House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
Today, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), is already at COP29 in Baku, where he will be leading climate negotiations. He sends his apologies. The Prime Minister is also at COP29 and will be speaking at the global leaders summit, announcing our ambitious 1.5°C-aligned nationally determined contribution and showing that the UK is truly back on the international stage. A written statement will also be made later today.
Harpreet Uppal
I welcome the leadership the Government are showing, in particular on NDCs, as my hon. Friend mentions. The news that this year is likely to be the hottest on record across the world is deeply concerning and reminds us that climate breakdown is a global challenge that we must all face. Does the Minister agree that we must have ambitious plans at home, so that we can go to COP and challenge other world leaders to do more to tackle climate change?
Kerry McCarthy
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is a direct link between taking action to protect the British people at home and leading on climate action abroad. If we want to protect our country from future energy shocks and the runaway cost of climate chaos, we must work with other countries to protect our planet. We now have the credibility to do that because of the action we have taken since entering government, as was apparent when I attended pre-COP meetings in Baku last month and as the Prime Minister will demonstrate in Baku today.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I warmly welcome the new Government target to cut carbon emissions, and I know the Secretary of State and the Minister thoroughly understand the importance of joined-up action on climate justice. Can she tell us whether every single Government policy across every Government Department will now be assessed to check whether it is compatible with 1.5°? What steps are the Government taking to ensure the global south is properly compensated for climate loss and damage?
Kerry McCarthy
On the second point first, at this COP we want to ensure that we fully operationalise the loss and damage fund, so we then start getting money into it and channelling money to developing countries. We also want to do that through the new collective quantified goal, which we hope will be ambitious and multi-layered.
On the question of looking at our policies across the piece, that is very much my job. We will be responding soon to the Committee on Climate Change’s report, which the hon. Lady will know was quite critical of the previous Government’s action. We will be setting out our plan to implement the NDC and looking at the next carbon budget. All those things require effort share across Departments to ensure we actually meet them. It is about not just setting ambitious targets, but making sure that, unlike the previous Government, we have a strategy to get us there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am ready to go, and so is the Prime Minister—it is great to see him in Baku showing leadership. The recent Cali conference was a disappointment. Ultimately, nations were not able to reach agreement. Alongside the positive steps the UK Government are taking, what conversations are we having with international partners to recognise the necessity of an agreement that brings all western nations together in showing equal ambition?
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know he was at Cali. There was some progress on such issues as digital sequence information, but more needs to be done. We are very seized of the need to join up action on the nature and climate crisis. When I head out to COP29 tomorrow, Members will hopefully hear more from us on our efforts to protect forests and on the support we are giving to countries at risk of deforestation. We are also looking at nature-based solutions to climate change. The nature Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh)—will be out there as well, and we will have more to say, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) that we cannot deal with one crisis in isolation from the other.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
For the UK to be an international leader on climate change we need to bring the business community with us. The Summer Berry Company in my constituency recently invested £8 million in ensuring it is carbon neutral, but it was then quoted a further £3 million to be able to feed its excess energy into the grid. What is the Minister doing to make additional grid connections affordable and accessible for green businesses?
Kerry McCarthy
The energy Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)—is very much involved with that issue. We have also set up the energy superpower mission board, headed by Chris Stark. I had a conversation with him yesterday about what we can do to ensure grid capacity and grid connections in the right places. If the hon. Lady has a specific issue to raise and would like to write to me, I will make sure it is passed on to him.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
When I asked the Secretary of State about the appointment of Rachel Kyte as his international climate envoy during our last questions session, he failed to say whether Quadrature Capital’s £4 million donation to the Labour party had been declared to the Department before her appointment, and I have still not received a reply to my letter of 17 October. Will the Minister tell me whether the Secretary of State declared those interests to the Department before Rachel Kyte’s appointment, and whether Ministers have ever met directors of Quadrature Capital or Quadrature Climate Foundation?
Kerry McCarthy
I am sure that the shadow Minister will receive a reply to her letter in due course, but I can tell her that Rachel Kyte is extremely well respected, and that her appointment as our special representative has been welcomed across the board.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
In just four short months, we have made rapid progress on achieving our mission for clean power by 2030. We have set up Great British Energy and announced its headquarters in Aberdeen, secured a record-breaking 131 renewables projects, and consented to record amounts of solar. We are getting on with delivering lower bills, energy security, good jobs and climate action.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Rolls-Royce in Derby is an international leader in research on and the development of small modular reactors, and it is fantastic that the Government have acknowledged the role that SMRs will play in clean power generation, energy security and green jobs. In the Budget, we heard that the final decision on Great British Nuclear’s SMR competition will conclude next spring. Does the Minister agree that it is important for this opportunity to be seized as soon as possible?
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear will play a central role in our clean power mission, and will continue to be a critical part of our energy mix as we progress towards 2030 and far beyond. Great British Nuclear is continuing to drive forward the competition on small modular reactors, with bids currently being evaluated by the Department, and I look forward to having more to say about this in due course.
Bill Esterson
The last Government held a consultation on electricity market arrangements, but despite having said that that was their flagship policy in this area, they did not publish the results of that consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that electricity and, indeed, energy market reform is crucial to achieving the Government’s stated 2030 clean energy targets and to reducing bills, and can he say whether this Government will publish the results of the last Government’s consultation and if so, when?
Michael Shanks
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on his appointment as Chair of the Select Committee—he brings a huge amount of knowledge and experience to the role—and I agree with him about the importance of reviewing electricity market arrangements. We are building on the last Government’s consultation, and we will have more to say in the months ahead. This is a crucial element of how we achieve clean power by 2030 and ensure that our energy system of the future is fit for what will be a different way of managing energy throughout the country. We will have more to say about that in the months ahead.
Baggy Shanker
Last week a report published by the National Energy System Operator noted that although the programme to roll out new small modular reactors was being developed for the mid-2030s, a 2030 roll-out date would in fact be possible. Given that SMR technologies hold exciting and significant potential for investment in jobs and infrastructure in constituencies such as mine, has the Minister considered the value of bringing the roll-out forward to 2030?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to say that nuclear will play a vital role, and that it not only delivers on our energy security but creates good, well-paid jobs. Unlike the last Government, who in 14 years did not deliver a single nuclear project—there were many consultations and processes, but not a single nuclear power station was built—this Government are getting on with delivering a nuclear future.
Joe Morris
Last week’s report from the National Energy System Operator showed that not only is clean power by 2030 achievable, but it can lead to lower bills and more secure systems. Does the Minister agree that the only way to protect bill payers permanently is to go as far and as fast as possible towards our clean power mission by 2030?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The report published by the independent National Energy System Operator laid out not only that reaching our clean power mission is entirely achievable, but that it will bring down bills. The importance of the report is that it set the course for how that is possible. The reality, which the Conservative party refuses to accept, is that the only way to get us off the rollercoaster of high bills is to deliver at pace the clean energy that we know will deliver energy security and climate leadership, and bring down bills for people right across the country.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am delighted that the Minister is setting out that the report promises an extra £40 billion of investment a year in the energy sector and, presumably, the taxes to go with it, which will of course come from the businesses that are paying for everything else in the Budget that has just gone by. Is there anything at all in his proposals that will actually bring down the cost of energy and not be replaced by taxpayer funding? It appears at the moment that there is nothing, and energy prices are already going up.
Michael Shanks
I would encourage the right hon. Gentleman to read the NESO report, because it sets out in great detail not only that clean power is achievable by 2030, but that it will lead to lower bills. What he says about investment misses the point: in the last few weeks, we have announced billions of pounds of private sector investment in these projects; indeed, Scottish Power has announced today that it will provide £1 billion. Companies are choosing to invest in this country, whereas they did not under the Conservative party. The reality is that once upon a time, the Conservatives recognised that the drive to net zero was important. They have abandoned that commitment now.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet the OffSET—offshore electricity grid taskforce—group of MPs later today; we are very much looking forward to the meeting. Does he recognise that achieving the 2030 deadline set out in the NESO report requires an acceleration of the process, which, in turn, is dependent on much higher levels of public consent?
Michael Shanks
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am looking forward to meeting him and his colleagues this afternoon to discuss the particular issues in his area. We need to build more network infrastructure across the UK to make this endeavour a reality, but he is right: we want to bring communities with us on this journey. That is why we have said that we are looking again at what community benefits will look like, building on some of the work that the previous Government did in consulting on this issue. Crucially, however, if want to bring down bills and deliver energy security, we will have to build the infrastructure, and that is what this Government are committed to doing.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister knows well the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to community energy. Will the Government establish a clean community energy scheme, look at the barriers that currently face community energy projects and look at supporting the National Grid to deliver community energy?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady and I have had a number of conversations, and I recognise her commitment on this issue. We have committed in the local power plan to delivering investment in community energy across the country. Importantly, we want not only to invest in schemes, but to deliver across Government the mechanisms needed to make it more possible for communities to deliver such schemes. That will build capacity in communities so that we can see more community energy.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What is the beef behind the Government’s reluctance to embrace with enthusiasm locally generated community energy? Why did they vote against the amendment tabled to the Great British Energy Bill by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)?
Michael Shanks
I think the right hon. Gentleman thinks that was a “gotcha” question, but, of course, the Conservative party did not vote for the Bill at all. Amendment or not, I do not think he can really speak about what Great British Energy might deliver, because, despite it being one of the most popular policies at the last election, the Conservatives failed to bother to vote for it.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Last week, the National Energy System Operator published a full systems cost analysis of the Secretary of State’s flagship project to carbonise the grid by 2030. This morning, the Secretary of State said on several media outlets that the report shows that his plans will lower bills. I remind the House that the report assumes that gas prices are 40% higher than the Department’s own estimates, that the price of carbon price is at least double what it is now, that the Government can commission more offshore wind in the next two years than in the last six combined without moving prices, and that they can build the grid at a pace we have never seen before in this country, without any delays. Even if all that is achieved, page 78 of the report shows that the cost of the system will be higher. For clarity, would the Minister like to repeat at the Dispatch Box the Secretary of State’s claim that the NESO report shows that Labour’s system will lead to a lower cost of electricity?
Michael Shanks
What the shadow Secretary of State has just outlined quite coherently is that the Conservatives have no ambition in this space whatsoever, but we do. I am very happy for the right hon. Lady to outline where our ambition is. We will build faster than the previous Government, although I have to say that that would not be difficult. The shadow Minister sitting next to her, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), said quite clearly at their conference that the previous Government had built infrastructure far too slowly, and their former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said that their onshore wind ban was “always mad”. We are quite happy to pick up where they left off and deliver the clean power that this country needs.
Claire Coutinho
This is the ministerial team who told the electorate they were going to cut their bills by £300, without doing any homework to find out how those plans would work. They voted against our amendment to hold them to account on their own pledge just two weeks ago, and now they are trying to claim that the NESO report shows that their approach will lower bills when in fact it shows in black and white that the system will be much more expensive. Does the Minister not see that if they follow this plan, we will be a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world and that the British people will be colder and poorer as a result?
Michael Shanks
Time and again, the Conservatives run away from their record on this in office. The reason why people right across this country are paying more on their energy bills is that the Conservatives did not get us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets, but we are now moving at pace. The right hon. Lady may want to keep us in the vulnerable state where we are reliant on international gas markets, but we are determined that we will not do that. We will bring down bills and deliver energy security. I am not ashamed to say that we will move with great ambition to deliver what this country needs and to deliver the good jobs that go with it.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
We are moving at pace to set up Great British Energy. So far we have appointed the start-up chair, Jürgen Maier, we have announced that the headquarters will be in Aberdeen and we have progressed the Bill through the House of Commons. This builds on the first partnership announced for Great British Energy, with the Crown Estate, and on a recent new deal to collaborate with Scottish public bodies. We are getting on with the job of delivering 21st-century public ownership for the British people.
Douglas McAllister
Every family and every business in my constituency paid the price of 14 years of Conservative failure with rocketing energy bills because the last Government failed to invest in clean energy. The Opposition continue to oppose Great British Energy. Does the Minister recognise the absurdity of their argument that they are quite happy with foreign public ownership as long as it is not UK citizens who own our energy?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important to remember that, despite what the Conservatives might have us believe, Great British Energy is overwhelmingly popular with the British people. That includes the people in Scotland, because of course it was not just the Conservative party who did not vote for Great British Energy; surprisingly, the Scottish National party also failed to vote for a publicly owned champion in our energy space. We are getting on with delivering jobs and growth, delivered with public ownership through Great British Energy.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Before the election, Labour said that Great British Energy would cut electricity bills by £300. After the election, the Labour Government voted against writing that into law and instead took away people’s winter fuel payments and made their bills more expensive. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has now said that their policies are fundamentally raising prices for consumers to the tune of £120 per household, and we know from the NESO report that this will get worse. Even if they triple the pace of wind roll-out, double the pace of grid connection and make other heroic assumptions, all of this is going to bump up costs further, is it not? We are doing this from the basis of having the high electricity prices in Europe. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on British industry?
Michael Shanks
Question after question from the Conservatives shows that they do not recognise the part they played for 14 years in why we are paying higher bills than ever before. We are the only party with an ambitious plan to get us off the volatile fossil fuel markets. The Conservatives used to believe that, in our drive to net zero, we should build this infrastructure for the long term. They are now opposing it, but they will have to tell their constituents why they want to leave them exposed to rising bills.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
We agree that fusion could be a globally transformative green energy solution. The UK Government’s fusion programme continues to lead the world in the development of fusion energy, and our ambition is to continue to do so.
Jo White
Two weeks ago, the Budget announcement that the first fusion power plant will be built in Bassetlaw was welcome news. Can the Minister provide greater detail on this commitment, alongside the funding support being made available for the next financial year?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituency, and I was pleased to meet her to talk about this issue and to hear her Westminster Hall debate. I look forward to visiting her constituency later this month to see the fusion café and to visit West Burton, the site of the STEP project, after which I hope to be able to share more detail on how we will support fusion.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Dounreay, in my constituency, was the site of the UK’s first fission reactor. Today, we have a highly skilled workforce, a licensed site and a local population that warmly supports the industry. Will the Government seriously consider involving Dounreay as we bring fusion to its wonderful fruition?
Kerry McCarthy
I think fusion has huge potential, and so many companies stand to benefit. It is not just about the ultimate goal of fusion energy; it is also about all the technological advances we will discover. I have spoken to fusion companies which are, for example, finding uses for cancer treatment. I am very interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the possibilities of fusion in his constituency. We want to see this proceed. If he drops me a line, I will be happy to explore the opportunities in his patch.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
We have spoken a lot about the Conservative party’s record in government, and I am very proud of our record on fusion. We launched the Fusion Futures programme to provide up to £55 million of funding to train more than 2,000 people, we became the first country in the world to regulate fusion as a distinct energy technology, and we launched the process to build the spherical tokamak for energy production—I cannot say that as quickly—at what will be the first fusion power plant at West Burton in Nottinghamshire. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Members are very welcome. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention, as it was ours, to have fusion power on the grid by 2040?
Kerry McCarthy
As I mentioned, I am very much looking forward to visiting West Burton soon. The Budget announced significant support for fusion energy in 2025-26 and, yes, we remain as ambitious as the previous Government for the potential of fusion energy.
Andrew Bowie
Having confirmed that 2040 is still the ambition, which does the Minister think will come first: fusion on the grid or the final investment decision on Sizewell C?
Kerry McCarthy
The final investment decision on Sizewell C, as I understand it, is expected soon. We will hear more about support for that in the next spending review. Fusion energy has huge potential, not just in the long term but from the innovation we are already seeing in that sphere, which I very much welcome.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
On 4 October, the Government announced £21.7 billion over the next 25 years to launch the UK’s carbon capture, utilisation and storage industry. We will provide further details on the next steps for CCUS, including track 2 projects such as Acorn, in the coming months.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for her encouraging answer. Acorn, including the St Fergus site in Aberdeenshire, not only has a significant role to play in achieving net zero in Scotland, but has the capacity to accept carbon from mainland Europe. This project could help the UK and Europe to achieve their net zero goals, and is significant not only for the port of Peterhead in my constituency, as the Minister knows, but for the local power station, which shares the same integrated ambitions. Acorn presents very significant opportunities, representing hundreds of millions of pounds in new investment, new jobs and economic growth for the north-east, for Scotland and for the UK. Can the Minister accelerate the decision making on the Acorn project, and will she commit to funding in 2025?
Sarah Jones
We are committed to track 2, and I recognise the huge advantages of Acorn that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. Our record £21.7 billion investment demonstrates our long-term commitment and gives industry the certainty it needs. The ups and downs of CCUS under the previous Government did not provide the certainty that people required, and certainty is what we are looking to deliver. We understand that people want clarity, and we will be making further announcements in the coming months.
Dame Meg Hillier
The path to carbon capture and storage is littered with failure: three previous projects never got off the ground, despite lots of taxpayer money going into them. What precisely are the Government going to do to ensure that this project delivers?
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Lady would look towards me a little bit, I will be able to hear the question.
Sarah Jones
We realise that CCUS is an emerging industry, but it is also one that we can lead on internationally, thanks to the unique geography of the North sea. We will do all we can to help industry scale up in this technology, which we believe will play a crucial role in our mission towards clean power.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The Government regularly meet stakeholders to discuss the development of our energy infrastructure. Last week, the Government received advice from the National Energy System Operator outlining its advice on the pathway towards clean power by 2030. Later this year we will publish our 2030 action plan, which will set out details on the future of our energy mix.
Dr Murrison
Offshore wind has been a real positive for our energy security and grid independence, but unfortunately not when the wind does not blow. Given the election of a President who tells us he is going to “drill, baby, drill,” what revision does the Minister anticipate to his timetable towards net zero?
Michael Shanks
As I said in my previous answer, later this year we will outline our action plan on how we will deliver on the 2030 target; there is no change to our timetable in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman raises a good point about what happens when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and about ensuring we have a mix in our energy system. That is why we remain supportive of nuclear and why we have recently announced investment in long-duration energy storage, to ensure we can capture energy and use it when we need it.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I was delighted by Ofgem’s announcement this morning that it now recommends that the proposed Nautilus interconnector should be located at the Isle of Grain, not on the Suffolk coast. Since I have been elected, I have made firm representations to the Minister and Ofgem, including via its consultation, that the Suffolk coast should not have been considered and brownfield sites should have been considered first. Will the Minister meet me to discuss other National Grid projects in my constituency?
Michael Shanks
Ofgem has announced today decisions on a number of interconnectors. Those are decisions for Ofgem and not for the Government. We have recently announced the launch of a strategic spatial energy plan, to ensure that we plan such projects holistically, across the whole of the United Kingdom, and take into account a number of schemes when planning future energy, such as those my hon. Friend mentions in her constituency. I will continue to have discussions about that with Members from across the country.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
China’s largest offshore floating wind turbine company, Ming Yang Smart Energy, plans to build its first manufacturing plant outside China in Scotland. Ming Yang benefits from huge subsidies in China, but there are serious questions about energy security and national security. The Secretary of State says he wants to end reliance on foreign autocrats, but when he was asked about this on the radio this morning, he had no answer. Will the Minister rule out allowing any turbines that might be controlled by hostile states?
Michael Shanks
We are encouraging investment in the UK to build the infrastructure that we need in the future. Just today, we have announced the clean industry bonus that will give as much support as possible to companies to build their supply chains here in this country. We will continue to look at supply chains and, of course, we take seriously the companies, across the range of business projects, that are investing in this country. There is a series of processes already under way across Government. Whenever anybody wants to invest in this country, those processes will be followed in the usual manner.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, will you and the Minister give the House an opportunity to celebrate the £1 billion of investment announced today in offshore wind in this country? It will provide jobs across the country, as promised by this Government, which the British people are not used to after the past 14 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the infrastructure required to connect that clean, secure energy to our homes, in particular the Sea Link project that could have an impact in my constituency?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fantastic announcement today by ScottishPower of £1 billion of investment here in the UK, building the infrastructure that we need, and delivering jobs and skills in this country as well. It is one of a number of announcements that we expect, because we are not agnostic in this Government on delivering the industrial strategy that we need. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is working on that at the moment. We will deliver the jobs in this country to build the clean power of the future. We will deliver good, well-paid jobs and the energy security we need.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
Delivering good jobs is the driving force behind our growth and clean energy missions. Great British Energy and the national wealth fund will crowd in private sector investment to spread jobs across the country through investment in clean energy. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has today launched the clean industry bonus, which will incentivise developers to invest in the UK’s industrial heartlands, coastal areas and oil and gas communities, boosting jobs and delivering on another of our manifesto promises.
Andrew Pakes
I am also delighted with my hon. Friend’s commitment to delivering clean energy jobs. It is important to constituencies such as mine in Peterborough, which could be the King’s Cross for a new core hydrogen network—as recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission—thanks to National Gas’s Project Union. National Gas has its hydrogen-ready gas compression site in our city and we are about to open a new green technology centre to develop new green jobs and apprenticeships. Will the Minister commit to working with local authorities such as mine, colleges, and businesses such as National Gas, to deliver new jobs across the supply chain and in all parts of the country?
Sarah Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment and commend the work that he is doing in his constituency. Low carbon technology will of course play a critical role in our future, from hydrogen to carbon capture and to renewable energy. I am pleased that, in the Budget, we saw the funding of 11 hydrogen projects, which will drive jobs and growth. I am really keen to talk to him about his plans for Peterborough becoming the King’s Cross for a hydrogen network and applaud the work that is going on in his constituency around green jobs.
Tim Farron
Mr Speaker, perhaps if I start, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) could finish.
In order to safeguard renewable jobs and to create new ones, will the Minister consider a specific project that has hydro-turbine manufacturers such as Gilkes in Kendal, and many others around the country, working alongside our farmers to make use of streams, becks and rivers that go through farmland to create renewable industry and, indeed, new jobs?
Sarah Jones
We are ambitious to create all the jobs that we want to see in the green technologies of the future. I would be very interested to hear more about what the hon. Gentleman has to say. The Climate Change Committee estimates that up to 750,000 net jobs could be created by 2030. Opposition Members have decided that they do not support that path. The question is: why are they objecting to all these new jobs that we will be creating across our country?
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We are committed to an ambitious warm homes plan, which will upgrade homes across the country, making them warmer and cheaper to run, by installing new insulation and rolling out low carbon heating such as solar and heat pumps. As a first step, the Government have committed an initial £3.4 billion over the next three years towards upgrading homes. We have already hit the ground running with the roll out of our warm homes local grant, and our warm homes social housing fund. We will set out more details in due course.
Peter Swallow
Too many of my constituents are living in poorly insulated social housing. New mother Dionne, for instance, had the insulation from her flat removed last year by her social landlord because it was full of mould and mildew. She is now facing her second winter without insulation. Will the Minister confirm that the warm homes plan will introduce tough new standards to ensure that social housing providers get on and insulate their housing stock?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes, absolutely. Raising standards in the social housing sector will be a critical part of our warm homes plan. We have already announced plans to lift 1 million renters out of fuel poverty by raising the minimum energy efficiency standard in both the private and the social-rented sector, which will ensure that renters no longer have to live in cold, drafty homes. We will also unlock £1 billion-worth of investment to the national wealth fund in partnership with leading banks to upgrade more social homes, and we will set out more detail to build on that in due course.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I thank the Minister for her commitment to the warm homes plan. Many of my constituents in North Somerset have written to me in recent weeks, detailing their concerns that the scheme does not take sufficient account of higher energy usage due to long-term illnesses. Will the Minister share whether the Department has any plans to look into uplifting the warm home discount for participants with relevant long-term illnesses?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We recognise that many vulnerable people, including those with high energy usage, often bear the greatest burden when energy prices increase. That is why we are doing all we can, including by working with energy companies, to make sure that we are providing additional support this winter and beyond. I will take my hon. Friend’s point away and follow up with him in due course.
