as far as I can tell, they have discharged that with commendable responsibility.
In conclusion, there is much in the new Government’s programme to welcome, and we will do our best to be supportive. We already regret some of the missteps on borders and migration, but I have no wish to be churlish because we all want the Government to succeed. As I have said, I have doubts in some areas but no shortage of goodwill, and we will not oppose for the sake of it—certainly not 130 times. I wish the Minister the very best. To quote my noble friend Lord Goodman, we will accentuate the positive and try to eliminate the negative. We will be constructive, and I promise him that, if and when we disagree, we will disagree well.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
I am grateful to noble Lords for the debate that has taken place today. I have been struck by the expertise in this Chamber, from the Lord Chief Justice and senior police officers through to former Home Secretaries and people who have concerns about the issues before us that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice will have to participate in over the next few weeks and months, based on the policies outlined in the gracious Speech.
I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their contributions. I particularly want to praise the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Timpson. We first met many years ago when I was the Prisons Minister and he was from the Timpson shoe company, trying to ensure that we had operational support for prisoners in prisons. I still have a mug at home from my noble friend from when we opened the Timpson workshop in Liverpool Prison in Walton in 2007. It is a proud part of my previous ministerial life that we were able to work in co-operation, as we will do now.
I pay tribute also to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe. Initially, I did not know how to respond to what he said but, given what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I want to say that my grandfather fought on the Somme as well. We had an opportunity only last October to go to Bazentin in France to visit the people who did not come home when my grandfather did. I hope that, whatever else we do in this House, we can share a discussion, perhaps over a cup of tea, about our relatives’ contribution to the security of Britain in World War I.
I find myself in a very strange position in responding to a debate as a newly appointed Home Office Minister but, in doing so, making my maiden speech in this noble and historic House. Life comes very fast. Only two weeks ago today, I was driving back from Heathrow when the phone call came. I now find myself in this noble House as a Minister of State doing a maiden speech. Life moves fast.
I last made a maiden speech over 32 years ago in the House of Commons—thinner in body and with more hair, but with similar nerves to those that preceded today. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, not least my having the chance to serve in the House of Commons for 27 years and to hold office in government in some fantastic departments with some fabulous civil servants: the Home Office, Justice and Northern Ireland. If the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is here, he will know that I take an interest in that topic still today. I was also in the Wales Office and on the Intelligence and Security Committee of both Houses for the last five years of my time in the House of Commons.
I now find myself, much to my surprise, back in the Home Office as Minister of State once again. For the last four years, since leaving the House of Commons in 2019 in a fashion that was not really to my liking, I have been a member of the board of Nacro—for the care and resettlement of offenders. Again, I was looking at the issues I will face now in ministerial life.
If I may, I will reach out to the Opposition and welcome their support on the areas where we have co-operation. Having been in that position, I know how difficult it is when office has been lost. But to back up what the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, said earlier, opposition is one of the key roles that a parliamentarian can undertake. We have to be held to account as a Government and the role Members of this House will have in that is something that I will cherish. I will try to respond in a positive way to noble Lords in this House, so I wish the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, well—perhaps not too well—in this House and in that role.
I also want to welcome in my maiden speech the support I have had from Black Rod, officers of the House, Home Office officials and Garter. I publicly thank them for their support. I also thank my family—Margaret, my wife, and my children—who thought, as indeed did I, that my days as a Minister were done.
I join this house as Baron Hanson of Flint in the county of Flintshire, my home for these past 32 years and the place from where the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, emanates originally. From my bedroom window I can see the spires of Liverpool Cathedral, in the city where I was born, and the plains of Cheshire where I grew up. I cannot quite see Hull University, where the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, served and where I went, but I can see those. If anybody is interested, I was born in the same hospital as that well-known musician Sir Paul McCartney of the Beatles, noted for such songs as “We Can Work It Out”, which will be my approach to working in this House, and, of course, that classic song for new Ministers, “Help!”.
I understand that the Prime Minister’s father was a toolmaker.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong. My father was a coalminer, later a fork-lift truck driver; my mum a packer in a biscuit factory, later a records clerk. They taught me values that I hope I can bring to the work of this House—of honesty, hard work and aspiration, and of treating all people with respect. I hope to keep to those values and be held to account for them in my dealings with noble Members of this House.
Flint, which people may or may not know of, nestles on the north-east side of north Wales, close to the Cheshire border. It is a vibrant town and its people make things. Courtaulds grew in the town and steel manufacture dominated. Today, noble Lords may have flown on an Airbus made in that constituency by people who live there. There is food manufacture and it is a centre for paper products. Ian Rush, the leading goal-scorer of my football team, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, was born there. Double Olympian Jade Jones, who is going for a third gold—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will pass on our best to her in Paris next month—was forged in the town.