Anna Dixon
Given that 64% of homes in Shipley have an energy performance certificate rating of D or below, I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to the warm homes plan. The charity Groundwork provides a “warm homes healthy people” scheme across Bradford district, installing energy-efficiency measures, and offering advice and support on energy bills. Does the Minister agree that local charities need support to continue to help those who are most in need this winter?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is a national scandal that so many homes across the country have an EPC rating that is below C—a failure of the last Government to deliver the scale of home upgrades that we need. We are determined to end the injustice of people living in cold and draughty homes. I completely agree that we must do everything we can to support vulnerable households with their energy bills this winter. That is why we are providing 3.3 million households with the warm home discount, why we are working with energy suppliers to provide additional support, including through charities, and why we have extended the household support fund.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that we particularly need a comprehensive warm homes plan in rural areas in order to identify very old homes and ensure that insulation is targeted to maximise reduction in their energy usage?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will ensure that we see upgrades in every part of the country; we will be working with combined authorities, local government and the devolved Administrations to make sure that we are delivering the scale of upgrades needed across the country.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
In the light of the warm homes plan, is the Minister aware of challenges faced by homeowners who used the green homes grant for spray foam insulation? Many now find their homes unmortgageable, and face significant costs for removal and repair. Will the Minister consider measures to support such homeowners as part of the warm homes plan?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am aware that many households have had upgrades that have not gone to plan. It is critical that we build confidence, because in the end we need to persuade consumers up and down the country to have these upgrades. There were schemes under the last Administration that were not regulated and did not have the correct standards, and we are working hard to make sure that we raise standards across the piece.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We are going to need a warm homes plan, because with the snow and ice coming in on a cold front, Scotland is seeing a “sum front” heading north from this Labour Government: a £600 cut to the winter fuel payment and the pensioners’ cost of living payment—for winter weather that is here now. That was not in the manifesto. What was in the manifesto was a £300 cut to fuel bills, but those costs are now up by £450. When will this Government do a single thing for people facing fuel poverty?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will work across the country to tackle fuel poverty, but I remind the hon. Member that fuel payments are devolved. The Scottish Government have been given the biggest budget, and it is time to get on with the job and fix the situation.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Homes in the UK are among the least energy-efficient in Europe, with unparalleled health, productivity and carbon emission costs to society, as a result of the last Government’s failure to act. I agree with the Minister: it is a disgrace that this is happening in one of the largest economies in the G7. We welcome the news of the warm homes plan coming next year, but does the Minister agree that an emergency home insulation programme this winter, with free insulation for people on low incomes, is necessary so that people in South Cambridgeshire do not have to face the choice between heating and eating?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me assure the hon. Member that we are hitting the ground running with home insulations. We are rolling out our warm homes local grant and our warm homes social housing fund, to target people this winter—this year—because we need to deliver the biggest ever upgrade.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
As the first step towards the warm homes plan, we have committed an initial £3.4 billion. That includes £1 billion towards public sector decarbonisation, because we know that we have to ensure that our schools and hospitals reduce their energy bills.
Shaun Davies
Decarbonising the public sector is good for our net zero target, but it also releases money for more teachers, nurses and street cleaners, so that savings benefit our communities rather than energy giants. Schools across Telford are crying out for that investment. Will the Minister do all she can to decarbonise the public sector in the years to come?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree; decarbonising our public sector will not only reduce emissions but lower bills. We estimate that the £1 billion that we have allocated to public sector decarbonisation will reduce bills by about £40 million per year. That is a big step forward, but there is more work to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is clear that there is a role for all schools across this great United Kingdom to play in public sector decarbonisation. They also have a role in educating the children in their classrooms, who we want to be the pioneers of tomorrow. What has been done to ensure that the good things that happen on the mainland of the United Kingdom are shared with regional Administrations such as the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will work on that with the devolved Administrations across the United Kingdom. Good practice is happening across local government and regional government. We will ensure that everyone can learn from it, and we will deliver the biggest upgrade in a generation.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The energy transition presents an incredible opportunity for job creation right across the UK, particularly in our industrial and coastal communities. Through Great British Energy, we will build on Scotland’s reputation as a world leader in energy and secure long-term, well-paid jobs in the industries of the future.
Joani Reid
I recently had the privilege of opening an extension to the Kype Muir wind farm in my constituency. The extension alone will generate enough power for 53,000 homes for 30 years. My constituency is also home to part of Whitelee, the largest onshore wind farm in Europe. However, not one of those turbines was manufactured in the UK, let alone locally. What steps is the Minister taking to develop UK manufacturing capacity in that area?
Michael Shanks
I know well my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is next door to mine—and both wind farms she mentions. She says quite rightly that, for all the expansion in those technologies over recent years, very few of those jobs, particularly in manufacturing, have been in this country. We will do everything we can, through Great British Energy and the clean industry bonus we have announced today, to grow our domestic supply chains, build industry in this country and win jobs for Britain.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last week, just days after the Budget, Apache announced that it would exit the North sea by 2029. It said:
“The onerous financial impact of the energy profits levy…makes production…beyond 2029 uneconomic.”
What assessment have the Government made of the impact of those policies on current jobs in north-east Scotland, and how will Great British Energy compensate for the loss of those jobs?
Michael Shanks
We are working with industry in the north-east of Scotland to ensure that this is a just and prosperous transition. We have announced our next steps of responding to court judgments, and a consultation is open at the moment. We will have more to say about that in the months ahead. The hon. Lady must recognise that if she wants to see investment from Great British Energy, she might actually have to support its creation in the first place. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways; either they want a public energy company to invest in the jobs of the future—
Michael Shanks
Or they do not, as her right hon. Friend has just confirmed from the Back Benches. She cannot have it both ways.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
The Budget was a major step forward, paving the way for investment in clean, home-grown power, creating jobs and delivering energy security. Last week, the National Energy System Operator provided definitive evidence that our clean power mission is achievable and can give us greater energy security and lower energy costs. The Conservatives have spent the past year arguing for a system that would keep the British people locked into energy insecurity and higher costs. While they are locked in arguments about the past, we are getting on with delivering lower bills, energy security and good jobs for the British people.
Christine Jardine
The price cap rise, winter fuel payment cuts, higher standing charges and lower temperatures are all things that my constituents in Edinburgh West—particularly my pensioners—are coming to me with concerns about. What is the Secretary of State planning to do to work with Ofgem and the energy companies to come up with a fairer set of circumstances for my constituents and others in similar situations?
Sarah Jones
We are looking to bring down standing charges. The hon. Lady has mentioned a lot of cases where people are struggling; we appreciate that, and we are doing what we can. The Budget set out how we are going to protect the most vulnerable people and ensure that people are supported in the way they need to be. We have a lot to do after 14 years of Conservative Government; we are trying to unravel that and support people. Our push for clean energy by 2030 will lead to lower bills, and that is what we will be working on.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Topical questions should be short and punchy. I am sure you are going to get to the end of your question any minute now.
Dan Aldridge
Can I urge the Minister to go further and faster in delivering clean power for our communities, which the NESO report so clearly stated would lead to lower bills and energy security?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
My hon. Friend is right; there are good projects right across the country that we hope to invest in in the lead-up to delivering in 2030. The NESO report clearly set out that our aim is achievable. The Conservative party wants to continue having the arguments of the past; we are determined, with ambition, to deliver on the arguments of the future.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Prime Minister is set to announce at the conference of the parties that he is making the UK’s already stringent carbon emission targets even higher. That is despite the fact that we contribute only 1% of global emissions, while the leaders of the world’s highest-emitting countries—making up over 60% of emissions—are not attending. The Climate Change Committee has said that this target will require, for example, an accelerated shift away from meat and dairy, less travel and a gas boiler ban for the British people, yet the Government’s approach would see our reliance on imports from China—which is 60% powered by coal—go through the roof. Does the Minister agree that an approach that is asking for more sacrifice and hardship from the British people, in return for more goods from one of the world’s largest carbon emitters, would mean fewer jobs in Britain and more carbon in the atmosphere?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
I think the shadow Secretary of State needs to seek a debate if she wants to elaborate on these issues. Having attended COP last year as part of a cross-party delegation, I found it incredibly depressing to see the way the UK was received. It is really important that we are stepping up and showing global ambition. Reaching net zero in this country and getting to clean power by 2030 is a massive opportunity, not a cost.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
I am proud that we have finally ended the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Miners across the country powered our economy for decades, working in the toughest environments; they should not have had to fight for so long for a fair pension. I travelled to Barnsley with the Secretary of State to meet former mineworkers and talked about the difference that the Labour Government have made. Of course, we will look at any suggestions that the BCSSS comes forward with.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The US President-elect, Donald Trump, has repeatedly called climate change “a hoax”. I share the concerns of young people in South Cambridgeshire that these views represent a threat to our efforts to tackle climate change. The global community is meeting right now at the international climate summit in Azerbaijan—COP29. Does the Minister believe and share with me the view that the UK must rebuild its leadership by getting back on track with our climate and nature targets?
Kerry McCarthy
I agree that it is now more important than ever that the UK shows global leadership, and that is exactly what the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Energy Secretary are doing with their presence at COP today—I will be heading out there tomorrow. I am very keen to work with the hon. Lady cross-party on these issues. Working with young people is very important as well.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy
As I have said, showing domestic leadership gives us the credibility to show international leadership too. We will be doing both.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Michael Shanks
It perhaps will not surprise the hon. Gentleman or the House that I am not going to agree with his final point. Net zero is incredibly important to deliver climate leadership, lower bills and the jobs of the future. But on biomass, we rightly expect full compliance with all regulatory obligations on biomass, and consumers rightly recognise the high standard of accountability from generators.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
That is correct. It will mean, on average, an extra £29 a week, putting right a wrong that has persisted for far too long. Although the money is important and a key part of it, we have done the right thing—and about time too. Some 112,000 members across the country will benefit.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for permitting me to raise this important constituency matter from the Back Benches. On 2 July this year, during the installation of a ground source heat pump in a constituent’s back garden, a gas field was struck and gas was released. On 19 October there was an explosion, which resulted in the deaths of two of my constituents and the continuing evacuation of 50 households. Matters related to the period between 2 July and 19 October are subject to investigation. I am advised that this is the first such instance of gas being encountered, but given that ground source heat pumps are expected to play a significant role in decarbonising home heating, will the Minister undertake to review the regulations covering the installation of ground source heat pumps, and will she arrange a meeting for me with the relevant Minister to discuss these matters further?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I am sorry to hear about the incident that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We absolutely need to ensure, as we roll out all low-carbon technology, that standards are at the highest level. I undertake to meet him to understand the specific circumstances and see what we can do in terms of reviewing regulation.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy
I got to see the JET project when I visited Culham. There is huge potential for a cluster there. Many more companies are being attracted to that sector. My hon. Friend is right that we need to maximise the skills that are there, but I am confident, having spoken to companies that have been attracted to Culham, and having spoken to international companies too, that we will continue to do so.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Many homes in my constituency are off grid, which means that their owners have to fill up the tank at the beginning of winter to keep warm. The pensioners who have lost the winter fuel payment are struggling with that up-front amount. Will the Minister review the level at which the winter fuel payment is removed, because the most vulnerable are struggling?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are doing everything we can to help the households that will struggle with bills this winter. We have had a big push to increase the uptake of pension credit and we are working with energy suppliers to provide additional support this winter, alongside our warm home discount, which will provide a rebate of £150 to households in fuel poverty. We have also extended the household support fund.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy
I understand that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Minister has raised the case with the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister and urged allowing Dr Ibadoghlu to travel overseas for specialist medical care if required. We will continue to use our diplomatic channels to raise our concerns about the protection of freedom and human rights in Azerbaijan, including for my hon. Friend’s constituent.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Conservative Members will never stop holding the Government to account for their pre-election promise to cut energy bills by £300. Have civil service officials conducted any modelling whatsoever that can legitimise that figure?
Michael Shanks
We arrived at the figure through independent analysis. We stand by the reality that the only way to bring down bills is to commit to our 2030 target. The National Energy System Operator backs that, but the Conservative party fails to support that action. The hon. Member therefore must explain what the Conservative plan is for reducing bills for people who are paying more than they have ever paid.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
My constituents understand that tackling the climate crisis and getting lower bills go hand in hand, and they are excited about Great British Energy. Will GBE invest in community energy projects in places such as Macclesfield?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to make a point about community energy. The local power plan that we are committed to will deliver community energy projects throughout Great Britain. I am sure that Macclesfield has some fantastic projects that Great British Energy will look at. We want to unleash the potential of community energy across the country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
National Grid’s rationale for rebuilding East Claydon substation is based on speculative applications, not consented real schemes. Will the Minister therefore meet me to find a way to get National Grid more grounded in reality rather than speculation?
Michael Shanks
I am happy to look at specific cases, but the Secretary of State’s role as final decision maker on some planning applications means that I cannot comment on them. However, generally speaking, the hon. Member makes an important point about looking at how we plan projects holistically throughout the country. That is why we have announced the first ever spatial energy plan for the whole of Great Britain.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
The devastating scenes of flooding in Spain remind us all of why urgent investment is needed to deal with the deadly consequences of climate change. Does the Minister agree that that investment should be paid for by the polluting companies that have caused the climate crisis?
Kerry McCarthy
We hope that, at COP29 in the coming weeks, we can settle on a figure for a new ambitious goal, which will not just bring in finance from donor countries, but mobilise private sector finance. We will use all the mechanisms we can to ensure that we get money to developing countries as quickly as possible. As my hon. Friend said, it is more urgent than ever to act.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have got to get all Members in, and Ministers have got to help me and work with me.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Bolney in Twineham parish in my constituency hosts the Rampion windfarm substation, which leads to several battery energy storage solution applications. What reassurance can the Minister give my constituents about the adequacy of the regulatory framework?
Michael Shanks
Batteries will play an important role in our energy mix in the short duration storage that we need. We will continue to look at whether the regulatory arrangements are sufficient. Obviously, we want all the applications to be for safe projects. The regulations are in place to ensure that. If we need to do any more work, we will happily look at that.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
We had a very successful all-party group meeting last week on floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. I know the Minister is supportive and ask him to consider mechanisms such as ringfencing contracts for difference and investment in ports to kickstart the investment in the Celtic sea.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to raise the important potential of the Celtic sea in our green energy transition. I will be in Wales tomorrow to speak at a green energy conference on exactly that question. There is huge potential in floating offshore wind. We want to bring the manufacturing jobs in the supply chain to this country as well, which is why we launched today our clean industry bonus to bring that investment here to build the factories of the future and deliver the good, clean jobs of the future.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The wind industry has rightly agreed a standard compensation package for rural communities with big wind plants. The solar industry, however, is, unsurprisingly, busy whitewashing Uyghur slave labour in its supply chains rather than doing that. If it will not act, will the Government step forward and recognise that they must support rural communities by creating a standardised compensation programme?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady has pursued this and several other issues to do with the solar industry for a long time. We are currently looking at all the options, particularly around community benefits, to ensure that they are at a scale—following on from the previous Government’s consultation on whether they should be compulsory—that genuinely benefits communities.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My constituent Konnie Huq, with Arts Council and Lottery funding, has compiled a kids’ climate guide, with Jamie Oliver among the contributors. Will Ministers join forces with her to get it out there, preferably to every school in the country, because we have got to start young?
Kerry McCarthy
I would be more than happy to meet with my hon. Friend and her constituent, who sounds rather familiar, to discuss what more we can do to support climate education among children, including in our schools.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I met with National Grid yesterday and communicated my concerns about the Norwich to Tilbury line but we remained constructive and talked about community benefit schemes. Unfortunately, it told me that the Government were dragging their feet on defining community benefit schemes. Can the Minister update the House on when they will bring forward guidance, and can he promise that a community benefit scheme is a real, positive economic benefit for my residents who are impacted by the pylons?
Michael Shanks
Clearly I cannot speak for National Grid but I can speak for this Government and in four months we have moved as quickly as possible on what a community benefit scheme will look like for network infrastructure as well as for generation projects. The Conservative party had 14 years to put in place a different scheme and did not; in four months we are moving as quickly as we can.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
As Ministers know, the European powerhouse of critical minerals is Cornwall, including its vast quantities of lithium, essential for our transition away from fossil fuels. Will the Ministers agree with the industry’s call for a target of 50,000 tonnes of lithium?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and look forward to meeting him shortly to talk about tin among other things. We are looking at our critical minerals strategy; there is a big role to play in his neck of the woods for lithium and tin, and we will be pushing that as hard as we can.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Ahead of the general election the Labour party was warned that its plans for the North sea in Scotland would lead to up to 100,000 Scottish job losses. Last week this became a reality when the US oil firm Apache said that it would end all its operations in the North sea by the end of 2029, citing this UK Government’s Budget and tax regime. Can the Minister explain why this UK Government sees the jobs and livelihoods of oil and gas workers in the north-east of Scotland as expendable?
Michael Shanks
I do not believe that at all. This Government are committed to a just and prosperous transition. The reality is that 100,000 jobs have been lost in the oil and gas industry in the past 10 years. If we do not recognise that there is a transition under way and put in place the measures to produce the jobs of the future, we will have more losses. The party that the hon. Member represents could have done something about that by supporting Great British Energy headquarters in Aberdeen but he failed to show up and vote for it.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals. Domestic supplies of copper and, of course, Cornish tin are critical to the UK’s energy security. What consideration has the Minister given to ensuring that copper and tin are recognised as critical minerals?
Sarah Jones
The process in terms of what is on the list of critical minerals is independent, but I have a strong interest, as does my hon. Friend, in ensuring that we produce as many critical minerals here as we can and that the supply chains around the world are working for us. I am looking at a critical minerals strategy, which will come forward in due course.
Point of Order
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers have repeatedly said today that the NESO report shows that their plans will lower energy bills, but page 78 of the report makes it clear that no such thing will happen. If Ministers read their own report and realise that they have misled the House, would it be appropriate for them to come back and apologise?
Mr Speaker
I am not responsible for Ministers’ answers, but I am sure Ministers will have heard that point of order, and if they wish to correct the record, they can do so.
Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when she plans to respond to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s letter, published on 17 October 2024, on the means-testing of winter fuel payments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
We welcome the letter from the chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We were hoping to respond to the letter on the day of the Budget. Regrettably, there has been an unexpected further delay, and we are due to issue the response this week. However, my officials met the committee in August to discuss the regulations, prior to the committee’s formal scrutiny in early September.
I want to explain briefly why it is important to invoke the urgency procedure in this case. We needed to make the necessary Exchequer savings in the current financial year, as the regulations needed to come into force on 16 September. The previous Government left us with a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. The day-to-day departmental spending set out by the previous Government in their spring Budget was not even close to reality. It is now up to us to clear up the mess of the previous Government, so we had to take some difficult decisions, such as means-testing the winter fuel payment, but we remain determined to do everything possible to support the poorest pensioners.
We have taken immediate action to increase the take-up of pension credit, working with charities and local authorities and through a campaign in print and broadcast media. The Government have written to more than 12 million pensioners about the changes to means-testing the winter fuel payment. We have also written to 120,000 pensioners on housing benefit, who could be entitled to pension credit, to encourage them to claim. We have extended the household support fund until March 2026. Thanks to our steadfast commitment to the triple lock, more than 12 million pensioners will see their state pension rise by up to £470 next year, and up to £1,900 over the course of this Parliament. The warm home discount, which we heard about a minute ago, is worth £150 off energy bills for low-income households. The warm homes plan will in the longer term insulate 5 million more homes.
By taking these difficult decisions, we were able to provide a cash injection of £22.6 billion to the NHS budget, which is the largest real-terms growth in day-to-day NHS spending—outside of covid—since 2010. That will bring down waiting times for people across the country, including many pensioners. We are taking the responsible and difficult decisions to clear up the mess of the previous Government, to fix the foundations of our economy and rebuild our public services.
Helen Whately
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
This Government made a choice to take away the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners this winter and to rely on the notoriously under-claimed pension credit as a system of means-testing it. That choice will make life harder for pensioners across the country. It will see 750,000 of the poorest pensioners miss out on much-needed help with the cost of heating, and according to the Labour party’s own research, it could lead to 4,000 additional deaths this winter. The Government know that. That is why they have not done an impact assessment. Perhaps it is why, after seven weeks, they still have not responded to the concerns of their own advisory committee.
The committee wrote the Secretary of State a letter containing its concerns about how the policy will affect the poorest people. It said that 70% of disabled pensioners will miss out on their payment this winter, and it suggested expanding the eligibility for winter fuel payments beyond pension credit because the committee knows that the Government’s savings are based on a third of the poorest pensioners missing out. In direct contrast to the Government, the committee said that
“a more detailed assessment is urgently required”,
as colleagues from all parts of the House—including Labour Members—charities and pensioner groups across the country have also said.
Here we are, seven weeks later, and the Secretary of State is yet to even respond to the advisory committee. In fact, she is not even here to answer this urgent question. I ask the Minister: will the Government now, after seven weeks, respond to their own advisory committee? Will they now, after seven weeks, publish a full impact assessment for everyone to see? Does she accept that her Government have got this wrong? Does she recognise that they have negligently underestimated how many people will fall through the cracks? I suspect that deep down she is worried, as I am, about pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes. I am sure her Secretary of State has been lobbying the Chancellor behind the scenes—perhaps that is where she is right now, instead of being here. Will the hon. Lady go back to her Chancellor one more time and try to make her think again?
Emma Reynolds
I do apologise for the delay in responding to the committee’s letter; it is regrettable. The initial delay, as I set out, was because we were waiting for the OBR to come forward with its costings of the policy. Then there was another, unexpected delay. There has been a delay—[Interruption.] I do not know why I am being heckled; I am trying calmly to explain why there has been a delay, for which I do apologise. We will issue a response very shortly, and certainly by the end of the week. It is important that we respond to that letter. I respect that the hon. Lady is asking that question.
Regarding the public sector equality duty, we have done everything in line with the duty, which is to provide an equality analysis of the decision that we have taken. As hon. Members will know, that analysis was published in September. However—I say this gently—after the election we found ourselves in a situation of having a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. The OBR has said that its assessment of the previous Government’s Budget would have been materially different had it known the pressures on spending and the real situation in the Treasury. I note that the hon. Lady does not come with an apology.
We have had to take the decision to means-test winter fuel payments. We did not want to do that, but we have had to take some difficult decisions to clear up the mess, to tackle our fiscal inheritance and to start rebuilding our public services, which pensioners across the country and many others rely on.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
Government Members will obviously not take protestations about poverty from the Conservative party with anything other than a mountain of salt. But the Government spend £1,300 billion per year and the cut to winter fuel allowance will save the Government about £1.4 billion per year, so that cut will save about 0.1% of Government spending. On that basis, as we look at all the welcome advances made in the Labour Budget—all the great stuff that we can talk about—and we consider that this measure saves only 0.1% of Government spending, I really urge the Minister to think again. I think the public would welcome that as a sign of real leadership. Not anyone or any Government always gets it right, and I believe we got it wrong on this occasion. Could the Government rethink on this issue?