The town itself was the product of a castle that still stands, almost a thousand years on. It may interest Members, as I finalise my maiden speech bit of my maiden speech, that Flint castle is the subject of the second act of Shakespeare’s “Richard II”. It provides a salutary lesson for those who hold power in the state, as Richard II was deposed there after offending his barons and bishops—a fate I shall try to avoid in your Lordships’ House. Richard was taken to Pontefract, now in the constituency of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, where he was left to wither and die. If those two portents are not omens for me to work with this House in a collaborative way, I do not know what is. Anyway, to business.
A number of main issues were raised by noble Lords during this debate, and I will try to cover each in turn. Net migration and illegal migration, including Rwanda, were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mann, Lord Jackson, Lord Howard of Lympne, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, Lord Kirkhope, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Marlesford and Lord Green. I will return to those issues in a moment, but they are obviously key parts of the Bills that will come before this House in due course.
The second big issue is police reform and performance, and crime reduction. A number of Members raised that—I particularly noted the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who brings his expertise to the table.
The third issue is security. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, brought up state threats, security and wider issues that have already been brought to my attention, that we will need to refer to and that will be reflected in the Home Office’s approach to the work of this department in due course.
Violence against women and girls was focused on by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, Lady Newlove, Lady Hughes of Stretford, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Royall and Lady Gohir—she particularly raised ethnic community issues. I will return to that in a moment.
On the terrorism Bill and Martyn’s law, we welcome that it has cross-party support. Again, had the previous Government been re-elected, they would undoubtedly have brought this forward. I will refer to this in a moment.
The issue of shop workers is close to my heart. I was pleased to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, on this because I am a member of USDAW, the shop workers’ union. Members can refer to my final speech in the House of Commons on 5 November 2019 on violence against shop workers and the need for the legislation brought forward by this Government.
Prisons have obviously been a major issue in our discussions today. I noticed that the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Gloucester, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia, Lord Blunkett, Lord Dubs and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, all raised issues—which, again, I will come back to in a moment—concerning prevention, structures of crime, intervention, IPPs and remand prisoners, as well as alternatives to custody, which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, mentioned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, mentioned family justice; the noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned court delays; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, mentioned the CCRC. He is an old sparring partner of mine, but I am sure we will get on fine in this House.
The importance of the rule of law was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Chakrabarti, my noble friend Lord Bach, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. Whatever else has happened, I hope the mood will have changed in this House with the Government coming in. Things like the UNHCR, the rule of law and respecting the independence of the judiciary will be core principles of this Government in their operation in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned some issues I will return to. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti hit the nail on the head: there will be a change of tone in this discussion. That was reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his comments on the toxic atmosphere.
I will go through those issues and try to reflect what has been said. On border security, asylum and migration, we will bring forward a Bill that will set down plans for a strong and secure border. We will put a border security commander in place as soon as possible and ensure that we give law enforcement agencies new counterterror powers to crack down on criminal gangs. I certainly welcome the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that we perhaps have a bit of an entente cordiale with the French. I went to Calais as the shadow Immigration Minister in 2014, and it was clear that that co-operation will be central to ensuring that we stop that trade as a whole on both sides of the channel. So the discussions that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already had are very valuable and will be valuable for the future.
We need to look at a range of issues. I know that some Members do not like this, and I know that some Members have opposed and will oppose this plan, but scrapping the Rwanda plan for us is part of that overall strategy. We are saving currently around £700 million by doing that, and that money will be reinvested in some of the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and other noble Lords, have mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Dubs talked about speeding up asylum claims. We are laying a statutory instrument to allow asylum claimants after 7 March 2023 to look at receiving an early decision on their claim. We have to tackle that backlog. It is really important that we do that, and there will be ministerial focus from my honourable friends who serve in the House of Commons as Ministers in this Home Office to do that.
We have taken action early on to end the contract with “Bibby Stockholm” from January of next year. That will be managed—the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about that. There will be more discussions about it, but the principle is that it is not the type of accommodation that this Government wish to put people in. Therefore, it has stopped. We will exit it, and we will discuss it with local authorities, but it has stopped. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, talked particularly about the quality of accommodation, and that is something that we need to address.
The second big issue that Members raised is crime and policing. There will be a Bill, and it will have significant impact on neighbourhood policing, driving higher policing standards, cracking down on anti-social behaviour, tackling retail crime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned, and tackling knife crime. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, my noble friend Lord Hughes of Stretford, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in his contribution at the end, have all raised the importance of those issues: neighbourhood policing, refocusing law and order, and making sure that we invest in policing but also deal things that matter to people. Anti-social behaviour, knife crime and retail crime matter to people, and we have to respect that concern by putting in place legislation that will support police powers to deal with those.
There is a tension occasionally, and my noble friend Lord Timpson and I will discuss how we deal with those penalties and issues, but the important thing that this Government want to do for the crime and policing Bill is to send a signal that we have to take back our streets and halve serious violence while increasing confidence in policing. Some of those issues will be about how we look at the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned, such as police support, improving standards and making sure that we look at failing forces. That will be done in due course. Overall trust and confidence in police needs to be driven up in all communities, and that is one of the Government’s objectives.
The third big issue that Members talked about was the terrorism protection and premises Bill, known colloquially as Martyn’s law. I pay tribute to Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett, for raising the issues with the former Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister. I remember watching the events at Manchester Arena, where 22 victims died. The requirements that we are going to bring forward will be consulted on, and there will be discussions about how that impacts, but it is important that we take action on that. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned the importance of action on terrorism, and we will be looking at all the other issues that are around. This not a panacea, but it will be a help and support to staff with training and requirements, which will mean that it will help, I hope, in the event of a terrorist activity coming down stream. There will be additional help and support to try that type of action.
We have looked in a big debate today in this House at the whole issue of reoffending. The noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Moynihan, Lord Patten and Lord Waldegrave, focused on a whole range of issues around the really important question of how we reduce reoffending. I know that we reduce it, as my noble friend does, by providing housing support, training, action on substance misuse and support on jobs, just as much as we do with the prison or community-based experience. We need to look at how we can reduce reoffending by giving offenders who are leaving prison the tools to move away from crime. That is a key issue that we will both look at jointly. We need to ensure that we tackle the intergenerational offending to which Members have also referred.
There is a need to look at a whole range of issues, in particular—I know that it is a difficult issue—that of releasing prisoners early. If the prison places are not there, we have to look at mechanisms for doing that. The Government’s temporary reduction in the proportion of certain custodial sentences from 50% to 40%, with important safeguards, is to try to ensure that we keep prison for serious violent offenders and that there is availability for that. But we are managing that transition, in that short period of time and on that temporary basis, with some of the safeguards that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, wanted to have. I can give her the assurance that there will be victim input into the release scheme, and that the victim contact scheme will be available for all the usual information and updates about developments in their own case. I know how much this means to her, and she can have my assurance that the Labour Government will do that in due course.
Female offenders are extremely important, as has been well raised by Members today. Baroness Jean Corston produced the Corston report a long time ago; it landed on my desk as a Minister in 2007. We implemented a number of things to do with the issues in that report, but obviously there is more that we can do. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that there are issues there. I recognise that short custodial sentences have poor outcomes for women; I recognise that they exacerbate the issues of employment, housing and maintaining family ties. I understand that the reoffending rate for women serving short custodial sentences is almost double and that, therefore, they are even more vulnerable. We need to look at what we can do to intervene early, to reverse that decline and to ensure that we potentially look at robust community sentences for women—again, this is an area of co-operation between the MoJ and the Home Office—and try to have only serious violent offenders in prison.
A number of noble Lords registered their interest in IPP prisoners; I know that this too is a difficult issue. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, all raised it. It is a situation of great concern. We know that a number of Members on both sides of this House care deeply about it—I share that concern personally. We have supported the previous Government in some sensible plans, and we will revisit this and examine how we—the MoJ and the Home Office—can ensure both public safety and a reasonable outcome for those who are currently on IPP prison sentences.
The issue of violence against women and girls is extremely important. Jess Phillips, as the Minister, has absolute 125% commitment to tackling this issue. She has read out, in my presence in the House of Commons, the names of women who have been killed by partners or in domestic instances, and she will do all she can to ensure that the objectives shared by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir and Lady Royall, and others are put into practice. We have to look at how we can halve the number of offences against women and girls and stop the senseless deaths. That means improving action with police; improving action with legislation; improving the range of specialist rape and sexual offences teams; mandating domestic abuse experts; and strengthening stalking protection. We will do that.
Other issues raised by noble Lords include the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, about the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I am telling him what he already knows, but it is important that he knows it publicly: the Lord Chancellor has said publicly that she considers that Ms Pitcher is unfit to fulfil her duties as chair of the CCRC. It is an independent body, and the Lord Chancellor has decided to make a referral to an independent panel. It will assess the recommendations and whether it supports the Lord Chancellor’s view. It is then a matter for a recommendation to His Majesty the King; that is the process that will take place. I know that the noble and learned Lord knows that, but it is worth responding to him on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, asked for confirmation of prisoner-to-prisoner mentoring being pioneered, particularly in the north-east cluster of prisons. It is a very well-established issue and has the support of many local authorities. He has done some great work, if I may pay tribute to him, on that in government. I have no doubt that we can try to continue to support that process in due course. I am grateful to him for his tireless dedication and research on this issue, and we will look at how we can support that in due course. I also think that the family hub model is one that we would wish to continue and support.