Emma Reynolds
I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record of lifting over a million pensioners out of poverty. We do expect to make savings of about £1.4 billion this year through means-testing the winter fuel payment. That is not an insignificant proportion of the £5.5 billion of savings that the Chancellor set out on 29 July.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Many of us in the Chamber accept that the new Government inherited a financial mess from the old Government. It is a pity that that is being balanced on the backs of pensioners. The Minister quite rightly highlighted how many of us have been championing our residents to claim pension credit, as I am in Torbay. She talked of unexpected delays. Many of us, including her own Department, face unexpected delays. In the light of that, will she extend the deadline for pensioners to claim the allowance beyond 21 December?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I am afraid that I cannot commit to extending the deadline. It is important that we encourage as many pensioners as possible—I know that he is working on that in his constituency, and I did a pension credit surgery in my constituency last week—to check whether they are eligible for pension credit. We have 160 local authorities up and down the country helping us to check the eligibility of those in need and those on the lowest incomes. That is the right thing to do. Those claims can be backdated by three months, and anyone who is eligible for pension credit in the qualifying week will also be passported to other benefits, such as the winter fuel payment.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The advisory committee made several recommendations related to getting assistance to people who should be in receipt of pension credit. Could the Minister indicate whether the Government intend to accept those recommendations?
Emma Reynolds
We are deploying an additional 500 staff to deal with the substantial increase—over 150%—in claims. That is the right thing to do. It is an operational focus for the Department to get through those claims as quickly as possible, to make sure that we get the help to those most in need.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Social Security Advisory Committee estimated that more than 70% of people with a disability will lose their winter fuel payment this year. Does the hon. Lady really think that cutting benefits from this vulnerable group of pensioners is the right thing to do?
Emma Reynolds
If the hon. Lady looks at the equality analysis, she will see that those with a disability will be disproportionately likely to retain the winter fuel payment. I urge her to have a look at that.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her response to the urgent question. We had a Budget that did so much good for our country in the face of the most dreadful inheritance, and the Labour Government should be congratulated on that. But pensioners in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East are still looking to the Government to further mitigate the impact of the cut to the winter fuel payment. Much has been done by the elected Mayor Chris Cooke to embrace the issues around the household support fund and so on, but the Social Security Advisory Committee noted that the £1.4 billion was based on an increase of only 5% in pension credit take-up, from 63% to 68%. Could the Minister say what the increase in take-up has been to date, and what further steps she will take to provide yet further mitigations and reduce pensioner poverty?
Emma Reynolds
We will announce new statistics at the end of this month. The committee asked about the 5% increase; that assumption is based on what happened when the previous Government took away free TV licences and people had to apply for them. The OBR accepted our assumption.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
What is the point of having a Social Security Advisory Committee if the Government do not listen to and take its advice? Would it not be better to abolish the committee if the Government are intent on ignoring it?
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I was reassured by the Minister’s response that we will soon see a reply to that letter. My constituents are not fools—they can see that while Opposition parties oppose the cut, they are not proposing how they would fund the payment. My constituents also see the desperate lack of people claiming pension credit. I put on the record my thanks to Age Scotland for its guidance to my staff on how to ensure that more people in my constituency claim it. The letter refers to winter fuel payment claimants in England, Wales, the EU, Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway, but not Scotland. Is that because in Scotland, the Scottish Government have the power both to maintain the winter fuel payment and to fully fund it?
Emma Reynolds
Yes, as I understand it that is in the Scottish Government’s gift.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Has the Minister had the chance to visit the DWP library, and has she made a note of how many drives there have been over the years to take up pension credit, and whether any of them ever reached as high even as three quarters of those who are eligible?
Emma Reynolds
The previous Government promised 13 years ago to merge housing benefit with pension credit, which would be a significant advance towards improvements. We are introducing that in January. We will have been in power for only six months, but we will have done more than the previous Government did in 14 years.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Many pensioners are terrified of going into debt and do not want to switch on their heating in case they end up with massive bills. Temperatures will drop below freezing in Scotland at the beginning of next week, so will the Minister apologise to those pensioners across Scotland who will not be able to put the heating on because they fear going into debt?
Emma Reynolds
I urge the hon. Lady to look at the support available to low income households through the warm homes discount scheme, the extension of the household support fund and our commitment to the triple lock, which will ensure that 12 million pensioners see a rise in their pension of up to £470 next year, and £1,900 over the course of this Parliament. In the longer term, I urge her to look at the detail of the warm homes plan, which will transform homes across the country by making them cleaner and cheaper to heat.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On 19 September, the Minister’s Department told me in response to a written question that 48,351 people in my constituency had been eligible for winter fuel payments. While we are proud to offer forever homes to so many pensioners, that is a preposterous figure, relating to a heartless and unnecessary decision that will cost more in the long term. How do I or any of my residents have confidence in what the Government are doing, since they believe that more than half my constituency is made up pensioners, and cannot even get the basic numbers right?
Emma Reynolds
I quote one of the hon. Lady’s fellow politicians:
“I have people in my constituency telling me that they don’t need the winter fuel payments that we give them because they can afford it.”
Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch).
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Social Security Advisory Committee’s letter calls for an urgent amendment to allow those in receipt of pensioner housing benefit to receive the winter fuel payment this year. I believe the UK Government should go further, extending eligibility to people on council tax support, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, personal independent payments and carer’s allowance. Will the UK Government rethink their position on eligibility and reduce pensioner hardship this winter?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Lady’s question allows me to focus on the communications around this change. It is not just about pension credit, but about people on working tax credit, child tax credit and other benefits. The committee was concerned about pensioners in receipt of child tax credit; pensioners should check whether they are eligible for other qualifying benefits for winter fuel payments, because it is quite a complicated system. It is not just about whether someone is already on pension credit.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Government say that they want everyone who is eligible for pension credit to claim it and get it, but as the Social Security Advisory Committee points out, they expect only a 5% increase in uptake. Is the reality not that the Government need hundreds of thousands of pensioners not to claim this entitlement that they deserve, in order to make their figures add up and to cut £1.4 billion from winter fuel payments?
Emma Reynolds
I would be very pleased if all pensioners who are eligible for pension credit applied and received the help that they deserve.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Minister will be aware that billions of pounds in benefits and financial help, including pension credit, goes unclaimed every year due to the stigma associated with claiming benefits, and the huge difficulty that claimants encounter when navigating the system. What measures are the Government taking to encourage greater take-up and to simplify the benefits system?
Emma Reynolds
We have run several campaigns, the latest of which was launched recently on radio and TV and in print media, to urge those who may be eligible to apply, and to urge their loved ones to encourage them and help them to apply. We have also asked officials to see how we can improve the form to make it easier, but more than 90% of claims are now made online. Pensioners can get help either from a loved one or from charities and local authorities, which are helping to ensure that they get the support that they deserve.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Some 16,600 pensioners in Broxbourne will lose their winter fuel payment. How is the Minister helping those who cannot do online applications for pension credit to make an application? Will she commit to continuing to write to all those who will lose their winter fuel payment until they sign up for pension credit?
Emma Reynolds
We have written to all pensioners to tell them about the change in Government policy to ensure that those who are not in receipt of pension credit or other benefits know that they will not be getting the winter fuel payment this winter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Minister, it is always good to have the necessary answers. The report notes savings of £1.5 billion. The increase in pension credit take-up from 63% to 68% represents an additional 100,000 households. Any take-up negates savings made by the Government. The fact is that pensioners who would qualify have lost out this year and are struggling now. What can be done to expedite their applications and to deal with the long waiting list for decisions, which means that, for many, the potential for additional income to ease their situation and help in the winter months will be too little, too late? The reason I make the point is that the system is taking too long to make a decision and those people need the money right now.
Emma Reynolds
As I said, we have redeployed an additional 500 members of staff to process applications for pension credit and we are mostly hitting the target for processing times.
National Youth Strategy
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on our new national youth strategy.
The challenges facing young people today are profound: they lived through a pandemic during which they were denied the chance to test boundaries and gain confidence; they are at the sharp end of a revolution in social media; the pressures on young girls are significant; the effects of antisocial behaviour and violence are stark; and while talent is everywhere, opportunity is not. Despite that, this generation is as ambitious for themselves, their families and their communities as any other before them, and they deserve a Government with a plan to match.
When I became Secretary of State, I was shocked to find that there was no single strategy in place for young people. I am absolutely determined to put that right. This is personal for me: one of my first jobs was at the youth homelessness charity, Centrepoint. I learned everything I know about politics from those brilliant young people, who understood the challenges they faced better than any Government could. That is why today we are kicking off one of the biggest national conversations the Government have ever held with young people—led by, and for, young people.
As we embark on an ambitious plan to devolve power to local leaders and communities, we are determined to champion that change not just at national level, but in every part of government. We will take this conversation to our towns, villages and cities in every region on their terms, not ours, to allow young people to challenge us every step of the way. They will be in the driving seat. We will make sure young people are empowered at local, regional and national level, so that funding flows to the things that matter to them. In the coming months, these conversations will feed into a report, “Today’s Youth, Tomorrow’s Nation”, detailing young people’s priorities to inform our new approach. Next year, we will present to this House a co-produced national youth strategy that is fit for the decade ahead and ensures every young person can live the richer, larger life they deserve.
We disagree on many things in this House, but I believe every single one of us shares a common desire to see this generation thrive. They deserve politicians who respect what they have to contribute. That is what this Government are going to do, and that begins today.
In line with this new approach, I have to tell the House that we are going to wind down the National Citizen Service programme from the end of the financial year, and the National Citizen Service Trust when parliamentary time allows. Since its launch in 2011, the NCS has provided over 1 million young people with opportunities. The NCS met the needs of the moment and rightly put active citizenship at the heart of the Government’s programme for young people. It has played a hugely important role in supporting young people to build their confidence and bridge social divides. I would like to thank each and every staff member past and present, the NCS board, and the previous and current CEOs and chairs. I also thank every young person who has contributed to the success of the NCS.
In 2011, when the National Citizen Service was established, Facebook and X had only 700 million users. Now, they have over 3 billion. TikTok had not even been dreamt of. In 2011, an estimated one in eight 10 to 15-year-olds had a probable mental health problem. Now, it is one in five. The world has changed and we need a youth strategy that reflects that. This is not a decision we take lightly. I have spoken to the chair and chief executive. I am so grateful to them for their commitment to work closely together to protect young people and staff, to share learnings and expertise, and to ensure there is an orderly transition from the end of the NCS programme to what comes next. I am delighted to announce that the current NCS chair, Harris Bokhari, will be an adviser on the national youth strategy. His experience will be invaluable as we step into a new way of working together with the country’s young people. As part of this, I would also like to thank the NCS youth advisory board. I hope it will play a major role in our strategy. It is committed, as we are, to building a country of connected, confident and caring young citizens.
We will work closely with the whole youth sector to transform our work so that it better supports youth workers. Local authorities’ youth funding fell by 73% under the previous Government and we know that this presents a significant challenge. Despite the disastrous economic situation we inherited, I am determined that we will rise to this moment. For so many young people, it is councils and combined authorities who hold the key to unlocking their potential. To facilitate them, I will be launching a local youth transformation pilot in the next financial year to support local authorities to build back lost capability and provide tools, guidance and funding to improve their youth offers and empower young people in every community. I have also decided to increase the total funding for other Department for Culture, Media and Sport youth programmes to ensure that young people can continue to access opportunities, no matter where they are from.
We recognise the urgent need for young people to have welcoming places that they have a stake in. That is why, in the next financial year, my Department will allocate over £85 million of capital funding to places where it is most needed. That includes launching the new better youth spaces fund, with at least £26 million for youth clubs to buy new equipment and do renovations. We will also complete the youth investment fund projects that are under way. True to our commitment to putting young people back in charge of their own destinies, we will ensure that they guide our decisions when we choose the spaces to support.
We know that buildings are worth nothing without the army of trusted adults dedicated to helping young people to thrive. As we develop the youth strategy, I will continue to ensure we are recruiting and training the youth workers who are a lifeline for young people. From the initial youth guarantee areas, which will help young people into employment or training, to the first young futures hubs and local prevention partnerships, this Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are also expanding the creative careers programme to widen access to creative employers across the country, and we have committed to continued investment in multi-sport facilities.
In addition to that funding, I am announcing that youth, financial inclusion, social investment and community wealth funds will each receive a significant portion of the next £350 million of dormant assets funding. I am pleased to tell the House that, of that, £100 million will be dedicated to youth outcomes between 2024 and 2028. There will be more detail to come when we publish our dormant assets strategy.
Throughout history, the programmes that have made the greatest difference have been the ones that met the challenges of the moment and were built to last: the Children Act 1989, delivered by a Conservative Government, enshrined it in law that the best interests of the child take priority above all else; and the last Labour Government’s Every Child Matters programme put children’s views and needs at the heart of a Government that changed lives everywhere. I look forward to working constructively with Members across the political divide to get this right. Together, we will grip these challenges to give young people chances and choices, put them at the heart of government and unlock the potential of a generation. I commend this statement to the House.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
Let me begin by saying that the Opposition really do welcome any focus that the Government are putting on young people. I recall from my time in the Department that spending time in the youth sector provided some of the most inspiring moments of my time as a Minister. In government, we had a proud record of listening to young people and putting their views at the heart of our agenda, and our record shows that. Indeed, I always ensured that young people were around the table when we were making decisions that would affect them, and would often say that I wondered how a middle-aged, grey-haired man could know exactly what young people wanted.
It was because we listened to young people that we allocated £500 million over the next three years to fund the national youth guarantee, ensuring that every young person aged 11 to 18 in England had access to regular clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home, and opportunities to volunteer. That is what young people told us they wanted. As part of the national youth guarantee, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to the youth investment fund projects that are under way, but will the Secretary of State confirm the fate of those that are not? In government, we delivered £1.3 billion-worth of sports programmes, developing and improving sports pitches across the country. Can she confirm that they will still be invested in, given their importance as a resource for young people?
Of course, the importance that we placed on young people went much further. Whether the issue was housing, the national living wage, education or apprenticeships, we listened to their views at the very top of Government. That is why we welcome some of the measures in the statement, such as the focus that the Government will place on youth workers through the local youth transformation pilot. The relationship between youth workers and young people is one of the most important, especially for young people with challenging backgrounds.
One element that we cannot support, however, is the scrapping of the National Citizen Service. The NCS has grown since 2011, when it first supported 158 participants. Over the last 13 years, more than 750,000 young people have taken part in its programme. I had the pleasure of visiting many of them, and what struck me most was the sight of people from a mix of different backgrounds coming together. It was a great scheme which had cross-party support.
If the Government intend to listen to young people, can the Secretary of State explain why it is scrapping a scheme with which 93% of participants were satisfied? She says that we do not need citizenship because of social media, but I would argue that we probably do. The cancellation of the NCS also means that a hole will develop in youth services being delivered in 2025, so can the Secretary of State tell me what immediate action will be taken to prevent it from developing, and how she intends to spend the £50 million of savings that she has announced—or is that a loss to the sector?
The NCS is not the only scheme that is being scrapped. I do not need to remind the House of the importance of cadets both to their communities and to young people, especially following the remembrance services that took place yesterday and over the weekend. It is a great shame that the Government have cut grant funding for cadets, and I hope the Secretary of State will reconsider that. As for the issue of dormant assets, this is money that we announced in government, but may I ask how quickly that funding will be in the hands of those who need it?
Giving young people the best start in life is something about which I—and, I know, many other Members—care passionately. I assure the Secretary of State that we will work constructively with her when we see opportunities to improve services, but we will also challenge it when we think that she has made the wrong decision. I am sorry to say that, in my view, the cancellation of the National Citizen Service is the wrong choice.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive challenge. I welcome him to his place, and I look forward to more of this in the coming months and years.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about grassroots sports funding and the facilities that we make available around the country. He will have noted that over the summer I announced that the Government would invest in that significantly, and that we provided further details following the Euros—where a whole generation was inspired, not just by the men’s team but by the incredible success of the Lionesses, and many other sports besides. We know how important this is. We have made a commitment to ensure that that funding matches the demand that is being placed on us by young people in particular.
As for the importance of youth workers, I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to get into an arms race about who cares more about this issue, but the truth is where the last Government left us a good inheritance, we will acknowledge it, support it, and ensure that it continues. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will rightly agree that the challenges facing young people are far too important for us to play party politics with them. I hope that young people will recognise from this exchange that they have a group of parliamentarians who are determined to work together to get this right, and who will challenge one another when they think they are not doing so.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the £50 million cost of NCS. We are working with the NCS Trust to ensure that we manage the closure in an orderly fashion, and that all associated costs are met. The Department is currently engaged in a business planning process. However, he will have heard what I have said in the House previously and what I will continue to say to colleagues today: we recognise the funding challenges that affect the entire youth sector. The series of announcements that I have made today, including the announcement about dormant assets funding, are intended to ensure that we start to put rocket boosters behind young people.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about other youth organisations, and in particular about uniformed youth. We do intend to increase funding for some of those organisations, especially those that have received funding previously through the National Citizen Service, to ensure that no gap is left that would prevent them from being able to honour the commitments that they making to young people. As for the general question—why the NCS?—I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that we were strong supporters of the dedicated programme for young people that was established by the Cameron Government. I was also a strong supporter of vInspired, which preceded it, but the incoming Government at the time decided that they wanted to move with the times and wanted to change the programme.
What we have learned from that episode is that an orderly transition is very important. With vInspired the funding was cut but the programme continued, and it finally closed in 2018 with more than half a million pounds of debt. We are determined not to allow that to happen again, which is why we are working closely with the NCS Trust and others to make sure we do this properly. However, I have a responsibility to millions of young people around the country, and I think it only right to say that the system is far too fragmented, and not aligned with their priorities. I make no apology for putting them back at the centre of government, where they belong.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to bringing youth services together, and we in the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs, which I chair, look forward to playing our part. However, owing to the 73% reduction in youth services at a local level, local groups such as Croydon Youth Consortium in my constituency have had to step up where local government has stepped back. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government will leverage, rather than working against, the best practice that those groups have established by working together and not competing against each other for certain types of funding?
Lisa Nandy
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to young people, which was known about before her election. I have deliberately placed an emphasis on what happens at local and regional level. As this Government seek to embark on the biggest devolution of power out of Westminster and Whitehall in a generation, we must ensure that young people are empowered to play their full part, not just with national Government but with local and regional government as well. We announced funding for the local youth transformation fund to help local authorities learn from the best practice in this area. I am also very committed—as is the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock)—to ensuring that we are in towns, villages and cities across the UK, listening to the experience of young people who face very different challenges in their lives depending on where they are from, but who have also found extremely innovative solutions. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) and other colleagues to make good that commitment.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I welcome today’s announcement. A national youth strategy can finally bring the joined-up thinking that is needed to deliver the outcomes that our young people deserve. On the point about putting rocket boosters behind young people, those kinds of high-octane opportunities were not available at the youth clubs that I attended, but it sounds like an innovative form of youth work.
I have seen the results that can be achieved by youth work when an effective approach is taken. One success story is that of Cheltenham Festivals, which supports tens of thousands of young people in the arts and culture every year. I know that the Secretary of State learned more when Cheltenham Festivals recently visited Downing Street and she got to meet Supertato—one of her heroes. What role is there for organisations such as Cheltenham Festivals as part of the strategy? Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to deliver long-term, joined-up strategic thinking, now is the time for a Cabinet Minister for children and young people, as called for by the Liberal Democrats? Will whatever follows the NCS continue to report to her Department or another—perhaps the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, if local councils are to have a broader role?
The scale of the mental health crisis among young people in this country gives us pause for thought every day. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to commit that this Government will deliver a dedicated mental health professional in every primary and secondary school? The physical health of our children and young people is also in urgent need of support as we seek to fight childhood obesity. Will the Secretary of State’s announcement on dormant assets funding bring any benefits in the area of sports and physical activity?
Lisa Nandy
It was indeed a pleasure to meet Supertato at the recent reception that we hosted in Downing Street. I know Mr Speaker got the reference, but I am not sure that anybody else did—Supertato is a legend.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s emphasis on Cheltenham Festivals, and on arts and culture. We think that every child and young person in this country has the right to a richer, larger life, and he will have seen that one of the first things that the Education Secretary and I announced was a review of the curriculum in order to put arts, creativity, sport and music back at its heart. For too many young people, the experience of the last decade and a half has been of arts, culture and sport disappearing not just from their classrooms but from their communities, and we are determined to set that right.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about having a Cabinet Minister for children and young people. I am pleased to tell him that we have one—he is known as the Prime Minister. Having worked for the Children’s Society and Centrepoint when the last Labour Government were in office, my learning in this area was that although it was a great innovation to have a Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Every Child Matters programme was able to succeed only because there was a strong direction from the Prime Minister that every single Cabinet Minister had to play their part. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can see that, through the work we are announcing today, we are absolutely determined to ensure that.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I declare an interest: for nearly 20 years, I have been the chair of trustees at the Samuel Montagu youth club in my constituency, and I have also been a senior play leader on an adventure playground and a youth worker.
The funding that my right hon. Friend has announced today will be welcomed by the youth work sector, particularly the £85 million of overdue capital and the £26 million for youth clubs, but may I make an appeal to her? I have been down this road many times before with Government funding, and the burden of bureaucracy when applying for money can sometimes exclude small organisations that just do not have the capacity. Can we make it simpler for people to apply for the money?
Lisa Nandy
I look forward to visiting an adventure playground with my hon. Friend sometime soon. I could not agree with him more, and he is absolutely right to flag this issue to me. We are keen to make the interface between young people, youth organisations and the Government as painless as possible, particularly to ensure that we support local grassroots organisations that are achieving absolute magic with young people. We are working with the devolved Administrations, the Local Government Association, mayors, councils and others to get it right, but I would be very pleased to discuss this issue with my hon. Friend at a time that is mutually convenient, to make sure that we do.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She is right to focus on this issue, and there are a lot of positives here. If I have any concerns, they are around the speed of the closure of the National Citizen Service and not knowing what will replace it. That could lead to gaps in provision, but also to some of the skilled and dedicated youth workers on whom we rely leaving the workforce. She spoke about an orderly transition, and she is absolutely right do so. I have a few of questions for her. What are the estimated costs of winding down the NCS? Would it be possible for it to continue without public funding if it were able to get access to private finance? How long does she estimate that it will take before money for either existing or new youth projects becomes available, and when does she think they could be up and running?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Our intention is to close the NCS, but we must go through all the necessary steps, including engagement with His Majesty the King, as required, and with Parliament. She will know that it will take some time to pass the necessary legislation, but our intention is to honour the existing funding round until March 2025.
The hon. Lady asked about the costs of winding down NCS. We have done some provisional work on that, but we are working closely with the NCS board and trust to make sure that we fully understand the implications of those costs and that we do this in the most cost-effective way, with value for money. She also asked whether it would be possible to continue with the NCS, but without Government funding. We are very much marked by the experience of the last Government and the closure of vInspired. Without a forward-looking and viable business plan, we are concerned that we would end up repeating the mistakes made under the last Government. As I said to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), vInspired eventually closed with a significant amount of debt.
We have looked at every different scenario, and the hon. Lady will appreciate that this is not a decision that we took lightly, but we have come to the conclusion that it is the right thing for young people. It is right to be clear that we are closing the NCS. This will be the last round of funding, and we will legislate after going through the necessary processes.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s important statement. I think we in this Chamber all agree that supporting the next generation of people in my town of Harlow and across the country is really important. May I make a plea to her? It is really important to hear young people’s voices in this process, but what steps will she take to make sure that young people who are often forgotten and left behind are heard? Having worked for a charity that supports young carers, I can say from personal experience that their voices must be heard as well.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I pay tribute to him for the work he is doing and for standing up for a group of young people who mean a great deal to me too, having worked for the Children’s Society. They have often lacked a voice. It is fantastic to see him in his place and to know that they have a strong voice in him. We are working with a full range of youth organisations, drawing on the relationships that we have across the Department to make sure that we reach the right young people. We are in the process of establishing a youth advisory group, which is helping to make sure that we reach the widest range of young people in every part of the country, and I make a commitment to my hon. Friend that we will specifically include young carers in that group.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am pleased that the Secretary of State’s statement talked of widening the Creative Careers programme. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for performing arts education and a proud graduate of Chichester University with a creative degree, I am living proof that a creative degree can take people many places, including Parliament. I am sure the Culture Secretary agrees that the narrow nature of the English baccalaureate is reducing the take-up of creative qualifications among our young people. How soon can we expect reform in that area?
Lisa Nandy
The Education Secretary has laid out the terms of the curriculum review and wasted no time in appointing the chair of the review, and that work is under way. As well as making sure that all young people have access to a broad curriculum, my Department is working with many of the organisations that Members have described, such as the Royal Shakespeare Company. We are seeing the great work that is already happening in communities and schools, and considering how best we can make sure that all schools and all children can get access to incredible opportunities. We know that children and young people have been waiting too long to access such opportunities, so we are looking at the broadest range of ways to address that as quickly as possible. My promise to the hon. Lady is that we will not waste a minute.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her magnificent statement, which is so timely and overdue. I think every one of us in the Chamber will know from their own constituency just how important youth services are and how they have been stretched over many years. There are so many tremendous suppliers and players in this area, but local authorities play a huge role. Could she say a little bit more about how she expects them to deal with any additional statutory responsibilities and, critically, about the funding needed to deliver absolutely essential services—not just for young people, but for our wider communities?
Lisa Nandy
I know that my hon. Friend has a great deal of expertise in this area, having supported young people in his constituency for a long time. We are acutely aware of the challenges facing local authorities. As a former councillor myself, and with experience in the youth sector, I know the enormous frustration when more and more responsibilities are placed on local authorities without the necessary support and funding to match. That is one of the reasons we have made today’s announcement about the local youth transformation fund. We think that many local authorities need help, not just with funding but with ensuring that young people are at the centre of their youth offer.
To go back to the challenge that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) laid down, we must also make sure that we are hearing the fullest range of voices from young people in those forums. Some local authorities are doing a fantastic job, and have been extremely receptive to doing more. We are determined to learn from the best and ensure that every local authority in the country is putting young people at the heart of what they do.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Earlier, the Secretary of State said that some funding would be protected for uniformed youth organisations. Could she spell out which organisations will not be receiving funding, given that the Government have announced cuts to the cadet forces? May I appeal to her to put somebody from either the Sea Cadets, the Army Cadets or the Air Training Corps on the advisory board and to reassure the House that there is no institutional or departmental bias against young people wearing a uniform?
Lisa Nandy
I have heard the right hon. Gentleman loud and clear, and I absolutely, wholeheartedly give him that commitment. This is personal for me: in my own town of Wigan an enormous number of young people join the cadets and other uniformed groups every year, and we are tremendously proud of them. It was a privilege to be at the Cenotaph with His Majesty the King this Sunday and to meet some of the cadets from Dulwich who did such a fantastic job of welcoming the royal family and making that day a success.
It is our intention to honour all existing funding commitments, but we are planning to increase some funding streams, particularly to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on young people from the decision to close the National Citizen Service. That includes increasing funding to some uniformed groups, and I will be in a position to set out the specifics of that to the House once my Department has gone through business planning. I will also take the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about putting a member of those uniformed groups on the advisory board; I am sure we can manage to make that work. I am looking over at my officials and they are nodding agreeably. I will take that suggestion away, and I thank him for it.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State rightly pointed out the amazing work that trusted adults and youth workers do. Today, the average youth contract is about nine months. How will we address that in the national youth strategy, as well as support youth workers to access qualifications, to help them thrive and support our young people?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend points to a very relevant problem. In the 20 years since I was in the youth sector, I do not think that problem has got any less acute. It forces organisations to reinvent the wheel constantly, or to stop doing work that is incredibly valuable. As the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) pointed out earlier, the relationship between a youth worker and a young person is incredibly valuable and important to protect, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are well aware of that. I would be amazed if it did not come up through the call for evidence to young people. The consultation is being designed by them, for them, and I would be amazed if that issue did not form part of the recommendations that we take forward into the national youth strategy. In the unlikely event that it does not, however, we will absolutely make sure that we deal with that concern. I have heard my hon. Friend loud and clear.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and fully support her aims to provide fit-for-purpose and effective support to the young people in our country. One key component is the provision of sports and leisure facilities for young people. In September 2023, the Dewsbury sports centre and swimming pool were closed due to limited reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Last week I attended a full council meeting in which the Labour cabinet decided to close the Dewsbury sports centre permanently, citing repair costs of £9 million to £10 million and the lack of £1.13 million in running costs. The impact of the closure on my constituents, including thousands of young people, is catastrophic. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the Government can help with the reopening of the Dewsbury sports centre as soon as possible?
Lisa Nandy
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I do not think I have had the opportunity to congratulate him since he was elected. This Government are very committed to making sure that we provide the sports and leisure facilities that young people across the country are clamouring for. I have seen for myself in every part of the country how much it improves young people’s confidence and educational outcomes, and also how it provides them with the opportunity to live richer, larger lives. I was very struck at the Olympics and Paralympics this summer by just how many of those athletes started out in the sort of leisure facilities that he describes.
However, we do young people a disservice if we are not honest with them about the problems and their causes. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that councils around the country are not clamouring to close down their leisure facilities. Those councils have had the worst funding settlements from Government in living memory, and they are dealing with the human cost of that in their communities every day. They are on the frontline dealing with that. I congratulate those councillors who are prepared to go out and be honest with people about the challenges that they face and to seek innovative solutions. I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will work with his council to help achieve our shared ambition of making sure that young people in Dewsbury get the opportunities that they deserve.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She, like me, is a great champion for young people, and I am glad to hear her comments and commitments today about the new national youth strategy. This funding will be a lifeline to youth workers and to youth organisations such as the Burnley Boys and Girls Club, Participation Works and others operating in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. As she says, local authority funding fell by over 70% over the past 14 years, and because of that there is less space for young people to operate in and do what they want to do. I note her commitment to £85 million of extra capital funding, so will she ensure that schemes in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are fully considered? Will she meet me and partners in Burnley to talk about the potential for our already part-funded youth zone?
Lisa Nandy
I pay tribute to the Burnley Boys and Girls Club. We in Wigan liked it so much that we went out and got one of our own, and it has become the OnSide youth zone, which does fantastic work with the community. That is a really good example of a public-private partnership, where the council and the business community are jointly invested in the future of young people, and our youth zone stands in the centre of Wigan as a shining testament to how much young people matter to them. I know that that is my hon. Friend’s ambition for young people in Burnley, and I would be more than happy to work with him to make that a reality.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right: the world has changed, and with the enormous prevalence now of electronica and social media, there is a bigger premium than ever on getting more young people out playing sport, doing music, joining uniformed groups and getting involved in all sorts of purposeful activity—even perhaps public speaking and debating. We need to make sure that we make full use of the assets and facilities we have, and successive Governments have tried to get schools to open up more. In some areas we have had renewed progress with the holiday activities and food programme and wraparound care, but what more can be done to ensure that those great facilities throughout the country are fully utilised?
Lisa Nandy
It is a long time since the right hon. Gentleman and I were on the Education Committee together, and a lot has changed in that time. We are very open to the suggestion of working more closely with schools to ensure that those tremendous facilities are open to more young people. I would say to him, though, that we do not think that that is the entire answer, because there are young people who do not feel comfortable or confident in schools. Part of the thrust of the work that I have done and the funding that I have announced today is to ensure that young people have spaces that belong to them, where they feel that they have a stake and some sense of ownership. For so many young people, that is the key to accessing services—on their terms, not ours—that genuinely help to transform their lives. But I am very open to the suggestion that we could do more by working with schools.
I would not want Opposition Members to misunderstand what we are saying about citizenship. Active citizenship is incredibly important for young people. In fact, there is no future to this country unless they have the opportunity to contribute to the rebuilding of Britain. That is why we named the state of the nation report in the way we did, and one reason I genuinely feel from listening to Opposition Members that there is an opportunity for us to work together to deliver on the promise to this generation.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I give the Secretary of State my sincere and heartfelt thanks for the focus of her statement. I have worked with the youth sector to highlight the severe loss of professional youth worker jobs that occurred under austerity. Serious revenue funding is needed to fill this chasm, so can she give an estimate of the number of new permanent youth worker posts that revenue funding will create under these plans?
Lisa Nandy
I will have to write to the hon. Lady on that point, but I echo what she says. As I said in my statement, buildings are of no use without the army of adults who work with children and young people. Those relationships are hard-fought and that trust is hard-won, and it is something we are determined to protect. Many years ago, when I worked for the Children’s Society, we held the largest consultation with children and young people we had ever run. The message that came through from every single submission was the importance of good, strong relationships and of having a trusted adult in their lives. I was horrified when I saw DCMS research showing that so many young people in this country do not have a single adult they would trust with their problems. We are determined to change that, but I will write to the hon. Lady on that specific point.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her generous comments about the Thatcher Government’s 1989 Children Act, and for saying that she will dedicate £100 million to youth outcomes over the next four years. Does she therefore share my concern, which I am sure may resonate with many young people, that we now know that more than £100 million has been wasted on the ludicrous High Speed 2 bat tunnel? Does that not show the importance of this House taking control of spending priorities in order to prevent such waste in the future?
Lisa Nandy
I am not sure whether that will form the centrepiece of what young people tell us in the consultation, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that this Government take value for money very seriously. Although I would not suggest for a moment that there was not huge value in the National Citizen Service, one reason for today’s difficult decision is that far too much youth-focused spending across Government is too fragmented and not aligned with the challenges this generation faces, as they have told us loud and clear. We are determined that that will change.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I, too, extend my thanks to the Secretary of State for her statement and the promise of investment in this vital area. One of the greatest things about the NCS, according to my children, is the time spent outdoors. I am sure she will agree that outdoor play areas are vital not only for physical wellbeing but for mental wellbeing. Leicester South has some great outdoor play areas and adventure playgrounds, including Highfields and St Andrews. Unfortunately, both are under threat of closure due to a lack of funding. Does the Secretary of State agree that outdoor play areas and adventure playgrounds are vital for our children’s wellbeing? What specific investment will there be for adventure playgrounds? Will she talk to her colleagues to ensure that any new housing projects make provision for outdoor play areas?
Lisa Nandy
Many years ago, the Government had a national play strategy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) will probably remember. Since then, there has been a lack of focus on the opportunities for children to play.
I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s point on housing and discuss it with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. My Department has a specific funding stream for “adventures away from home,” which will be maintained. I will also look for other funding sources that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents may be able to access to ensure that every child in Leicester has the outdoor play experiences and opportunities they deserve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister’s statement—there is no one in the Chamber who is not encouraged by what she has said. She will know that there is great disappointment that youth services did not appear to be prioritised in the Budget. Early intervention allows children to go on to access training and apprenticeships, directing them away from criminal influences and gang membership. It gives them the confidence and self-assurance to combat mental health issues too. Is today’s statement an indication that youth investment is a priority and that community groups will not have to scrabble at the funding table? Will there be assistance for community groups to access finance and help?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government inherited a disastrous economic situation, and not only because of how the economy had been mismanaged, but because of the lack of investment in public services over a long period of time. This has meant that so many local councils have focused on their statutory responsibilities, which has deeply affected youth services. However, the Budget made a number of announcements, including my Department’s creative careers programme. There are fast-growing areas of the economy in every nation and region, and we are determined that not only will those communities benefit from good jobs, but young people in those communities will have the opportunity to get those jobs. I am sick and tired of visiting parts of the country where jobs are being created that the kids can see from their school playgrounds, but can no more dream of getting those opportunities than of going to the moon. We are determined that this will change under this Government.
Powers of Attorney
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about Lasting Powers of Attorney; to place duties on banks in respect of Lasting Powers of Attorney; to make provision about the powers of the Office of the Public Guardian to investigate the actions of an attorney; to require the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the powers of the Office of the Public Guardian to investigate the actions of an attorney and of its use of those powers; to make provision about the duties of care homes in respect of Lasting Powers of Attorney; to require an attorney to notify the Office of the Public Guardian of the death of a donor; to require the Office of the Public Guardian to take steps to promote the facility to request a search of its registers of powers of attorney; and for connected purposes.
Six years ago, I moved the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Consent) Bill under the ten-minute rule. This was the first legislative attempt to stop the practice of predatory marriage—a cruel form of abuse in which a person marries an elderly or vulnerable person exclusively for the purpose of gaining access to their estate upon death. In the years since, it has become clear that there are other ways in which unscrupulous individuals may target the elderly and vulnerable. Today, I ask the House to try to close one of these procedural gaps that harm so many people.
The simplification of lasting power of attorney processes in recent years was, I believe, short-sighted, and I will explain why. If I were to describe all the instances of abuse that have been shared with me in recent months, I would need far more than my allotted 10 minutes. Owing to the time constraints, I will therefore share the testimonies of just four people who have consented to be named and are not subject to current legal proceedings.
The first is Carolyn Stephens, whose elderly, widowed father met a woman in 2012. At first, Carolyn was pleased that her father had found a new companion, but she grew concerned when this woman began answering her father’s phone. Over the next few years, Carolyn found herself systematically removed from her father’s life. First, her father was taken to a registry office, where the woman tried to marry him, but the registrar refused, saying that Carolyn’s father did not have the capacity because he could not even answer basic questions such as to provide his home address. A week later, a solicitor signed a piece of paper that gave the woman LPA over his finances, property, health and welfare, and the power to completely remove his daughter, Carolyn, from his life altogether.
After having had no contact for years, having suffered from emotional distress, accusations of abuse and harassment, and having no knowledge of where her father lived, Carolyn finally had a breakthrough. In December 2022, she found him on the electoral roll in a care home. The visiting log showed that her father was left alone for 346 days in 2022, without any visitors, not even on his birthday. Even after she found her father, the ordeal continued for several months. Eventually, the authorities acted and Carolyn was able to spend the last six months of her father’s life by his side.
Another victim-survivor is Ann Berry. Without discussion or notice, Ann was removed from both her partner’s LPAs because the Office of the Public Guardian had received two partial deeds of revocation apparently signed by him. However, because he had Parkinson’s disease and Lewy body dementia, he had been unable even to sign a cheque for at least the previous year. That was reported to the Office of the Public Guardian, but Ann was denied access to a screenshot of her partner’s signature to verify. For two years, the Office of the Public Guardian was unhelpful and consistently slow to respond to Ann. Her testimony shows how such protective bodies often prove to be toothless to those who need them most.
Another case is the story of Sareeta McLachlan, who has sadly not had the same resolution. Within two months of her mother being placed in a care home, her brother stopped Sareeta and other family members from taking her out for social and leisure activities. Five months later, he banned them from seeing her altogether, and the care home accepted his instructions as he had LPA. Her brother claims Sareeta was distressing their mother by trying to make her discuss financial affairs, and that their mother no longer wanted to see her. Nine years later, Sareeta’s nightmare continues, with no explanation given as to why certain family members cannot visit, other than her brother alleging that is their mother’s wish.
My final case history is that of my constituent Juliette Hirst. Juliette’s mother was proposed to by a man after having been in a relationship for just 17 days. Over the following 20 years, Juliette’s mother was coerced into only being allowed to speak on the phone if it was on loudspeaker, not being permitted to attend appointments alone, and not being allowed to decide which clothes she could buy or even wear. This culminated in the inheritance from her mother’s late sister being transferred into a joint account, then into an ISA in only the man’s name. He spent it all on new cars and on a much more expensive house, far away from the rest of the family.
Then Juliette’s mother received a terminal diagnosis. At her mother’s request, Juliette and her family arranged for a solicitor to visit to get her mum’s affairs in order. However, the husband would not allow the visit without him being present. He stopped feeding or bathing Juliette’s mother, and would not even help her to get to the toilet. When Juliette’s mother lay dying in St Gemma’s hospice, in my constituency, the husband bought another new car for £12,500 and transferred £50,000 into his bank account from their joint account while she was bed bound.
Almost as soon as Juliette’s mother had died, the husband immediately moved a new woman into their flat, dumping Juliette’s mother’s possessions outside in a bin liner. Juliette wrote to me and said:
“It is a repeating pattern of behaviour and there needs to be more help out there, especially for the families of these victims. Banks can’t talk to family members if they don’t have a Power of Attorney, but coercive controllers don’t allow any family members to get Power Of Attorney, as they want full control. There need to be changes with banks, otherwise there is no way of protecting the victims.”
She is absolutely right.
I have been made aware of a shocking case involving a lodger gaining LPA over their landlord, providing that individual with access to thousands of pounds in savings and the ability to remortgage, and of a man who could not even sign his own name, whose LPA was signed away using just his finger print. The scale of the abuse is already alarming and the simplification of obtaining lasting power of attorney is proving to be fuelling the fire. I am sure there are more, as yet unknown, victim-survivors.
My Bill is focused on prevention, removing the incentive for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of vulnerable older people. Between 2019 and 2024, some 1,066 cases were received involving victim-survivors and lasting power of attorney by the Hourglass helpline. Between the same dates, casework interactions where powers of attorney were mentioned totalled 3,436. Some 2,251 of those cases were related to economic abuse. Of the 7,973 risk-assessed safeguarding concerns raised in 2022-23, some 7,175—or 90%—resulted in no action by the Office of the Public Guardian.
Family court data shows that over 50% of donors are over 75 years old at the point of the registration of their LPA. That means that, since 2008, over 4.5 million people were over 75 when they registered their LPA. They are vulnerable to this type of abuse. My Bill calls for the implementation of Government-regulated safeguarding procedures for all banks over the way they deal with LPAs and the accounts of donors. That would include contacting the donor or a GP before an LPA is activated, and monitoring spending prior to and after the LPA is activated.
There must be new powers for the relevant authorities to hold the Office of the Public Guardian to account on dealing with potential cases of abuse, including oversight of freezing orders that are rarely, if ever, used. Immediate freezing orders should be used for those under investigation, so they cannot pay their own legal fees with the donor’s funds, as has happened on many occasions.
The Office of the Public Guardian needs to remove its financial sustainability mission statement in favour of a mission about the safeguarding of vulnerable people. There should be more effort to publicise the OPG100, which enables the public to find out whether someone has a lasting power of attorney. That should include the introduction of online notices after the signing of an LPA and before the registration of such an agreement.
Care homes have a duty to protect new residents who lack capacity and where an attorney produces power of attorney. A care home, or other provider, should have an obligation to update the register with the Office of the Public Guardian.
Finally, I am grateful to Andrew Bishop of Rothley Law for the help he has given me in this campaign, as well as the four courageous people whose cases I have mentioned. The abuse I have described is clearly widespread. Cases from up and down the country are becoming more evident every day. I believe it is time we act to prevent such appalling injustice, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Fabian Hamilton, Bambos Charalambous, Mr Mark Sewards, Paula Barker, Layla Moran, Tim Roca, Chris Law, Alex Sobel, Yuan Yang and Andrew George present the Bill.
Fabian Hamilton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 126).
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Tuesday 12th November 2024
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 November 2024 - (12 Nov 2024)
17:50 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 376 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:05 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 41 / Noes: 378 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:19 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:34 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 375 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 435 / Noes: 73 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker.” When addressing the Chair, please use our name, “Madam Chair,” “Chair,” or “Madam Chairman”—we are all quite flexible.
Clause 1
Exclusion of remaining hereditary peers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 2, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) Jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerages is to be exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.”
This amendment provides explicitly that the jurisdiction in relation to claims to hereditary peerages passes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.
Amendment 25, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to end of line 17 and insert—
“only when the House of Commons has agreed a resolution which—
(a) endorses the conclusions of the report a joint committee appointed for the purpose specified in subsection (3A), and
(b) determines accordingly that this Act shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this resolution is passed.
(3A) The purpose of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords referred to in subsection (3) is to consider and report upon the Government’s stated plans for reform of the House of Lords, including—
(a) the removal of the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords,
(b) the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for members of the House of Lords,
(c) a new participation threshold to enable continuing membership of the House of Lords,
(d) changes to the circumstances in which disgraced members of the House of Lords can be removed, and
(e) changes to the process of appointment of members of the House of Lords.”
This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect after the report of a joint committee on wider reforms of the composition of the House of Lords has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
Amendment 24, page 2, line 17, leave out “this Act is passed” and insert—
“the condition in section [requirement on Government to publish legislative proposals] is met”.
This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect at the end of the Session of Parliament in which the government publishes legislative proposals meeting the requirements set out in NC19.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 12, in clause 5, page 2, line 21, leave out “(Hereditary Peers)” and insert “(Appointments and Membership)”.
This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC9 and NC10.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 21, leave out “(Hereditary Peers)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC3, NC4, NC5 and NC6. It would amend the short title of the Bill.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert “and Bishops”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1. It would amend the short title of the Bill.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert—
“and Proposals for a Democratic Mandate”.
This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC7.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 21, after “Peers” insert “and Appointments”.
This amendment would change the short title of the Bill and is consequential on NC8.
Clause 5 stand part.
New clause 1—Exclusion of bishops—
“(1) No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of being a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England.
(2) No bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England is entitled to receive, in that capacity, a writ of summons to attend, or sit and vote in, the House of Lords.
(3) Nothing in this section prevents a person who is, or has been, a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England from receiving, and exercising the entitlements under, a peerage for life in accordance with section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
(4) Nothing in this section prevents a person who is, or has been, a bishop or Archbishop of the Church of England from being permitted to enter the House of Lords for the purpose only of leading prayers in accordance with arrangements made by that House.”
This new clause provides that bishops of the Church of England will no longer be entitled to membership of the House of Lords.
New clause 2—Exclusion of bishops: consequential amendments etc.—
“(1) In the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539—
(a) omit section 3 (places of the Archbishops and Bishops);
(b) in section 6 (place of the King’s Chief Secretary) omit the words after “aforementioned”.
(2) The Bishoprics Act 1878 is repealed.
(3) In the Welsh Church Act 1914 omit section 2(3) (writs of summons to be issued to bishops not disqualified by the 1914 Act for sitting in the House of Lords).
(4) In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in section 1(1) omit paragraph (za) (disqualification of Lords Spiritual).
(5) In the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in section 36(6) omit paragraph (b) (a person is not disqualified for membership of the Assembly by reason only that he is a Lord Spiritual).
(6) In the Scotland Act 1998, in section 16(1) omit paragraph (b) (a person is not disqualified from being a member of the Scottish Parliament because he is a Lord Spiritual).
(7) In the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001, in section 1, omit subsection (2) (Lords Spiritual disqualified from being a Member of the House of Commons).
(8) In the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, in section 41, omit subsection (6)(b) (members entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords by virtue of being an archbishop or bishop); but this subsection is without prejudice to the continued application of that provision in relation to tax years beginning before the commencement of this Act.
(9) In the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, in section 4(3), omit “or as a Lord Spiritual”.
(10) The Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 is repealed.
(11) In the enactment formula used for Acts passed after the passing of this Act, where the phrase “by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons” appears, the phrase “by and with the advice and consent of the Lords and Commons” is to be used instead.”
This new clause makes repeals and amendments to other Acts consequential on NC1, as well as providing for changes to words of enactment.
New clause 3—Mandatory retirement at the age of 80—
“(1) A member of the House of Lords who reaches the age of 80 during a Session of Parliament ceases to be a member of the House of Lords at the end of that Session.
(2) No-one shall be eligible for a peerage for life to be conferred in accordance with section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 after they reach the age of 80.
(3) A member of the House of Lords who has reached the age of 80 shall not be entitled to receive a writ to attend the House under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 or by virtue of the dignity conferred by virtue of appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.”
This new clause provides that peers who are over the age of 80 will no longer be entitled to membership of the House of Lords at the end of the parliamentary session they turn 80 and that no one can be appointed a Life Peer after they reach that age.