We had a bit of a debate about legal aid and I shall try to respond. My noble friends Lord Shamash and Lord Bach raised the importance of legal aid. Legal aid is vital to the justice system. Noble Lords would expect me to say this, but we think it is slightly broken and needs to be reviewed. We will look at how we can use the opportunity to rebuild our justice system and we are keen to look at ways to take forward those measures and bring measures back to this House and the House of Commons in due course.
Another issue raised today is that of the Hillsborough law, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Jones, as well as other Members. I cannot read my own writing so I will have to come back to that in due course, but it is an important issue. I am from Liverpool and the people in Liverpool who support that team and that community know how wronged they feel, having to fight their way through the bureaucracy of people in public positions lying to them about what happened on that day. I have friends who went there, I had former constituents who died there and I have colleagues who have sat in the other place and argued since 1998 for justice on this. I think this is a good thing to do. We need to consult on it, we have had discussions about the penalties, but it is a good thing to do. It will bring closure to so many people and it will also set precedents in future for how, when the state fails, the citizen has redress. That is a good thing and therefore this Bill, when it comes before this House, will deliver our manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law, and I could not be more pleased or proud if I get the opportunity to stand at this Dispatch Box and speak to it in due course.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, both mentioned the Arbitration Bill. The work that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, has done as Minister on that Bill is very welcome. We give a commitment today that we will reintroduce that Bill at the earliest opportunity, although I cannot yet say when that will be.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
How about that? Tuesday. Rewind, delete Hansard, replace with, “We will introduce this Bill on Tuesday of next week”. It is a good thing and we thank the noble and learned Lord for undertaking it.
The noble Lord, Lord Godson, discussed Prevent and the question of extremism. It is a concern I share with him. There are some undercurrents in the actions over the election that I think need to be examined and that is something we will do. Not to jump to any conclusions, but we need to look at doing that and we will undertake it in due course. There will be a cross-government approach to that. The noble Lord will know, as I know, that the Home Office alone dealing with this, or even the MoJ alone dealing with this will not be sufficient to deal with some of the underlying activity: we need to have community resilience through various government departments addressing those issues. It is something I had a responsibility for a hundred years ago, some time around 2007, and I look forward to having that responsibility once more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, talked about conversion therapy. I give her the assurance that this will be a draft Bill: there will be an opportunity to get stuck in and give a view, and the Government will take a view when we have had a view—if that makes positive sense.
Members also raised the issue of fraud and what we will do on that. Again, I have been given responsibility for that by the Home Secretary and I will be assessing what we need to take forward on it. I have not yet done that because I am two weeks into the job, but it will be done, there will be an assessment and the Opposition and my noble friends can quiz me and hold me to account on what we do over a longer period of time than we currently have at the moment.
As a Minister, I give the House two assurances. If Members wish to see me about a particular issue, my door will be open—it is less trouble to open my door than it is to face parliamentary questions, debate and pressure downstream. My door will always be open if Members wish to have a discussion, collectively or individually. I am happy to engage, as will be my colleagues in the ministerial team. Where we have disagreements, as we will, we will vote on it and see what the outcome is, but I hope to work to the principle I mentioned earlier: to try to reach a consensus on “we can work it out”. I hope we do so in a civil, proactive and productive way.
Finally, this Government are about change. An election was fought on change and change is what the United Kingdom voted for: change to reduce reoffending, improve police performance, increase police numbers and put people back on the beat; change to take long-term action to tackle organised criminal gangs who are exploiting people crossing the channel; change to speed up the asylum system; change to improve outcomes regarding violence against women and girls; and change to tackle the real challenges we will face in this department. We will do so in a way that ensures we meet our international obligations, support communities and deal with our society in civilised, forward-facing way. I do not wish to go back to the debates of the late 20s. We need to go forward to ensure that we co-operate with our European partners, respect the law and deliver for those who elected my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and over 400 Members of Parliament to do a job for my party and, most of all, for our country. I want to work with Members of this House to do that, and I am pleased to commend the King’s Speech to this House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we adjourn, I congratulate my noble friend on a wonderful maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him many more times—as he is a Home Office Minister, we will be hearing from him every week.
My noble friend comes to the House with a formidable record; he is respected on all sides, respected in the other place, and we are lucky to have him here. I worked with him a couple of years ago. We were both sent to Liverpool to deal with some problems in the Liverpool Labour party. I can assure colleagues that it is an exciting and challenging place, and I am so pleased my noble friend was there with me.