New clause 4—Minimum contribution in the House of Lords—
“(1) A member of the House of Lords who is a peer and does not participate in the proceedings of the House of Lords or its committees during a period of eight consecutive sitting weeks ceases to be a member of the House.
(2) A person participates in the proceedings of the House of Lords for the purposes of subsection (1) if they undertake any activity which qualifies for financial support allowance under the scheme agreed by the House of Lords and then in force.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a peer if—
(a) the peer was disqualified from sitting or voting in the House, or suspended from its service, for the whole or part of eight consecutive sitting weeks, or
(b) they fall within the terms of a Standing Order of the House of Lords providing for exemptions from the provisions of subsection (1) for reasons related to parental leave, illness, bereavement or other specified circumstances.”
This new clause provides a minimum participation requirement for members of the House of Lords of one contribution every eight sitting weeks. A member who does not meet the minimum contribution requirement can no longer be a member of the House of Lords.
New clause 7—Duty to take forward proposals for democratic mandate for House of Lords—
“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords.
(2) In pursuance of the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out the steps set out in subsections (3), (5), (6) and (7).
(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a consultation paper on methods for introducing directly elected members in the House of Lords.
(4) After laying the consultation paper under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must seek the views on the matters covered by that paper of—
(a) each party and group in the House of Lords,
(b) each political party represented in the House of Commons,
(c) the Scottish Government,
(d) the Welsh Government,
(e) the Northern Ireland Executive,
(f) local authorities in the United Kingdom,
(g) representative organisations for local authorities in the United Kingdom, and
(h) such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Within sixteen months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on responses to the consultation.
(6) Within eighteen months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a draft Bill containing legislative proposals on each of the matters mentioned in subsection (3).”
This new clause imposes a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected members.
New clause 8—Life peerages not to be conferred against recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—
“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has written to the Prime Minister to recommend a peerage should not be conferred on that person.””
This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission has recommended against the appointment.
New clause 9—Life peerages only to be conferred on persons who meet propriety standards—
“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised unless the Prime Minister has received a letter from the House of Lords Appointments Commission stating that, in their view, the person on whom a peerage is be to conferred has met appropriate standards of propriety.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, “propriety” means—
(a) the person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and
(b) the past conduct of the person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.””
This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person unless the House of Lords Appointments Commission had confirmed to the Prime Minister that the person met the appropriate standards of propriety.
New clause 10—Expulsion of peers on grounds of prior propriety advice—
“(1) It shall be the duty of the House of Lords Appointments Commission to inform the Lord Speaker by letter of each instance where a peerage has been conferred on a person who has been found in their view not to meet the appropriate standards of propriety.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “propriety” means—
(a) the person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and
(b) the past conduct of the person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.
(3) The Lord Speaker must lay before the House of Lords a copy of any letter received under subsection (1) on the next day on which the House of Lords sits.
(4) Any person who is the subject of a letter under subsection (3) ceases to be a member of the House of Lords on the day after the day on which a copy the letter is laid before the House of Lords.
(5) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.”
This new clause would mean that any Member of the House of Lords who had been appointed despite the House of Lords Appointments Commission finding that they didn’t meet the appropriate standards of propriety would cease to be a Member of the House of Lords.
New clause 11—Expulsion of peers who have made donations to a political party—
“(1) A member of the House of Lords who has made one or more donation or loan to a political party with an aggregate value of more than £11,180 since 1 January 2001 ceases to be a member of the House of Lords on 1 February 2026 unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the political party which received the donations or loans pays to the relevant member of the House of Lords the full aggregate value of those donations or loans on or before 9 January 2026.
(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“donation” means a donation which is published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recorded donations under section 69 of the of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
“loan” means a transaction published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recordable transactions under section 71V of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.”
This new clause provides for a member of the House of Lords who has made registered political donations or loans of over £11,180 since 2001 to cease to be a member of the House of Lords unless those donations and loans were repaid.
New clause 12—Life peerages not to be conferred on donors to political parties—
“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1, after subsection (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—
“(1A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised to confer a peerage on a person in respect of whom the conditions in subsections (1B) and (1C) are met.
(1B) The condition in this subsection is that the person has provided the Prime Minister with a declaration that, since 1 January 2001, that person—
(a) has not donated or loaned more the £11,180 to a political party; or
(b) had made such a donation or loan, but that it has been repaid in full.
(1C) The condition in this subsection is that the Prime Minister is satisfied that the declaration made under subsection (2) is true.
(1D) For the purposes of this section—
“donation” means a donation which is published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recorded donations under section 69 of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000;
“loan” means a transaction published by the Electoral Commission in its register of recordable transactions under section 71V of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.””
This new clause would prevent a life peerage being conferred on a person unless they had declared that they had not made a donation or loan to a political party of over £10,000.
New clause 13—Exclusion of life peers who have recently been members of the House of Commons—
“(1) No person who was a member of the House of Commons shall be a member of the House of Lords—
(a) during the Parliament in which they were a member of the House of Commons;
(b) during the Parliament following the last Parliament in which they were a member of the House of Commons;
(c) during a period of five years commencing on the last day on which they were a member of the House of Commons.
(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section, section 4 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (effect of ceasing to be a member) applies as if that person had ceased to be a member in accordance with that Act.”
This new clause provides that no one who was an MP in the current or previous Parliament, or in the previous five years, is eligible for appointment to, or to remain as a member of, the House of Lords.
New clause 14—Removal of power to make political appointments—
“(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.
(2) After section (1) (1) (power to confer life peerages) insert—
“(2A) No recommendation may be made to His Majesty to confer a peerage except by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.””
This new clause would prevent peerages being conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless done so on the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
New clause 19—Requirement on Government to publish legislative proposals—
“The condition in this section is that the Government has published a draft Bill containing—
(a) provisions to remove bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England from membership of the House of Lords,
(b) provisions to reduce the number of members of the House of Lords to no more than 650, and
(c) such other provisions as the Government considers are appropriate to give practical and equitable effect to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).”
This new clause requires the Government to publish a draft Bill to remove Bishops from the House of Lords and reduce the membership to 650 or less.
New clause 20—Purpose of this Act—
“Whereas it has not been expedient at present for the Government to bring forward legislation to reform the House of Lords, the purpose of this Act is to provide that the Lords Temporal are peers appointed under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.”
This new clause describes the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment 2, in title, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to provide for bishops of the Church of England no longer to be entitled to membership of the House of Lords;”
This amendment is consequential on NC1. It would amend the long title of the Bill.
Amendment 3, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to make provision for mandatory retirement from the House of Lords;”
This amendment is consequential on NC3. It would amend the long title of the Bill.
Amendment 4, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to make provision for the expulsion of Members of the House of Lords for non-participation;”
This amendment is consequential on NC4. It would amend the long title of the Bill.
Amendment 13, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to provide for a requirement for members of the House of Lords to meet standards of propriety;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC9 and NC10.
Amendment 14, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to exclude from membership of the House of Lords persons who have made certain political donations or loans;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC 11 and NC12.
Amendment 15, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to exclude former members of the House of Commons from membership of the House of Lords for a specified period;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC13.
Amendment 16, line 2, after first “Lords” insert—
“to preclude the conferral of life peerages other than upon the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC14.
Amendment 9, line 3, after “peerages” insert—
“to impose a duty in connection with securing a democratic mandate for the House of Lords”.
This amendment is consequential on NC7.
Amendment 11, line 3, after “peerages” insert
“to preclude the conferring of life peerages against the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission;”
This amendment would change the long title of the Bill and is consequential on NC8.
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as I open this Committee of the whole House.
As I noted a number of times on Second Reading, this is a short and focused Bill. It delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the rights of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This Bill is a matter of principle. In the 21st century, it cannot be right for there to be places in our legislature reserved for those born into certain families. Having now seen all the amendments tabled by parties from across the House, it is clear that there is no principled objection to the aim of the Bill, which is to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. Therefore, I hope that all Members across the House can join Government Members in voting for this important and long-overdue legislation.
I look forward to hearing from hon. Members over the course of today’s debate, but I shall start with the detail of the Bill itself. Clause 1 is clear, straightforward and central to the overall purpose of the Bill. It removes membership of the House of Lords from the remaining hereditary peers. Specifically, clause 1 repeals section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, which currently provides an exception to the general exclusion of hereditary peers from membership of the House in section 1 of the 1999 Act. Under that exception, 90 hereditary peers and those hereditary peers holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain continue to be Members of the other place.
The clause is a core part of the Bill and delivers the Government’s clear manifesto commitment to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. It will result in the removal of the 92 reserved places for hereditary peers. There are currently vacancies in the seats reserved for hereditary peers—at present, there are 88 hereditary peers in the other place. Such vacancies would usually be filled by a hereditary peer by-election, but such by-elections have been paused until January 2026 by changes to the Standing Orders agreed by the other place in July 2024.
The Government value the good work done by hereditary peers, and we have spoken on several occasions about the individuals who have served in Parliament with duty and dedication. These reforms are not personal, but they are long overdue and essential.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government would find considerable sympathy for their position if they were to make provision for those hereditary peers currently in the House of Lords who have done good work and who have acquired a lot of experience by possibly introducing a phase-out or a generous allocation of life peerages to those who are considered worthy on the basis of their past record of participation.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. There would of course be no bar on the Leader of the Opposition nominating any of those who have served as hereditary peers for life peerages in the normal way.
Sir Julian Lewis
That sounds reasonable, except for the fact that, unless there were a phasing of the process, it would not be possible within the numbers available to the Leader of the Opposition to nominate more than a small fraction. Can the Minister offer any more flexibility on that?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but, with the greatest of respect, it is for the Leader of the Opposition to nominate those whom they consider appropriate for life peerages. On phasing out, the measures in the 1999 Act were meant only to be temporary ones. Twenty-five years later, we are still having these debates.
Clause 2 abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to hereditary peerage claims. I appreciate that the subject of hereditary peerage claims may be a novel one to hon. Members and one that was not discussed on Second Reading, so let me provide a clear explanation of what hereditary peerage claims are, why they are mentioned in the Bill, and why the Government are proposing to remove the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. A hereditary peerage claim—or peerage claim, as I will refer to them—is when a person seeks to be formally recognised as the holder of the title of a hereditary peerage. Usually, the claimant of the peerage is the undisputed heir and is simply entered on the Roll of the Peerage following an application to the Lord Chancellor.
However, there can be some cases where the claim is disputed or complex. Currently, these cases are usually referred to the other place to advise the Crown on how to determine the claim. The House also confirms undisputed successions of Irish peerages in parallel with an application to the Lord Chancellor. Complex or disputed peerage claims occur very infrequently. There have been fewer than 10 claims considered by the other place in the past 50 years. Given that the Bill removes the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, it is no longer appropriate for these issues to be dealt with by the other place. That is why the Bill would abolish the jurisdiction of the other place in relation to peerage claims. The intention is that future complex or disputed peerage claims that would otherwise have been considered by the other place will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.
Undisputed successions to Irish peerages will, like other types of peerage, continue to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. As hon. Members know, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is made up of justices of the Supreme Court and other senior judges, already has a well-established constitutional role in advising the sovereign and is the appropriate body to consider these matters. The Government have discussed this matter with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is content to take on this function. Therefore, the Government believe that, following the removal of the hereditary peers, it is appropriate for the other place’s jurisdiction in relation to peerage claims to come to an end.
I thought that it would be helpful to briefly address amendment 26 to this clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The amendment makes it explicit that the jurisdiction for considering peerage claims would be transferred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government’s position is that it is unnecessary to expressly state in the Bill the transfer of the jurisdiction of peerage claims. That is because, as I have set out, matters such as peerage claims can already be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the Crown under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his amendment.
Turning to other parts of the Bill, clause 3 makes consequential amendments to reflect the repeal of section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, and more generally on the basis that there will no longer be any Members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. The amendments reflect the fact that certain provisions in the Peerage Act 1963, the House of Lords Act 1999, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 are now redundant as a result of this legislation.
Clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence. An amendment or repeal made by the Bill has the same extent as the provision amended or repealed. Subject to that, the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There are those who believe that this reform is about making the House of Lords more democratic. Clearly, the Minister cannot be among them, because these provisions do not seem to make it any more democratic in a meaningful way. Can she confirm, therefore, that she is not in favour of a more democratically elected House of Lords?
Ellie Reeves
This legislation is the first step of reform of the House of Lords, as set out in our manifesto. In our manifesto, we committed to this reform immediately, which is why we are discussing it today.
On commencement, the Bill will come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it receives Royal Assent. If the Bill passes in this Session, hereditary peers who are Members of the other place will depart at the end of the Session. The timing of the implementation of the Bill ensures the delivery of the manifesto commitment for immediate reform in a timely fashion while not undermining the business of the House with the sudden departure of a number of hereditary peers in the middle of a parliamentary Session.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) touched on when the Minister thinks more legislation will be coming forward, and the Minister proudly boasted about delivering on one of Labour’s manifesto commitments. When, over the next two, three or four years, does she anticipate the other pieces of legislation will be forthcoming to deliver on the rest of the manifesto?
Ellie Reeves
We have made it clear that this is a first step of reform. We are committed to the other reforms set out in the manifesto, but it is important that there is proper consultation and that we take time to ensure that they are done in the right way. That work is ongoing.
Subject to the timely progress of the Bill, it will give due notice to existing hereditary peers, allowing for opportunities to give valedictory speeches, which is consistent with the approach taken in the 1999 Act.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
On the future reforms, does the Minister not accept that when House of Lords reform was discussed in 1998-99, the hereditaries were retained as a temporary measure, yet the Labour Government never came forward with the second stage? Does she appreciate that many of us are slightly cynical about this Government’s ever bringing forward a future stage, so the solution might be to delay commencement until they bring forward proposals?
Ellie Reeves
Opposition Members had 14 years to bring about reform of the House of Lords, if that was what they wanted to do—but alas, they did not. Instead, this Government are taking an immediate first step on the road to reform of the House of Lords. It is long overdue and we are getting on with it.
Clause 5 simply establishes the short title of the legislation as the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2024”. If the Bill is passed in 2025, the short title will automatically be changed to the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025”.
I note that a number of new clauses have been tabled. Of course, I look forward to hearing from the newest zealous member of the cause for constitutional reform, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), as well as from the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and others. I will not prejudge what they have to say on these matters, but I note again that this is a focused Bill that delivers on a clear manifesto commitment.
As I have said, the Bill is the first step in the Government’s broader plans to reform the second Chamber. We recognise that other elements of that agenda are more complex, and it is right that we take time to consider them properly.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Why are the Government proceeding with such timidity and “first steps” when they have such a large majority and could push through their will if they wanted to?
Ellie Reeves
This is an immediate first step on the road to wider reform, and one that is long overdue since the 1999 Act. It is right that we are getting on with it, and doing so in the first Session of this Parliament.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady has tried to paint the Labour party as a great reforming party; yet in 2012, when there was an opportunity to reform the House of Lords systematically, Labour Members voted against it. Why is she so scared to take on more bold suggestions to deliver her manifesto?
Ellie Reeves
Previous attempts to reform the other place all in one go have failed. We want to see immediate reform of the other place, which is why we are getting on with this straightaway. We can then engage and consult on how best to deliver the other reforms, which we have set out clearly in our manifesto.
Alongside the Bill, the Leader of the House of Lords is engaging in dialogue with the other place on taking forward reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. In fact, as we speak, she is leading a debate on that very subject in the other place. I look forward to further discussions on this matter in the House in due course, so that we get it right. None of the amendments that have been tabled contest the objective of the Bill to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. They should, therefore, not prevent us from making progress on this important and long overdue reform.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour to speak to the Bill in Committee. When we last discussed it, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—a very great man—set out why the Opposition do not approve of the way in which the Government are going about this change. We believe that this nervous little Bill is misconceived and perhaps, at its worst, dishonest.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am a bit worried about what my hon. Friend is saying. Why do we need a comprehensive plan at all? Why not just leave it alone? As that great conservative, Lord Falkland, once said, “When it is not necessary to do something, it is necessary not to do it.”
Alex Burghart
As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.
Sir Julian Lewis
My hon. Friend made a passing reference to a fear that what is going here is a form of gerrymandering. Does he agree that if generous provision were to be made for really active remaining hereditary Members, of whom there are probably quite a few, to be given life peerages on a one-off basis, and on the basis of merit, that would dispose of the suspicion of gerrymandering?
Alex Burghart
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strikes at the critical failure of the legislation, which is that really the Government are seeking to remove Members of the upper House who happen not to take the Labour Whip. What we all agree on—or what I hope we all agree on—is that the role of the Lords is that of a chamber of scrutiny, and we must welcome more expert scrutiny. We have seen from the behaviour, attendance and work of hereditary peers that they are an intrinsic part of that scrutiny, so it is highly suspicious that the Labour party should seek to remove them. Indeed, if we set the precedent that the Government of the day can remove Members of one House because they do not agree with them, where will it end? Those Cross Bencher hereditary peers who will be axed by the measures have, as far as I can see, done an excellent job, yet they are not being given another way out such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman will know that provisions in the 1999 Act stipulate a specific number of hereditary peers by party affiliation, making the Lords the only place where the party of a by-election victor is guaranteed before a vote has been cast. He is worried about a loss of expertise in the Lords as hereditary peers are expelled. If those peers stay—I do not think that they should—does he acknowledge that the ringfence protecting party political positions ought to be removed?
Alex Burghart
My point is more that the Government are seeking to remove highly experienced people without offering another way out. We would have been happy to debate that, but we are instead seeing an attempt to deliberately cut out a group of peers from the constitution.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the shadow Minister clarify his party’s position on House of Lords reform? We have heard two or three different views from the Conservative Benches. I remind him that, if we feel that hereditary peers are doing a good job, there is an opportunity for the leader of his party to give them life peerages.
Alex Burghart
It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Prime Minister will create 40 peers at his command—I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman’s career was progressing at such a rate. We all know that that is not what is happening here; we all know that, in the coded words of the Minister, it is goodbye to the 88 hereditary peers, whose voices will not be heard any more. Our position is that it is time for a constitutional conference to consider these matters, and that the major issue is how to have an upper House that does not challenge the primacy of the Commons in conducting proper scrutiny of Government legislation in order to improve it.
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a speech in the spirit of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), on why the legislation does not pass the efficacy test that I set for it on Second Reading. There is no suggestion that it will make the House of Lords a more effective chamber. A reasonable test of the legislation is whether it improves the status quo. If it does not, why on earth are we pursuing it? Indeed, why are we even debating it?
Alex Burghart
As ever, wisdom from the Deepings. The truth is that this will not make the upper House a better Chamber for scrutiny. All it will do is remove some of the Labour party’s opponents from that House.
The Labour party promised in its manifesto that
“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation”
of the Lords. The manifesto promised that that modernisation would consist of a mandatory retirement age of 80, a new participation requirement, a strengthening of
“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”
from that House, reform of the appointments process, and improvement of
“the national and regional balance of the second chamber.”
Although we on the Conservative Benches might not agree with those proposals, the Labour party promised to introduce them immediately, but the only immediate modernisation being undertaken is to remove a group of hard-working and diligent peers, including 33 Cross Benchers and their Convenor, for the crime of not being Labour party placements.
Freddie van Mierlo
As I am surprised that the Conservatives, as the so-called party of aspiration, are stalwartly defending the principle of hereditary peers. Do they not accept that, in a meritocracy, positions in the legislature should be open based on merit, not inheritance?
Alex Burghart
The point that we are making through our amendments is that the Labour party is undermining a key facet of the upper House: scrutiny. We are talking about a body of 88 hereditary peers who have already been performing that job, and have done nothing wrong, but are losing that job because of the measures introduced by the Bill.
Alex Burghart
I will give way one more time and then I will endeavour to conclude my remarks.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. Is he suggesting that life peers—I declare an interest in that my partner is a life peer—are unable to undertake the role of scrutiny? Even with these modest reforms, which are a stepping stone towards greater reform, my party will still be only the third largest party in the House of Lords, while his will still be the largest by some margin. Is he honestly saying that his life peers are unable to take scrutiny seriously?
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has married so well. Of course, life peers do a fantastic job of scrutiny—they do so every day, and I enjoy reading their lordships’ Hansard. What we are talking about is a group of 88 hereditary peers, who have done a very good job in scrutinising Government legislation, but who are being removed, through no fault of their own, simply because they do not fit with the Labour’s party’s views. We believe that that is wrong.
I turn now to amendment 25 in my name, which concerns the very simple Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed, and should certainly not be proposed for political advantage. We have inherited a constitution that has evolved through the generations and has the distinction of working. The current constitution of the other place has been effective in bringing expertise and a degree of independence to the work of legislative scrutiny. Like much of the uncodified British constitution, one might not have created such a system from scratch, but the tried-and-tested checks and balances of the House of Lords have complemented the work of the elected Commons.
The Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber, and that is the point: our House has primacy. We can see the dangers of ill-though-through constitutional change. None of us in this place will forget the difficulties caused by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a foolish measure introduced by the coalition Government that created all manner of unintended consequences. It was rightly repealed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament to reinstate tried and tested long-standing conventions. Let that be a warning to the Government as they meddle, in the name of petty politics, with long-standing conventions that work. Walter Bagehot eloquently described the “dignified” and “efficient” elements of our constitution. In a sense, the hereditary peers represent both thanks to the way in which they diligently scrutinise legislation. Labour must take care that pulling on one thread—in this case, that of the hereditary peers—does not unravel a great deal more.
Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the changes to the composition of our legislature. It makes the simple request that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be allowed to scrutinise and report on the Government’s so-called “immediate modernisation” plans, and that this place should agree before legislation comes into force. That plan would be led by the Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed but carefully considered, and implemented only if the House is confident that it will work.
Amendment 26, which stands in my name, seeks clarity on the issue of disputed peerage claims. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I understand that existing mechanisms are in place. For that reason, we will not press it.
To conclude, we on the Conservative Benches think that this Bill is a sham of reform. It is fundamentally misconceived, focusing on the composition of the other place rather than on how we can ensure that it best performs its vital role of scrutiny. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not stand up to scrutiny—a Government led by politics, not by principles. My amendments seek to reinsert some principles into this process: that promises to both Parliament and the electorate should be kept, and that we should legislate only for what works, not for political advantage. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendments today.
Gareth Snell
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair. I will keep my comments brief, because I know that that will entertain the Committee more. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I have not started yet—give me time. I very much enjoyed the Bill’s Second Reading, which is why I have come back for a second go.
I genuinely welcome the new reforming zeal of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), and I believe there are merits to some of the amendments that bear his name. I am glad that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) has said that those amendments are part of our manifesto, because they are, as is this Bill. I am sure that means that he will want the Salisbury convention to be accepted in the other place when the Bill reaches it, meaning that Opposition Members in the House of Lords will make no attempt to prevent its successful passage. I am sure that at some point in today’s proceedings, an Opposition Front Bencher will be able to confirm for the record that the Bill will pass smoothly once it has passed this House.
We have just heard the importance of the primacy of this House stated eloquently by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). This House is going to make a decision on the Bill today—to decide whether we believe there should be a role for hereditary peers in the House of Lords—and it will then be sent to the House of Lords. Given the importance of convention, history and statute, I am sure that he will be able to confirm that the House of Lords will happily pass it, without any attempts by Opposition Members to amend it. I doubt it, but I hope so.
The point of the Bill, and the reason why I believe it deserves support from all sides of the House, is that—as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out—this is the first step in a package of House of Lords reform.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is a serious individual on the Government Benches, and I respect him very much, but does he not understand that given the delicate set of constitutional arrangements we have, it is not unreasonable to expect the Government to come forward with a plan that sets out several steps, taking us on the journey that they intend to go on, with some substance behind it? Given the number of years the Government have had since the previous changes over a quarter of a century ago, it is not unreasonable to expect a little more detail on those second, third and fourth steps, or a timetable.
Gareth Snell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and to a degree, I agree. That is why we set out in our manifesto the package of reforms and changes that we hope to see made to the other place during this Parliament, in order to deliver on the promises we made in the election. He is absolutely right to say that constitutional reform is a delicate thing; that is why it is important that we make these reforms with consideration and in small steps, to make sure that the unintended consequences of large-scale reform are not felt.
The Conservative party made modest reforms during previous Parliaments, such as giving Members of the House of Lords the ability to retire from it. That was a small change, but one with consequential impacts—far more Members have left the House of Lords under that provision than will be impacted by the provisions in this Bill. That was done thoughtfully, carefully, slowly and, I think, consensually.
Similarly, I think that the principle of this Bill—that hereditary peers will no longer have the right to sit in the House of Lords—has already been established in this House. None of the amendments that have been tabled today seeks to overturn that; none of them seeks to make a case for the continuation of hereditary peers. As such, the consensus that the right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about exists in this Bill. The more we seek to tack on to the Bill—taking other elements of constitutional reform and adding them to the Bill—the more we risk that consensus falling apart. We risk this House not having a settled position, creating the opportunity for potential wrecking amendments. I do not suggest that Opposition Members are tabling wrecking amendments, but they could be tabled elsewhere to completely flatline what is a very modest and sensible reform.
Sir Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable speech. Would it be fair to say that he means this is almost a case of going for the low-hanging fruit on which everybody has a measure of agreement, while recognising that future steps may be a lot more complex and potentially dangerous if we get them wrong?
There is one aspect that is not of itself an argument for keeping the hereditary peers, but is something that will be lost if and when they go. That is, the hereditary peers are one group of people who are not appointed subject to prime ministerial patronage. Without straying beyond the scope of today’s debate, could the hon. Gentleman give us an inkling of whether something like putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis is a reform that the Government might consider, bearing in mind some of the controversial cases where people have been imposed on the House of Lords in defiance of the commission’s preferences?
Gareth Snell
I could not possibly begin to offer an opinion on the thoughts of the Government, but I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have heard that question.
Gareth Snell
I know when to move on. [Laughter.] I would also never dare to call the hereditary peers low-hanging fruit, because that would be slightly disrespectful to them, but I understand the tenor and the tone of what the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is saying, and I think he is right. This is about starting with something on which there is broad consensus and where the impact on the other House will change our constitutional set-up, but not in a way that will ultimately be detrimental to the important scrutiny role of the House of Lords.
I agree with the right hon. Member about the important role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the robustness with which its advice should be treated. Without wishing to go down the route of political point scoring, there is something to be said for independent verification of an individual’s suitability for that place, and how that ought to be respected and put on a footing that would potentially mean that incidents like those we have seen under previous Prime Ministers would not recur. Again, I would love to be able to make a commitment in this Chamber, but the only things I can commit to are those relating to my constituency and my own personal opinions.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Member spoke about the need for consensus. Has he read new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), which would remove the bishops from the upper House? I am sure that is something on which there is great agreement on the Government Benches. Does the hon. Member feel able to support new clauses 1 and 2?
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a great example of where on the face on it, there may seem to be consensus, but I fear the immediate impact would not be as simple as he thinks. We have an established Church in this country. The Church of England is an established Church—it is part of who we are. I fear that the removal of the bishops from the House of Lords would open up a whole series of other conversations about whether or not we still have an established Church. It would potentially open up questions about political and ecclesiastical overlap. Again, I think we should debate those things; we should have time to debate, discuss and consider the role of the clergy and whether it is right to have bishops in the House of Lords. I do not see why that has to be done through a tacked-on amendment to this Bill, but it is something we should discuss in the future.
Sir Gavin Williamson
We do not usually have so much debate in Staffordshire on these matters; we usually have a lot of consensus in Staffordshire. I want to clarify that the amendments that I seek to make to the Bill would not disestablish the Church of England, but would remove from our constitutional arrangements an anomaly—just as the Bill attempts to remove an anomaly.
Gareth Snell
The right hon. Gentleman is right: this is probably more Staffordshire than anybody needs to hear in this debate, so I will conclude my remarks momentarily.
I do not disagree with the necessary principle that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward about whether or not bishops should be entitled to seats in the House of Lords by virtue of their being bishops. On Thursday, a Bill is to be debated that would amend the right of women bishops to sit in the House of Lords, because we have always, over time, gently updated and amended our constitution to ensure that it reflects the society we want to be. I would welcome an opportunity to properly debate and consider this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not his intention to disestablish the Church of England by the removal of the bishops, but there are consequences to these actions, which deserve more consideration and debate—
Gareth Snell
The right hon. Gentleman asks, “What are they?” That is why we should have a debate in the future to give us an opportunity to explore that. Today, having had a Second Reading debate, we have the Committee stage of this Bill to look exclusively at the responsibilities of hereditary peers and the role they play in our democracy.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Instead of saying that we need a debate in future on whether such a reform might risk disestablishment, will the hon. Gentleman explain what he considers to be the legal and constitutional consequences that would risk disestablishing the Church?
Gareth Snell
I think the very fact that we that we would be seeking to expel the bishops, who are the representatives of the Church of England, from the national legislature, would by its nature start a consideration of that process. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may say that it does not, but he does not know that. I fear that a well-meaning amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge would create a more significant debate about the role of the Church in our country. Although we may want to have that debate, I am not sure it should be triggered on the back of an amendment to a short, tightly drafted Bill about the role of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk wants to bring something forward, I would be more than happy to talk to him about how I could support it, but it should not be tacked on to a Bill on which there is already clear consensus around the role and responsibilities of hereditary peers. That, I hope, deals with the point that he raised.
Finally, on Second Reading we heard a great deal about our manifesto and the Labour party’s commitment to House of Lords reform. The ’99 reforms were one of the most significant changes to our constitutional settlement that there had been for a very long time. It was not just about the expulsion of the hereditary peers, but the creation of the Lord Speaker and the removal of the Law Lords to sit in the Supreme Court. It was a package that came forward, over time, in a series of Bills to implement the commitment that we made at the ’97 election. That, for me, is the start of where we are today. We will put through the Bill that does the first part, bank that and then move on. I know that there is an appetite across the House for considerable House of Lords reform—that has been evident from Opposition speeches—but we need to bank what we have done and move forward.
I hope that today we shall pass the Bill through Committee unamended and on to Third Reading, so that it can make its way to the other place where, because of the commitment that I know the Minister will give in summing up later, the Salisbury convention will be engaged; that it can pass through the House of Lords quickly, without change; and that we can move on with the rest of the reform that we require.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, which stand in my name, and their associated consequential amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), simply because I think that much of what he said supports my amendments. Certainly some of the points he made, I shall be making also.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are proud that it is our party that has for decades led the call for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. However, we do believe that broader and bolder reform of our upper Chamber is needed, which is why I have tabled these two new clauses to extend the powers of this legislation. The new clauses would finally see the House of Lords with a democratic mandate and would ensure that the House of Lords Appointments Commission could never again be sidestepped and ignored by an unscrupulous Government.
Sir Julian Lewis
I welcome the hon. Lady’s point about strengthening the House of Lords Appointments Commission, but at the risk of broadening the debate a little too far, can she explain why it would be a sensible idea to have a second Chamber of elected parliamentarians? It would be rather like more than doubling the size of this House, but with Members in two separate places, possibly elected by different electoral systems and at different times. It is impossible to imagine more of a recipe for deadlock and conflict.
Sarah Olney
I very much look forward to having that debate in a future Session of this Parliament and on a future piece of legislation. That is why I tabled new clause 7—to call on the Government to make a commitment to future legislation, so that we in this House can debate and support broader and further reforms to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recall that, in fact, we have had that debate? We had it last in a proper sense in 2007, on Jack Straw’s proposals when, on the basis of the consensus that we are trying to establish here, consensus there was none, and the thing descended into complete chaos. Would she remember that, when making her proposals? If she thinks there will be consensus on this extremely difficult issue of an elected House of Lords, I am afraid she is in cloud cuckoo land.
Sarah Olney
Well, how polite of the right hon. Gentleman to say so. Obviously, I do not personally recall what happened in 2007. What we are trying to establish today are the steps that can be taken to reform the House of Lords. We very much support the step that we are debating today—that first step upon which, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is broad consensus. We want to see broader reform of the House of Lords and we want the Government to bring forward further proposals in due course. New clause 7 is about pushing them to produce those further proposals in a timely fashion, so that we can hold that debate in this Parliament and progress the cause of measures on which we can find consensus across the House.
Sir John Hayes
Given that the hon. Lady’s amendments are not likely to be passed, I assume that, on the grounds of logic and consistency, she will vote against Third Reading of the unamended Bill. As I said earlier, and she implicitly conceded, as it stands, the Bill does not make the House of Lords one ounce, one iota, one fraction more democratic.
Sarah Olney
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We intend to support the Bill, because we want to see the abolition of the hereditary peers; that is very much part of what the Liberal Democrats want. However, we want to see more; we want to go further; we want to see broader reforms. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have heard not only an appetite from all sides to support the Bill—as the Minister said, there is broad consensus across the House for that—but a great zeal on the Tory Benches for further reform. I therefore do not understand why there would not be broad support for my new clause, which calls on the Government to enshrine in this Bill a commitment to go further, because that is clearly what so many Tory Members are saying they would like to see.
With so much trust in politics having been destroyed by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government, we must take this opportunity to underscore the integrity of Parliament, with transparency and democratic authority in our second Chamber. We are grateful to the Government for introducing this legislation so early in the Parliament. Fundamentally, the Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege.
New clause 7 would impose a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected Members. Around the world, trust in the institutions and levers of the democratic process have too often frayed over recent years. In our democracy, we must ensure that the vital link between the people and their institutions remains strong. A democratic mandate is central to that mission. Reform of our upper Chamber has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics after the chaos of the previous Conservative Government. By introducing a democratic mandate for Members of the House of Lords, we can ensure that trust in politics is strengthened.
The disregard with which the previous Conservative Government treated the public’s trust threatened to erode faith in our democracy. The Bill is an opportunity to underline our commitment to democratic values and to begin to rebuild that trust. The new clause would strengthen the democratic mandate of the second Chamber, and Liberal Democrats call on the Government to support it as well our calls for wider reform to modernise our electoral system.
We want to strengthen democratic rights and participation by scrapping the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am sure that there is a lot on which Members of all parties can agree. As the hon. Lady noted, I tabled a new clause that would remove the bishops. Will the Liberal Democrats support that? It is a policy that Liberal Democrats traditionally supported. Will they support it today if it comes to a vote?
Sarah Olney
I am happy to say that we support that ambition long term. However, I do not believe that the Bill is the correct vehicle for it. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is currently a widespread consensus on the Bill and tacking on new clause 1, which the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) tabled, would threaten its passage in the other place. I want the Bill to be passed as quickly as possible, so we will not support that new clause today.
We want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. We also want this new Labour Government to be bold in transferring more powers from Westminster and Whitehall. We believe that local authorities know best what their communities and towns need, and we want the Government to acknowledge that by boosting their authority and powers.
We continue to support the findings of the Burns report in 2017, which recommends cutting the House of Lords to 600 peers and outlines ways in which to ensure that that happens. Although the removal of hereditary Members is an important step in that process, we will continue to push the Government to make further reforms in future. In particular, we look to them to uphold their manifesto commitment to introducing a retirement age, a measure which would further aid the reduction and subsequent management of the size and membership of the upper House.
We want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy. Ultimately, we want to move towards replacing the House of Lords with an elected Chamber. We believe that moving to a fully democratic, elected Chamber is essential to strengthening the integrity of Parliament and the authority of our second Chamber. New clause 7 would enshrine a democratic mandate for our second Chamber in the Bill, thus strengthening the integrity of our Parliament.
New clause 8 would prevent a life peerage from being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission recommended against the appointment. We have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which ingrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system.
We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not follow in the footsteps of the previous Conservative Government, who allowed the other House to balloon in size, and that they will do everything possible to prevent a culture of sleaze and cronyism from developing in their Administration, as we saw under the previous Conservative Government. As former Prime Minister Boris Johnson proved by becoming the first Prime Minister to ignore the advice of HOLAC, making deeply inappropriate appointments to the other House, it is far too easy for a culture of sleaze to develop in the heart of Government.
It is essential that we strengthen and improve public confidence in politics. I hope the Minister agrees that accepting this amendment would strengthen the integrity of any Government and prevent the kind of behaviour I have described from returning to Westminster. The new clause would ensure that recommendations made by the House of Lords Appointments Commission could no longer be bypassed by the Prime Minister, improving the integrity and democratic powers of our second Chamber.
I am glad that the Government have indicated that the Bill is a first step in reforming the other place, and that in their manifesto they committed to reforms such as changes to the appointment process. I am grateful to the Minister for the Cabinet Office for his recent commitment to consider improving the mechanisms for reviewing appointments to the other House and implementing safeguards to protect against cronyism. If the Minister and the Prime Minister are sufficiently convinced that they will never override HOLAC—which they should be—do they agree that enshrining that principle in law is a good thing?
New clause 8 would strengthen the powers of HOLAC and I urge the Minister to support it to remove the perception that the House of Lords will now be more subject to patronage. I also ask him to set out a timeline for introducing broader reforms, which would bring the appointment of peers more in line with those of other honours, such as knighthoods, which require an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate.
We are clearly living in a new era of politics. Political engagement is at an historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001, with fewer than 60% of eligible voters casting their ballot. It is vital that we do all we can to restore public trust in Government.
It is also important that Parliament represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. Currently, not a single hereditary peer is a woman. The privilege of hereditary peer membership exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber. The Bill, which removes the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step in moving towards a more representative Parliament.
I hope we can all agree on the inappropriateness of hereditary status as a qualification for membership of a second Chamber in a modern parliamentary democracy, and that being the son, grandson or great grandson of a former courtier, colonial administrator, or 20th-century businessman is neither reason nor justification for a seat in a democratic Parliament.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the Bill and we are grateful to the Government, because in the legislation and subsequently we hope to see the most significant modernisation of the upper Chamber in a quarter of a century.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am a proud, elected Member of this House. Like everyone in this place, I was sent here by my constituents to fulfil the greatest honour of my life for as long as the people of Leeds South West and Morley give me permission to do so.
I have heard Opposition Front Benchers say today that the Bill is based not on principle, but on political advantage. Serving in Westminster should never be an inalienable birthright. We can all get behind that basic principle. The very concept of hereditary peers remains indefensible in the 21st century. We are one of only two nations that currently has them. There should not be 92 seats in the other place reserved for people born into the right families. It is time to end that.
This Bill not only sets out our ambition to remove this archaic right, but shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative. It is just the start of our commitment to reforming the other place and improving its ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public. It is right that, after the immediate start on hereditary peers, the Government will take time to consider how best to implement further reforms, with the public and peers heavily involved in those discussions. Given the enthusiasm among Conservative Members for the changes that may be coming, I look forward to their leading the charge with us to reform the other place.
That said, there has been some confusion on the Conservative Benches about the Opposition’s position on the Bill. On Second Reading, I enjoyed the suggestions that we were going too far, as well as the suggestions that we were not going far enough. Conservative Members appear to want more debate on the broader changes that we suggest for the other place, but they spent their time in government blocking such changes for more than a decade. Zero progress was made.
Mr Sewards
I will happily give way to whichever Member is more enthusiastic.
Nick Timothy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman has presented an argument that is based on the principle that hereditary peerages are wrong. Will he give us a clear, principled argument in favour of life peerages? Why does he believe that that is acceptable when those peers can legislate for a lifetime—for decades—with no accountability at all?
Mr Sewards
I emphasise that hereditary peers are in the House of Lords because they are born into a particular family. That cannot be right. Life peers are there because they are appointed, usually because of expertise that they can offer in scrutinising legislation. I therefore suggest that life peers definitely have the advantage over hereditary peers simply because they are not there through the family they were born into.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. He makes a persuasive and strong argument. What right does he think the Bishop of Winchester has to vote on matters relating to his constituents in Leeds South West and Morley, or to mine in Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge? What gives that bishop the right to be a legislator? What is the argument?
Mr Sewards
I have read the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment and understand his arguments, but the changes that we are proposing today are quite simply a down payment on the broader changes we will be bringing to the other place. And when we bring those other changes forward, I look forward to marching side by side with him through the Aye Lobby.
I gently suggest that many of the problems in our country today have been made significantly worse because the Conservative party has often prioritised keeping its factions happy ahead of any coherent policy making for our country. We have seen a microcosm of that today, and we saw it on Second Reading. It appears from most of the amendments submitted in Committee that the Conservatives do not have a problem with the substance of the change that we are offering, so I look forward to seeing many of them march through the Aye Lobby with us.
The other place plays an incredibly important role in our democracy. Its Members both scrutinise and improve legislation passed in this place, which has been very welcome—depending on who we ask—over many years. But the change we are considering today is very simple and is necessary to fulfil the promise we made at the general election: that we would end the outdated practice of hereditary peers.
I may not look it, but I am old enough to remember the last Labour Government. They started the process of reforming the other place, and it was clear then, as it is now, that it was a transitional compromise. It may have taken a while, but it falls on this Government to see through the work they started. This is an incredibly simple and effective change to the other place and I urge all Members of this House to support it.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I appreciate having had the opportunity to table a number of amendments to the Bill, very much in the hope of improving it and ensuring that we get it into the best possible place to deliver change—change that will ensure that the laws going through Parliament are scrutinised better and more democratically.
I appreciate that in politics there is a certain amount of robustness, a certain amount of argument, a certain amount of the “Punch and Judy politics” at which we all despair. We should be looking to do more and to do better. There are a number of things that the Labour party set out in its manifesto that I think command broad public support, and there are a number of things that it did not spell out in its manifesto that it is implementing and that most certainly do not command support. What does command broad public support is some of the changes Labour set out for the House of Lords. That is why I have tabled new clauses 3 and 4. I firmly believe that there is strong support for the introduction of a minimum contribution requirement in the House of Lords.
Freddie van Mierlo
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 4 does not take into account illness or maternity and paternity leave, and that perhaps eight weeks is a little too brief?
Sir Gavin Williamson
New clause 4 clearly sets out an intention to deliver on what Labour’s manifesto wished to introduce, and I would be happy to work with Government Ministers and the Liberal Democrats spokesman to ensure that we get this legislation into the best possible shape.
Some of the attendance records in the upper House leave me a little shocked. In the 2019-24 Parliament, of the 966 Members eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament, 28 did not attend at all—did not even bother to turn up—and 116 attended on less than 10% of the sitting days, which is not particularly active. I quite understand why Labour Front Benchers, when in opposition, alighted on that and felt that it needed to be included in their manifesto. That is why I tabled new clause 4. I firmly believe that there is support for it not only on the Labour Benches—Labour Members stood on their manifesto, so presumably they support that proposal—but on the Opposition Benches. During that same period, 158 Members of the upper House voted in less than 10% of the Divisions they were eligible to vote in.
Sir Julian Lewis
I hate to strike a discordant note with my right hon. Friend as he and I have fought shoulder to shoulder in many battles, but is it not an illustration of the Pandora’s box one might be opening to consider what the situation would be if all these people turned up at the same time? I doubt very much that the upper Chamber would be capable of handling it, which then leads us to the question of how to reduce the numbers to a manageable proportion. So my right hon. Friend is getting into difficult waters with all of this; he had better be careful what he wishes for in getting all these people to converge on the House of Lords at once.
Sir Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend and I agree on so many things, but perhaps I am just wanting to see this change happen. By adding new clause 4—introducing Labour’s manifesto commitment as part of this Bill—we can significantly reduce the size of the upper House and avoid the kind of intimate crush that he sets out.
Gareth Snell
I do not wish to pause the right hon. Gentleman while he is in the middle of his intimate crush, but as someone who is always a fan of a clause IV, I understand what he is trying to achieve with this new clause 4. However, I would put to him one point. Under new clause 4(2), participation in a Division would in itself not be the only thing required; a Member could simply turn up, be seen and take their seat, and they would not have to take part in a Division or contribute. So his new clause would not achieve what he is seeking. He will undoubtedly bring this measure back in a future Bill, so will he consider retrospective application? One of my worries is that a number of Members of the other House have not turned up for many weeks or months, and in fact there are some who over the last two and a half years have an attendance rate of less than 5%, so would it not be wrong for them simply to turn up now, get their tick and then wait eight weeks? If we were to say, “Let’s retrospectively apply this from today,” the right hon. Gentleman would have a huge clear-out of those who have not made any contributions so far, and given that they have not turned up so far, they would not be missing much.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am getting excited that the hon. Member is discovering a little radicalism, because I always felt I was in his heart, but perhaps the eyes of the Whips have squeezed it out of him of late. The hon. Gentleman makes a very thoughtful and interesting point, and I would very much like to work on a cross-party basis to get the legislation into the best possible shape.
On minimum contributions, a number of peers in the upper House have continuously failed to make a significant contribution. There are routes for them to be able to exit out of the upper House, but they have chosen not to do so. That causes real problems and real challenges for the upper House, and new clause 4 would offer a way to tackle them.
Dr Murrison
I think I will agree with what my right hon. Friend will come on to suggest, but are we being a little unfair on their lordships, since clearly a lot of them did not get the memo that says, “You have been appointed to this high honour, and you will turn up and do some meaningful work”? Some of them think they are simply at the apex of the UK honours system. Is not the fundamental issue that we have failed to separate the honours system and doing a piece of work in our Parliament?
Sir Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is spot on. There has sometimes been that confusion, and new clause 4, or anything that the Government would look to bring forward—as backed up by their manifesto and popular support for such a move—would mean that we could get the upper House working much better.
The introduction of a mandatory retirement age is another thoughtful and, dare I say it, far-reaching policy that was in Labour’s manifesto. I pay tribute to the Paymaster General. We all know he is one of the finest authors in this House, and his publications are still available on Amazon, although they are not quite as sought after as those of the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I am sure that the volume on the Prime Minister that will no doubt be coming forward will be a real hot seller, but the Paymaster General is a great author and he came up with the mandatory retirement age, I imagine, and it is a good policy. It is certainly worth including in this legislation that he is bringing forward.
It is not onerous in adding too much to the Bill, and it would have a significant impact in reducing the size of the House of Lords. We know that the House of Lords is the largest legislative chamber outside of the People’s Republic of China. The simple act of introducing a mandatory retirement age, which was a key part of the Labour party’s manifesto, would considerably reduce the number of life peers. It would also have a significant impact on reducing the cost of the House of Lords.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am sorry to declare an interest, but why is my right hon. Friend so ageist? Some people are wonderful at the age of 80, and others are useless at the age 50.
Sir Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have to respect the fact that Labour achieved a majority at the last general election. It had a manifesto to enact change—I think that was the phrase. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] This is an opportunity to do it, but the Government seem frightened. I would hate to make the suggestion that deals were done with previous Members of this House who were meant to be sent up to the other House, and that the Government would not introduce this change because it would lead to those people’s automatic exclusion or suchlike. I certainly would not want to imply that, but we need to see this change.
New clause 3 would enable the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment, and that is important, because there has sometimes been talk about the breakdown in trust in politics. There has sometimes been talk that we need to build confidence in politics. The best way of building confidence in politics is to set out our manifestos, and one party wins, one party loses and then the winner delivers on that manifesto. This is a great opportunity to do that.
I appreciate that both the Paymaster General and his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) have set out to Members that future legislation is coming. I personally think that is a slightly optimistic view, and I have sat on parliamentary business and legislation Committees in the past, so I understand the pressures on the legislative timetable. If the Paymaster General is under the illusion that he will be getting waves of new Bills going forward, he will end up at the end of his ministerial career slightly disappointed, because that eventuality simply will not happen.
Finally, I will turn to new clauses 1 and 2, which I accept were not in the Labour’s manifesto.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
It is great to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak of the Labour party’s manifesto at the last election and about how important it is that we can get through our programme for government, having been elected with such a resounding win. Does his support extend to other areas in our manifesto, such as the Employment Rights Bill? Will he also support that?
Sir Gavin Williamson
There are many areas of the Labour party manifesto that I would agree with, and there are many that I disagree with, but the hon. Lady is in the fortunate position of having a great deal more power than any Member on the Opposition Benches. She can bring influence to bear on those on her Front Bench, and I urge her to do so. There is an ability within this Bill to deliver on a number of the commitments that she made to her electorate and that the Prime Minister made to electors across the country. I encourage the hon. Lady to use her position of influence and power to encourage Government Front Benchers to deliver what she was elected to deliver. There will always be areas of agreement on both sides of the House, and there will occasionally be areas of discord where I cannot always agree with my Front Bench team, but there is an opportunity to deliver what the Labour party promised.
Gareth Snell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being so generous and gracious with his time. He rightly points out that his new clauses 1 and 2 are not Labour party manifesto commitments, so he will understand why they could cause the Bill to become unstuck when the Salisbury convention is applied at the other end, as the Minister will confirm later. Has he used his position of power and influence to confirm that Conservative Members in the upper House, with their plurality and majority in most votes, will support new clauses 3 and 4, so that the Bill can still make its passage and deliver the one thing on which we have consensus?
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman flatters me by suggesting that I have any power. Once, as Chief Whip, I could have had a gentle nudge on the tiller to make things happen, but sadly the only army I can now bring to bear is me. I will happily do what I can on these important new clauses, and I will walk side-by-side with the Paymaster General, through the Lobby to deliver for his party on its manifesto commitment, but I am afraid that is the only commitment I can make, because I would not wish to over-promise.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way in his entertaining speech. He makes several references to our manifesto, but I would like to make some references to the Conservative party’s manifesto—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
Order. I hope the hon. Member’s intervention is on the House of Lords and within the scope of the Bill.
John Slinger
It is related to references to reform of the House of Lords. There are no references to reform of the House of Lords in the Conservative party’s manifesto. There is one reference to peers but not to peers in the other place, and there are a few references to the constitution but not to our unwritten constitution. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he is now so fascinated by these measures?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a point, and I hope that his Whips have noted the support that he was trying to offer. I bring his attention to 2012, when there was an attempt at a major body of reform of the House of Lords. That was something that I was going to vote for; I wanted to see that reform in 2012 as I wish to see that reform in 2024. This may shock him and start to undermine his faith that he joined a party with radical traditions or a wish to deliver reform or change: it was the Labour party—his party—that voted that attempt down and made sure that it could not proceed.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The right hon. Member mentioned the 2012 Bill. Will he enlighten us as to how his party voted on that?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I am more than happy to do so. More Conservative Members voted in favour of that legislation, and it collapsed not through lack of support on Conservative Benches or Liberal Democrat Benches but because Her Majesty’s official Opposition at that time were going to vote against it, which meant that the numbers were not going to stack up. The decision by the Labour party and its leadership to collapse that piece of legislation meant that a significant body of reform did not happen.
I turn to the Labour party manifesto. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has had a glance at this, but possibly not. It says on page 108 that Labour would introduce
“legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”
The subsequent paragraph says:
“Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them, and…will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed.”
Those are perfectly sound points of policy, which the party stood on at the last general election, but now it chooses to ignore them.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I appreciate that Labour Members wish to earn brownie points, and I will let another earn his brownie points and edge that little bit closer to the allure of a junior parliamentary private secretaryship.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Will the right hon. Member remind me how long a parliamentary term is and therefore how long we have to implement our manifesto?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
Order. I remind Members that they should be in for the duration of the debate, or make an effort to be in for a considerable duration, before making interventions.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Thank you for your firm chairmanship of this debate, Madam Chairman. The hon. Member made a strong and powerful intervention, which I hope is noted down. I can see him being the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the junior Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs very soon. I am not sure if my commendation and support helps him in his endeavours, but I hope that it does. Of course, the hon. Member makes a thoughtful and interesting point. The Government do have time to introduce further legislation, but the reality is that pressure on time in this place is one of the greatest pressures—time is the most precious thing. I certainly would not engage in any form of political betting—I hope that can be recorded in Hansard—but if, perhaps in a previous age, I were a betting man, I might have offered this wager to the Paymaster General. I would wager a whole £5 that the Paymaster General will not be in a situation of getting any more legislation on Lords reform. I will give way to the Paymaster General, who is going to refute that.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I certainly would not enter into a wager. I would have hoped that the Conservative party would have learned its lesson on that.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I had hoped that the Paymaster General would have given a categorical assurance that there would be further legislation and that in the next King’s Speech a retirement age in the House of Lords will be introduced as part of that legislation, along with a minimum participation level, but he stayed silent. He made a little quip. I will give him another opportunity to do so, although he will probably stay in his place, which is of course his right.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I do not know where the naive assumption or belief on the Labour Benches that there will be further Lords reform comes from. There will not be any more. I was here during the ’90s when Labour attempted to bring in Lords reform and gave up immediately, with no intention of ever bringing that back. This is it—this is all we are going to get—and unless we make this a good Bill, this is all we will get in this Parliament.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an incredibly powerful point. He is absolutely right. He is a veteran of these arguments and knows how it will go because we have seen it before. This is the moment. There is not going to be another one—this is it.
I turn to new clauses 1 and 2, which are the most important of the ones that I have tabled. It is fundamentally unfair that we still have a situation where a bloc of clerics have a right and a say over our legislation—over how my constituents live. I cannot see how in today’s world that can be justified. We have not seen arguments come forward as to why these 26 bishops should be defended.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I will give way in a moment.
As an Anglican, I cannot see why I have a right to greater representation than my children, who are Catholics. I am often told, “The bishops have been there since the Reformation.” Well, lots of things were happening around the Reformation that I am not that keen to see happening today. I appreciate that the Paymaster General may have a different view on that and may want to revive some of those age-old traditions, but I do not. This is an opportunity not to jeopardise the Bill but to improve it. I recognise that the proposal was not in the Labour party manifesto, but I ask Members across the House to consider whether, in all conscience, they should vote for this anomaly to continue to exist. From my perspective, this is an issue of conscience, and of what we think and feel is right.
Those 26 bishops do not come from every component part of the United Kingdom—they do not come from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but only from England. The composition of those bishops is probably not reflective of today’s world. I feel it is fundamentally wrong that, because of the statute of 1847, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Winchester have a right to legislate on my constituents. I believe that they have an absolute right to influence the course of public debate, but from the pulpit, not in Parliament.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend allows me, on that basis, to give him a short lecture on the character of conservatism. He needs to understand that the collective wisdom of ages, vested in great institutions like the monarchy—which, by the way, is hereditary—the Church, this Parliament and the small institutions that Burke called the “little platoons”, transmitted in age-old form is always more important than the fads and fashions of any one generation at any point in time. If he understood that, he would understand why he is a Conservative.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I always have felt that my right hon. Friend was all the collective historical, accumulated wisdom that we could ever possibly want. I have always believed that the greatest strength of conservatism can be the ability to reform and to have a radical approach to change our country and the world in the shape that we wish it to be.
Dr Murrison
I am very much warming to what my right hon. Friend has to say. He rightly speaks of the Reformation, but will he recall that, broadly speaking, there were two reformations in this country? There was the English Reformation and the Scottish Reformation. We never have any discussion about the place of the other established Church, the Scottish Church, in our constitutional arrangements. That seems to be a quirk of history. I am not for one moment suggesting that Moderator of the Church of Scotland should sit in the other place, but it underscores and highlights the issue that my right hon. Friend has raised about the position of the English bishops.
Sir Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The position of the Lords Spiritual throws up more questions than it answers, and that is why I deeply urge those on the Treasury Bench to look at my amendment and to ask whether they can make their legislation better. Can they be the Government that I think they wish to be, in order to deliver that change?
Freddie van Mierlo
I certainly share much of the right hon. Gentleman’s zeal on the removal of the Bishops from the Lords. Does he share my concerns about the privileged speaking and seating positions that they have in the Lords?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I do, and if we have the opportunity to divide on my amendment, I am looking forward to the hon. Gentleman joining me in the Lobby. We can sort that problem out with this piece of legislation by voting to get rid of them, and therefore there will be no privileged seating arrangements, and a little bit more space for the wife of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the husband of the hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) and all other peers on the Government Benches, as that is where I think they sit.
I can go through all the arguments on the presence of Bishops in Parliament. Only one other sovereign country has clerics in its parliamentary body, which is Iran. I do not think that is necessarily the best model for us to base ourselves on. This piece of legislation gives us the opportunity to have a more reflective parliamentary body. Across Europe, many countries have a strong faith, where religion plays an incredibly important part in national debate and national discourse. But none of those countries, whether France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Portugal, feel the need to have that assured clerical block of Bishops in their legislature.
Less than 2% of the British population attend Anglican services on a Sunday. By taking this action to remove the bishops, we recognise that Britain is a changed country. Britain is very different today from how it was in 1999. If we look forward to when Lords reform legislation next comes forward, probably in another 20 years, Britain will be changed again. Let us use this opportunity to ensure the upper House is more reflective of our nation.
The reality is that the Lords Spiritual do not take part in many Divisions—14%. If the Labour party introduces participation requirements, it would probably mean the exclusion of a number of bishops. Data has shown that the support for having bishops in the House of Lords is incredibly low. Indeed, even in the Anglican Church support for having bishops in the House of Lords is incredibly low. Some 60% of priests back reform to the bishop’s Bench. Going back to the 2012 legislation, there were proposals to shrink the bishop’s Bench from its current 26 to 12. Yet the Labour party has shied away from all attempts to do even the most modest reform.
There are no credible examples of where it is reasonable to have bishops legislating on our constituents. The only argument from the Labour party seems to be that this is a simple Bill. Well, this is a simple amendment. It is not right that so many of our constituents who do not have an Anglican faith are legislated on by Anglican bishops. We have to make these changes and we have to seize the opportunity, because this will be the last and only opportunity to make them while this Government are in power.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair.
I would like to speak in support of the Bill, which I believe is long overdue. I thank the Minister for her contribution and welcome in particular her warm words on the importance of the Bill as a clear manifesto commitment to reform how the other place functions as “an immediate modernisation”. Since the groundbreaking House of Lords Act 1999 was passed by a Labour Government, there has been no substantive reform to the hereditaries in the other place despite an obvious public appetite to do so. Indeed, a study conducted by University College London’s constitution unit found that only 6% of respondents supported the current system.
Before having the enormous privilege of representing the people of Bolton West, I spent over a decade tackling bribery and corruption. Time and again, I have seen how trust is developed only when those responsible for decision making are truly held accountable. I will focus on the word accountability, which is gravely lacking with the remaining hereditaries. Over the course of my working career, it has become clear that the UK has an important role to play on the global stage as a world leader on political integrity, but this country’s reputation as a well-governed and, frankly, clean jurisdiction has been degraded over recent years. Countries that previously welcomed our counsel with open arms now look on it with scorn. That is why this long-overdue reform matters to me and why I passionately support the Government on the Bill.
I am sure there are some hereditary peers who undertake hard work and I have no doubt that many have a genuine commitment to public service, but the concept of hereditary peerages, hereditary privilege and being able to legislate for life merely by dint of birth belongs in the same breath as second jobs, lobbying scandals and the revolving door. It is an anachronism that needs to go. Contrary to the protestations from Conservative Members, the Bill is not about spite. Rather, it is about improving trust and accountability in our politics. The public expect high standards from our legislature, but the simple fact is that too many hereditary peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. We made that point in the Labour manifesto earlier this year, which Opposition Members will no doubt note resulted in a resounding mandate across the country to deliver change.
Sir John Hayes
The facts do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he looks at the record, he will see that hereditary peers tend, proportionally, to speak more often in debates, they tend to be more involved in tabling amendments, and more of them tend to be Whips. They are more active, in proportional terms, than the appointees—who also, by the way, lack democratic legitimacy.
Phil Brickell
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution, but he will note that I did not mention activity or participation in the other House. I mentioned democracy and democratic accountability, which hereditary peers do not have.
Phil Brickell
We will come on to life peers shortly.
This is an important change that was in our manifesto. As you will recognise, Madam Chair, it is important because we need equality of representation, which is vital if we are to retain confidence in the way in which both this House and the other place operate. It is 66 years since women were allowed to sit in the other place, but there are currently no women among the hereditary peers there, and I for one am embarrassed by that. It is a disgrace. As a member from the north-west, I should add that it has not escaped my attention, or that of my constituents, that individuals from my part of this great nation are under-represented in the other place—especially, again, among the hereditary peers.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, 35% of hereditary peers live in London and the south-east. I do not accept that a hereditary peer who is the son of a duke, an earl, a viscount or a marquess is any better prepared to scrutinise education than the daughter of a plumber or the son of a nurse.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful speech, and one of great merit. Does he believe it is right for English bishops, and only English bishops, to be able to vote on Scottish affairs and rule the roost over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I think that that point is very much akin to his own argument.
Phil Brickell
I admire the right hon. Member’s penchant for House of Lords reform, but I will come to these points later, if I may.
The consequences of not acting are no less than existential when it comes to trust in our politics, in this place and in the other House. Trust in politics is at an all-time low, which is a legacy of 14 years of cronyism and corruption from the party opposite. Indeed, polling conducted by the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition earlier this year—[Interruption.] I think that if the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) listens to what I have to say, he will reflect on it. Two thirds of respondents—two thirds—felt the UK was getting more corrupt, and in 2023 only 12% of respondents told the Office for National Statistics that they trusted political parties. It all adds up. Turnout in July was 60%, the second lowest in a UK election since 1885. At a time when autocratic hostile states seek to undermine us at every turn, democratic engagement has rarely been so important.
I believe that that this Bill is a small but important step towards restoring that trust, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised we would do during the election campaign. The Committee will also note what I very much hope are the impending appointments of an ethics and integrity commissioner, an anti-corruption champion and a covid corruption commissioner. Those are all vital measures, alongside the Bill, to improve standards and increase accountability. I urge the Government to confirm those appointments as soon as possible. They are further steps towards showing the country that it is vital to regain trust in politics as a means of improving lives for all.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The point about trust in politics is valid, and the hon. Member’s statistics showing a deterioration in that trust over the last couple of decades are probably something for all of us in this Chamber to reflect on, notably the politicians who are newest to the House. I am not sure how hereditary peers, who have been serving for decades, since the time when trust in politics was far higher, are to blame for the modern lack of trust. That is more for those in this House to consider, especially newer Members, rather than people who have given lifelong and diligent service in the other place.
Phil Brickell
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. Hereditary peers are there by dint of birth, not by dint of their service or contribution to public life. He talks about decades of service, which may accrue over a period of time, but that is merely by dint of birth. We will shortly come to appointments to the other place, which touches on the point about accountability and trust.
I want to talk about the various amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). As colleagues have said, it is a great shame that he did not discover that he had such a penchant for reform and modernisation during his 14 years as a Member of the governing party.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I voted for House of Lords reform in 2012. I hope that he will take the opportunity to withdraw his comment, given that in 2012 his own Front Benchers voted against reform or indicated that they would do so.
Phil Brickell
Unless I am mistaken, the previous debate on this Bill was the first time that the right hon. Member mentioned House of Lords reform in this place.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge have correctly noted that our manifesto included many of the amendments that the Conservative party is attempting to push through today. I look forward to working with our Front Benchers on further modernising commitments that were enshrined in our manifesto, which I can assure Conservative Members I have read. Those commitments include changes to the appointments process to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber, a mandatory retirement age, a
“long-term commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”,
and a participation requirement. However, I am sure that Conservative Members agree that anything as knotty, unwieldy and fundamental as constitutional reform will inevitably have to be incremental. Doing too much too soon may cause damage.
I note that the Conservative party took that logic to its extreme over the last 14 years by bringing forward no substantive reform whatsoever. There was no mention of Lords modernisation in the Conservative party manifesto, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) mentioned. The meagre changes made under previous Conservative Administrations comprised nothing more than tinkering around the edges at a time when the other place needed to be urgently dragged into the 21st century.
I will not support the amendments. If Members present are genuinely committed to modernising how our democracy works, I look forward to constructive engagement with the Government and the Opposition throughout the course of this Parliament. I commend the actions taken so far by the Government and will support further measures over time to modernise how the other place works. A mature democracy such as ours—centred around the mother of Parliaments, no less—simply cannot continue with an unelected, hereditary upper House.
We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who talked about, in his words, gerrymandering. Let us talk about gerrymandering. Let me recall one statistic that is worth reminding the House about: for every one and a half days that former Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss was in power, she created a life peer—a total of 32 during the course of her 49-day premiership. Much like the hereditary peers, those new legislators will have a seat in the House of Lords for life. How can that be right? Indeed, it is clear to me that the House of Lords Appointments Commission does not present a particularly high bar for appointments. Once the immediate first step is completed, a number of ambitious steps must be taken to deliver genuine, lasting reform of the way we do politics in this country.
In summary, this Bill will help to wrench our political system kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The Conservatives, including the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, sat on their hands for the last 14 years. We have been in government for four months, and we are already delivering. I look forward to voting for the Bill tonight.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 9 to 14, which stand in my name, and all the associated amendments, but I will also support any amendment that would reduce the size of the House of Lords and limit its authority in our legislature, as long as it remains a wholly democratic institution.
I am quite a simple soul. I am just someone who intrinsically believes that if you represent the people, you should be voted for by the people. I believe that if you are to legislate, it requires consent through some sort of electoral mandate from a group of people who vote for you to go into a legislature to represent them and who allow you to make the laws of the land. That is a simple belief and I think it is generally supported by the majority of the British people. Certainly the latest opinion polls on the House of Lords show that only about one in seven people in the UK think that the House of Lords in its current condition is worth supporting. A vast majority want a fully elected House of Lords, and that is what Labour promised. That is what they said they would deliver. That is what they commissioned Gordon Brown to do, and he came back with a report that said he would do it. And, of course, it has not happened.
I am touched by Labour Members’ naive faith that there will be more than this Bill. It is quite touching that they actually believe that a succession of pieces of legislation is going to come through that will incrementally deal with all the issues of the House of Lords. I am sorry to break to it to them, but that is not going to happen.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman’s party has long talks about constitutional change in this country, but it is our party that delivered devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as a Mayor for London and the London Assembly. His party has only talked about it. Is that not the reality of our party delivering on constitutional change?
Pete Wishart
Yes, of course we are delighted that we have the Scottish Parliament. I congratulate and thank the Labour Government for delivering that, and they were right, but they have never delivered anything when it comes to the House of Lords except the reforms of 1999. That is the only thing that they have brought forward, other than this pathetic, minuscule Bill that does something that should have been done centuries ago. We are supposed to congratulate them and thank them for getting rid of the most ridiculous class of parliamentarians anywhere in the world: the hereditary peers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is absurd. Well done for finally getting rid of the barons, the dukes, the earls and all the other assorted aristocrats! That should have been done centuries ago.
The commitment that I am waiting for from Labour is the commitment that it gave over a century ago. Do Labour Members know what that was? They do not know what it was, so I will tell them. A Labour party commitment from over 100 years ago—I cannot remember the exact year—said that it would abolish the House of Lords. That is a historic commitment by the Labour party that it has not even come close to realising, but it is now—thank you, Labour party!—getting rid of the earls, the dukes, the barons and the graces, so I suppose we have to be thankful for that.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of how that radical reform from 100 years ago is going. I appreciate that he may not have studied the Labour manifesto—many Labour Members have not done so either—but it states that Labour aims to make a
“second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations.”
I wonder whether he could share his thoughts on how that is going, and whether he thinks that Mrs Gray will be able to contribute to that in a significant manner.
Pete Wishart
Let’s just say that the progress has not been all that was anticipated or all that we hoped for. We could say that progress has been practically non-existent. We also had the crushing news today that our British envoy to Scotland will no longer be going there to represent this Parliament as part of her duties in the nations and regions. I can tell the House that the nation of Scotland is almost inconsolable about the fact that our envoy will no longer be going to Scotland. We were planning the street parties and practising the haka, just to make sure that she would be properly welcomed to our northern territories, but she is no longer going to be there.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Although the hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of the hereditaries, his party seems to want to create a hereditary system by allowing the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) to stand for the Scottish Parliament.
Pete Wishart
I gently break it to the hon. Gentleman that no SNP Member will ever end up in an undemocratic outrage like that place down the corridor. I do not know how many Scottish Labour Members will be in Parliament for 20 or 30 years, but about 15 of the last generation of Scottish Labour Members are now in the House of Lords. This conveyor belt that rewards a distinguished career in the House of Commons with a place in the House of Lords is one of the things I want to address with my amendments.
I had hoped to table an amendment to try to realise Labour’s historical ambition to abolish the House of Lords. Thanks to the good work of the Clerks, I knew that I was highly unlikely to secure such an amendment, and that is probably right, so I thought I would be creative and try to abolish its membership. I therefore drafted a series of amendments to try to get rid of all the distinct groups and classes of Members of the House of Lords. Again, I thought I would be singularly unsuccessful in that mission and endeavour, but I have three amendments on the amendment paper.
Those amendments are crackers, believe me, but I look forward to speaking about them. They would abolish the prime ministerial donors, appointees and cronies who fill the other place, and they would abolish the idea that former Members of Parliament can assume they will get a place in the House of Lords. I am really pleased with myself.
Melanie Ward
It is a pity to interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he is in such a state of excitement about his work, but it is difficult to take a lecture from him on delivery when this Labour Government have delivered so much in just a few short days. He may want to talk to his colleagues in the Scottish Government about their delivery on, for example, the state of the health service in Scotland.
What is the hon. Gentleman’s stance on the multiple occasions in recent years when senior figures in his party have approached friendly peers to table amendments to legislation on their behalf? It seems that those senior figures are quite happy to use the other place when it suits them.
Pete Wishart
There is a point of principle behind our position on the House of Lords, and it is a simple word: democracy. We refuse to have anybody in the House of Lords because we believe that people should have an electoral mandate—democratic backing from the people of this country—to serve in the legislature. That is something on which the hon. Lady and I will never agree. I believe she is quite happy and satisfied that unelected peers continue to inhabit the other place.
My party is hopeful that the House of Lords might sometimes challenge Governments, and perhaps make them think again, but it always backs down. Any attempt to get the House of Lords to agree to any sort of principle is a waste of time.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman is clearly very pleased with himself and his amendments. The only seat as secure as a seat in the House of Lords is a seat at the top of a regional list for proportional representation. He has tabled a well-meaning amendment to prohibit any Member who has served in this Parliament or the last from seeking a seat in the House of Lords. Would he apply that to his own party, so that any Member who has served in this Parliament or the last is not eligible to seek nomination or election to the Scottish Parliament?
Pete Wishart
I say to the hon. Gentleman, ever so gently, that he should leave bypassing devolution to his friends from Scottish Labour, because they are just a little bit better at it than him. It is their job to constantly speak about the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. To be fair to them, they have done a fantastic job—they barely even mention the UK Government. Every single contribution they make is about the Scottish Government, so maybe just leave it to them, shall we?
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart
What is wrong with that? Maybe the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) will tell me, but first I give way to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter).
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Is the reason the hon. Gentleman’s amendment refers only to the first three UK establishment parties so that it does not affect his own party, now that it has fallen to being the fourth largest party in this place?
Pete Wishart
We do not put people in the House of Lords. If people want to give us a million pounds, they can—please, if anyone is watching on TV, we could do with a million pounds. Sorry to disappoint anybody thinking about doing that, because we cannot give them a place in the House of Lords. I will give way one last time to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who I have given way to once already.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I agree with him about the necessity for probity, ethics and transparency in politics, and I also enjoy his righteous speeches in this place. Obviously, he is a moral guiding compass for us all, so will he now make a clear and unambiguous declaration that not a single person who has ever donated to the Scottish National party or served as a Scottish National party Member of Parliament has ever been given a position in a publicly funded quango, or a publicly funded seat on a board, or been in receipt of any publicly funded donation? Obviously, I want to ensure that we aspire to the bar that the hon. Gentleman sets.
Pete Wishart
What I can say categorically to the hon. Gentleman is that there is nobody who has given one single penny to the Scottish National party— [Interruption.] Again, I appeal to people watching, if they want to give us money, please do so, but one thing we can never do—we never have and never will—is, in return, offer a place in our legislature or the ability to govern in this country. We do not do that, we cannot do that and we will never, ever do that.
Let me point to the scale of the difficulty of the problem when it comes to the donors. Some 68 out of 284 nominations from political parties between 2013 and 2023 were for political donors who had handed over £58 million to one of the three main parties. Over the course of that decade, some 12 of them gave £1 million. Now that might sound familiar to some Labour Members—£1 million is what people used to give to the Labour party under Tony Blair in the early 2000s to get a place in the House of Lords. Come on! Where is inflation when it comes to this? We would expect it to cost £1.5 million to get a place in the House of Lords now, but the going rate is seemingly still about £1 million.
Cash for honours was a disaster for Labour. It was absolutely awful. We saw the spectacle of a sitting Prime Minister being interviewed by the police about the donations that were being given to the Labour party. Those donations were interpreted as inducements to secure a place in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister was interviewed under caution and two of his personal staff were arrested. After that experience, we would be right to expect some sort of clarity in their thinking to take place. They could have decided never to get into that type of territory again—that they would do everything possible to ensure that money was taken out of politics, so that there would never be a whiff of suspicion that such a thing would happen again. But not a bit of it. Donors still go into the House of Lords, money still goes into the political party, and the public want it stopped.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I intervened merely to say this: many people might assume that he is being foolish for raising issues of financial shenanigans, mismanagement, concealing money, bribes and so on, but I think that he is just being brave. Just as a matter of record, I want it to be known by the whole House that this man is not a fool; he is a very courageous man.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I will never again chastise him for quoting Proust in the House of Commons. I am sorry that I did that to him last time around.
That covers the donors. The other amendment that I managed to get included—again, this was a surprise to me—is one related to cronies. It would deny the Prime Minister the power to appoint people to the House of Lords. The Prime Minister has a prerogative that is almost unknown to any other western industrial leader—that he is exclusively responsible for appointing so many people to one part of our legislature. I think that something like 30% to 40% of the total membership of the House of Lords has now been appointed by a Prime Minister—by one man. That would make a tinpot dictator in a banana republic blush. He would want those powers in his hands immediately, but we have them in the United Kingdom. We allow a Prime Minister to determine—on his own—so many people in our legislature. That must come to an end. Of course, the temptation for the Prime Minister is to appoint his friends, to reward those who have been denied a place, to compensate people for losing their positions, to encourage people to take a role, but mainly it is to make sure that the donors are rewarded.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I think we can all pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his genius in crafting amendments; he has been very innovative. If we saw the House of Lords Appointments Commission being put on a statutory and independent footing, that would go a considerable way towards dealing with that concern. Is that something that his party might consider supporting?
Pete Wishart
If that comes up for a vote this evening, we would support it. That is one way forward. It certainly would deal with some of the more egregious power that the Prime Minister has. I think that people across this country forget that our Prime Minister has this power—that he has this prerogative to singlehandedly design our legislature. The more that people learn about some of these issues the better. The one in seven who currently support these arrangements will fall to one in 70, because the place is an absurd embarrassment—by the way that it does business, by the way that it is allowed to set its membership and by the way that it presents itself to the world.
We have an opportunity this evening to improve, deal with and get some sort of solution to what this country does on a democratic basis, but the Government are not grabbing it—they are not even prepared to kick out the bloody bishops, for goodness’ sake. How on earth, in 2024, can we be in situation where we have bishops legislating in a modern, advanced, industrial democracy? It is beyond a joke.
We are removing the hereditaries, and those on the Government Front Bench are right: there is no great objection to the hereditaries being removed. I do not even sense much of a defence from some of our crustiest, oldest colleagues, who are sitting next to me; they half-heartedly feel that they have to do it for their pals, but they are not sincere and they do not really mean it. They know that time is up for the hereditaries, and quite rightly so—it is absurd that they are still a feature of our democracy in 2024.
After this, the bishops are going to stand out like a sore thumb in a cassock. They will be the ones on the frontline when it comes to the ridicule. I have a little suggestion for my friends, the clerics down the corridor: how about sticking to their ministries? It is not as if they are without a whole range of issues just now. Would they not be better deployed dealing with some of the things that we have seen in the news over the course of the past few days, instead of concerning themselves with attempts to run our country? We live in a multi-faith and no-faith complex democracy, where so few people actually attend their Church.
This historic remnant from medieval times—that we have to have bishops in the House of Lords—is totally absurd. I will be supporting the new clauses on this subject in the name of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. In fact, they are only in his name because he beat me to the Table Office when I was trying to remove the class of bishops through the many amendments that I tabled.
The last amendments that I managed to table are a bit more trivial, but they address something that I think we still have to consider: the idea that former Members of Parliament should automatically expect a place in the House of Lords. We all know what it is like, don’t we? Towards the end of a Parliament, we all ask each other—well, no one asks me—“Are you going to get a place in the House of Lords, then, for standing down?”, and some say, “Ooh, I think so, I think so.”
There is always that tap on the shoulder for the parliamentarian who may be in the autumn of his or her career: “We’d like you to do the right thing, colleague. Would you mind thinking about standing down? We’ve got a new youthful, more energetic colleague, who would be a bit more helpful to the Prime Minister. We’ll make sure you’re all right; there’s a place in the House of Lords waiting for you.” How about ending that? It is a feature that the public particularly loathe and despair of, and it is just not right.
If colleagues want to continue to have a place in our legislature, they should stand for election. That is what most parliamentarians across the world do. Do not expect a place in the House of Lords. I have tabled new clause 13, which would deal with the issue. It states quite clearly that no one should be given a place in the House of Lords if they have served as a Member of Parliament in the current or last Parliament. I think that is fair and I encourage the Government to think about it as the Bill goes forward.
I will not be supporting the amendments tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench. I do not suppose that they would expect me to do so. I do not even understand them, and I do not think that they really understand them either. The Opposition seem to be encouraging the Government to move quicker when it comes to House of Lords reform, and at the same time they are telling the Government that they are going too far. I will let the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is on the Front Bench, explain exactly what they are trying to achieve, because I am having real difficulty following.
I will support the Liberals Democrats’ amendments, as I think they make a reasonable stab, but I say ever so gently to my Liberal colleagues that they have more places in the House of Lords per capita than any other political party in this place, so if they are serious about developing the House of Lords, why do they not just stop appointing people? That might have an impact—because all this mealy-mouthed, silly reform is not doing anything.
I will finish on this point: this is our only chance. There will not be any more House of Lords reform, regardless of what the Government say, and I know that they have said something to their Back Benchers to encourage them to come along today and tell us that there is further reform to come. There will not be further reform. All of us have seen this before. There are colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have seen this, been there and got the T-shirt—and that T-shirt says, “No more Lords reform in this Parliament.” That is what happens.
Mr Sewards
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, although perhaps less so now that I realise I have put myself in his sights. Looking back to the 1999 law, it is tempting to be jaded—especially for Members who were here then—and to think no more reform is coming. Does he accept, however, that many Labour Members, including almost all those present today, are brand-new and cannot be compared with that 1999 cohort? We are prepared to make further reforms in this Parliament—after all, the public voted for change, and we are here to deliver it.
Pete Wishart
I will hold the hon. Gentleman to his word and hope that he is successful in ensuring that it is heard by his Front Benchers. I will also say to him—and I do not mean this with any great disrespect—that I have never seen a more malleable set of Back Benchers than the new Labour Members. They do everything that they are bid—the way they read out the crib sheets from the Whips is absolutely magnificent. I have not seen a great deal of rebellion from the Labour Back Benchers, but maybe he will show the way and ensure that something happens.
I suspect that this will be our last opportunity to consider the matter in this Parliament, because it will get punted into the waiting long grass. The person I feel most sorry for is Gordon Brown. I think he actually felt that he was going to be listened to this time, and that Labour was sincere about taking forward his agenda. After the Scottish independence referendum, we were promised almost-federalism, but instead our Parliament is getting attacked day by day, Government by Government, Back Bencher by Back Bencher. Let us see if we can get back to that almost-federalism. Let us see if we can get a degree of ambition from this Government. It might be—I certainly hope so—that their Back Benchers will hold them to account, and in us they will have willing allies in achieving that.
This is an absolute mouse of a Bill, but it could be made better by voting for and passing my amendments. I encourage the House to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
If there is nobody else from the Government Benches, I call—
Richard Baker
It has been a long afternoon, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
May I say how much I enjoyed, as I always do, the witty and skilful speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart)? He has perhaps fired an early starting gun on his own campaign for election to an elected second Chamber, given that the tap on shoulder will not come for him—although his party will have to do somewhat better if he is to stand a good chance, given that he is here on his own. He spoke about donations for peerages. We can only wonder what the SNP would do with a £1 million donation, but perhaps Police Scotland know by now, given their investigations into such matters.
We have also spoken about the delivery of constitutional reform. The point that I made to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire was that Labour has been delivering on constitutional reform. I served in Holyrood for three terms: for all the talk of the Scottish National party about reform, that Chamber is in great need of constitutional reform, but nothing has happened at all on that, while in this place, we are bringing forward a significant and important piece of constitutional reform within our first five months in government.
I absolutely agree that we want a faster pace of constitutional reform in this Parliament, but let us be clear about the proposal before us. In 1997, we set out—as an initial self-contained reform that was not dependent on further reform—that the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords would be ended by statute. That is what we are here to deliver this evening. Of course, it is long overdue, as the Minister said, and that is why we have introduced the legislation so early in this Government. It is also important that this reform is a stand-alone one, so we can progress it with the utmost urgency. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is absolutely right that by taking this Bill forward as a stand-alone reform, we give it the best chance of progressing quickly, which is what we need it to do.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Returning to the substance of today’s debate, surely there should be agreement across the House that this reform is very long overdue, as my hon. Friend is explaining clearly and succinctly to colleagues. I hope that people will be mindful of that and ignore some of the more outlandish suggestions made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart).
Richard Baker
This is a fundamental issue of principle. It is important that we in this House recognise that the presence of the hereditary principle within our second Chamber is outdated and indefensible. As other Members on the Government Benches have rightly pointed out, the UK is one of only two countries that still has a hereditary element in its legislature. It is not before time that we are considering this legislation.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about how difficult it is to defend the hereditary principle for legislators, but how does he go about defending the principle of English bishops being legislators in Glenrothes and Mid Fife?
Richard Baker
We do actually have a former moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in the House of Lords. I very much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—his points were made very passionately and with great conviction—but his party was in government as a majority Government for many years, and it did nothing on that issue.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: not only were the Conservatives a majority Government in this place, they had a plurality in the other place, so they were unfettered. Does my hon. Friend accept that, while the argument of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) may be well-meaning, bolting a non-manifesto commitment on to a manifesto commitment risks derailing a Bill that has already been all but agreed under the Salisbury convention at the Dispatch Box by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and therefore risks losing all forms of reform that we are offering?
Richard Baker
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—I could not agree more. It risks derailing the Bill and the potential to make urgent progress on this particular issue, which it is so important that we as a House deal with this evening.
As other Members have said—I want to make this point very clearly—this reform is about principle, not about personalities. In my own career before taking up my seat in this House, I received the support and assistance of hereditary Members of the House of Lords in many campaigns on a whole range of matters of public policy, and I valued that support. Since my election, I have had the opportunity to speak with hereditary peers who have brought significant experience to the House of Lords, who have been diligent and committed, and who have greatly valued their role in the House. Nevertheless, it is clearly the case that in advance of further reforms, membership of the House of Lords should be based on experience and expertise, not birthright. The fact that there are still no female hereditary peers is another example of how that approach to membership of the House of Lords cannot align with what I believe should be the shared goal of making the House more inclusive and representative of wider society.
Earlier in the debate, we heard some contributions suggesting that passing this Bill would somehow jeopardise the work of the House of Lords or reduce its effectiveness. There will still be over 700 peers left, so I do not think we are in danger of a shortage of peers in this Parliament. I believe that this reform must be taken forward now, and having recently joined the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I look forward to further deliberation on reform of our second chamber.
Turning again to the speech made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, I was pleased to hear him laud Gordon Brown—that has not always been the case in speeches he has made. Gordon Brown’s leadership of the Commission on the UK’s Future, established by the Labour party in opposition, was a vital contribution to the debate on how we take forward the constitutional arrangements for government in our country. The commission’s report absolutely needs to be an active document in this Parliament, discussed in this Chamber and I hope by the Select Committee that I have just joined, when we look forward to the future of our constitutional arrangements. The report is right to set out the proposal for a council of nations and regions. It shows also the necessity for reform in regard to hereditary peers, and why those wider reforms of the House of Lords will be important in relation to public confidence in our institutions of government.
The report highlighted research showing that 71% of people in the UK back overhauling the House of Lords. That support cuts across all parties, nations and regions: nearly half the British public think that the Lords does not work well. Support for the current composition of the second Chamber was reported by the commission at just 12%. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has recorded even lower levels in other research. It just shows why this reform is desperately required if we are to attain confidence in our second Chamber.
Analysis shows that a majority of Members of the House of Lords are based in London and the south-east. If we want to increase confidence in this Parliament, in Westminster, that issue must be addressed, along with further devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom and the nations of the United Kingdom. A second Chamber whose membership is far more reflective of all the nations and regions of the UK can only help generate greater confidence in our legislature in every part of the country.
Sir John Hayes
Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman cites the Gordon Brown study, which one of Gordon Brown’s allies told me had just gone too far and therefore was not acceptable to the Labour Front Bench. But on the issue of representation in the Lords from farther away and from less-advantaged people, to achieve the sort of balance that he describes you would have to salary the Lords, would you not? It is very hard to provide for a second home or accommodation in London on £300 a day.
Richard Baker
There are many ways to achieve the balanced representation that I have spoken about. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is passionate on these issues too. I hope that he would participate in further debates, which will go much more broadly into the issue of reform of the second Chamber. I am sure that we will have opportunities to have such debates and discussion over the next five years.
Regrettably, we must also reflect on why confidence in the second Chamber is so low. Why have people lost faith in the second Chamber? I have to say that it is because of the actions of the previous Government, which so traduced and blighted the reputation of the second House that this reform—and others—is desperately needed. Public confidence is crucial. Too often, despite the best efforts of the Speaker, the Members of this House and of the other House, and the parliamentary authorities, our constituents feel detached and remote from their Parliament as a whole. I want my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, and all those we represent, to have confidence in this Parliament and our democratic structures as effective and connected to them and their communities. I am sure that we all share that ambition.
Of course there is much further to go, but I very much welcome the fact that we are finally addressing and concluding the issue of hereditary peers as Members of the House of Lords. It is an important step in the journey of much-needed reform of our second Chamber.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Labour party promised immediate reform of the House of Lords in its manifesto and set out several steps that it would take. However, the Government have introduced just one of those steps—the step that is most politically convenient for them. Is it a coincidence that their proposals would remove 84 hereditaries who do not take the Labour Whip? They seem reluctant to take the other steps. Very few Government Members seem to want the 26 bishops to stay, but perhaps their remaining is convenient because when the bishops turn up, they vote with the Labour party more often than not.
I object to the Bill because I have a genuine fear that there is no second stage. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is right: it will be this Bill and nothing else for the rest of the Parliament. Labour Members will wait in vain for the second stage. That is what happened when the Blair Government tried to reform the House of Lords. They ensured that the 92 hereditaries remained as a permanent reminder of the need for proper reform. Now the Government are removing the hereditaries, but not making clear any time scale or further proposals.
I therefore tabled amendment 24 and new clause 19. I want to pause commencement of the Bill unless and until the Government introduced legislative proposals for second-stage reform. Amendment 25, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) tabled, goes one better than amendment 24, so I am happy not to press my amendment and to vote instead for his. It provides a guarantee that proper reform will be introduced and an opportunity to reflect on the type of upper House we want.
I believe that we should have a smaller upper House, which should be wholly or largely appointed. It should not act as a rival to this place. Liberal Democrats who desire an elected second Chamber do not understand what they are letting themselves in for. Let us consider the United States, where the two chambers are sometimes commanded by different parties and very little can happen. A country with an executive presidential system can get away with that, but a parliamentary democracy could not function with a Government with a majority in this Chamber permanently blocked by an elected upper House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) has tabled several amendments that help enact the Labour party’s manifesto commitments: a retirement age, participation rates and other features that would improve the upper House.
I will vote for amendment 25, which I commend to the Cttee.
Sir John Hayes
Last time we debated this issue, I talked about legitimacy, continuity and dignity, and nothing I have heard today refutes the arguments I made then. Of course it is true that this House’s authority is drawn from the democratic legitimacy that enables each of us to speak for our constituents. We are chosen by them and answerable to them. However, that is not the only form of legitimacy.
When the Liberal Democrat spokesman offered her views on the subject, I was minded to ask, “Where do you stand on the Head of State?” Our sovereign is chosen by birth, not election. A Head of State is critical—at the apex of our constitution. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for whom I have great regard, as he knows, was appointed by the monarch, as I was when I became a Minister.
Sir John Hayes
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is edging towards the edge of his seat. I gave his speech four out of 10: two for energy, one for enthusiasm, and one for content.
Phil Brickell
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a clear distinction between having a monarch, who is a constitutional sovereign and who does not withhold Royal Assent through the legislative process, as opposed to hereditary peers, who are legislating in the other place on a daily basis?
Sir John Hayes
I will try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman because he is a new Member. We all learn something every day here, and when a Member has been here for 27 years, unless we are entirely stupid we learn a great deal, so I have picked up one or two things. The critical frailty in his argument is the difference between authority and influence. Of course it is true that the King grants Royal Assent to the Bills that we pass and so they become Acts, but the very business of him granting Royal Assent reinforces his authority, and the fact that he has a personal audience with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis, which is more than the hon. Gentleman ever will and more than I do, suggests that his influence over our affairs is considerably greater than that of most of the people elected here. It is quite wrong to suggest that the monarch does not exercise political influence and thereby political authority.
I also spoke about continuity. The importance in our constitutional settlement of the continuation of the role of the House of Lords is that it provides a degree of continuity. Members have talked about what is time-honoured and cast that aside as though it does not matter. What is time-honoured counts because it has been honed by generations of people, not merely decided upon by one group of people at one point in time.
I heard another speech which criticised birthright. If I stood here and said it was the birthright of every Briton that habeas corpus prevails, or if I said it was the birthright of every subject of this kingdom that they can speak and think and act freely, everyone would feel that it was entirely right and proper for me to make those pronouncements, yet birthright has been criticised in this Chamber as if it was nothing.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The point is that the birthrights the right hon. Gentleman describes are available to all of us, whereas the birthrights we are talking about are restricted to very few people, some of whom have inherited them from a point that is literally in the history books and is so far back, and the contribution is so archaic now, that it really means nothing. We have to be realistic about this, and that is why we are looking at the hereditary peers first.
Sir John Hayes
Some of the things which we inherit by birth are indeed universal—universal in the sense that all Britons enjoy them. They are not of course universal in the sense that those across the world enjoy them; they would love to enjoy many of the freedoms that we had earned over time due to those who came before us. As the hon. Lady said, these things go right back. The evolution of our constitutional settlement is rooted in history and shaped over time—it evolves.
And it is right that the House of Lords evolves too, so I am not against Lords reforms per se. There is a case, for example, for saying that attendance matters in the House of Lords. We do not have an amendment to this effect, but it would be perfectly reasonable to agree that those appointed to the House of Lords as life peers who never attend or attend very rarely give up their right to do so. That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable and measured reform of the House of Lords, and it would cut the numbers dramatically, because although we are frequently told the House of Lords has many hundreds of Members, those who regularly vote in Divisions tend to be drawn from the same group on both sides of that Chamber.
There are sensible reforms that could be made to the House of Lords, but this reform delivers neither in terms of legitimacy, for it makes the House of Lords no more democratic, nor in terms of efficacy, because it makes the House of Lords no more effective. One is tempted therefore to assume that it is prejudice dressed with spite that lies behind this proposal, and I find that hard to believe given the high opinion that I have of the two Ministers sitting on the Front Bench.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes
Many of my newer parliamentary opponents—I would never say enemies, of course—wish to intervene. I shall take them in order, with the Member on the right first.
John Slinger
The right hon. Gentleman was keen to score my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). He gave him four out of 10, and I think he was rather unfair.
John Slinger
Significantly higher, let us put it that way—eight or nine, I would say. If I may, I suggest that I would give Opposition Members between seven and 10 out of 10 for being patronising.
Sir John Hayes
I did not mean to patronise the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). I was being paternal or avuncular, rather than patronising, in how I dealt with him. It is a known fact, proven by events, that I have tended to encourage new Members to this House, perhaps to a greater degree than many other senior Members, and that includes Members from across the House. One of the things that one learns here—I spoke about the learning curve we all face—is that the relationships that pervade across this House are as important as the relationships we form on our own Benches.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been here a little while—seven years—and the right hon. Member has never encouraged me, although he has scolded me once or twice. He has talked about democracy and democratic reforms on several occasions in his speech. Democracy emanates from Athens and the Greek republic. That is the origin of demos, and what does that mean? It means the common people. We are talking exactly about giving common people the right to sit, not the uncommon people of the hereditary peerage. That is the point we are talking about. Demos means universal rights for everyone, not the select few.
Sir John Hayes
Ms Nokes, you will not allow me to go into immense detail about Athenian democracy, although I did study ancient philosophy. The hon. Gentleman will know that Athenian democracy was very far from the democratic principles that we hold dear. Only citizens had the vote in Athens, and the assembly there was a very partial affair, and certainly it would satisfy neither you, Ms Nokes, nor other Members.
I will return to the subject in hand for a few moments before I give way to the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies). Having made the case that the Bill does not afford greater legitimacy or efficacy, I want to speak about the authority of this place, the authority of the constitution, and the authority of Government. The authority of this place, as the hon. Member for Bolton West and others have argued, essentially derives from the fact that we are elected, but not just from that. It also derives in part from the balance in the relationship between this House and the other place.
Bicameral systems that pitch democratic chambers one against another are often less successful than the model that has evolved in this country. Although the upper House sometimes chastises this House—it certainly scrutinises us—and although it might clash occasionally with this House in its role as a reforming Chamber, in the end it defers to the elected House. A bicameral system borne of two Houses of Parliament, one of which is elected and one which is not, seems to me to be more desirable for that very reason: we do not have competing democratic legitimacies between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is why I disagree with the amendments in the name of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart).
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with taking interventions. I will boil it right down: this Government were elected on a mandate to remove the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, not to set up a wholly elected House and the concerns he is talking about right now. Does he support the Government’s mandate and legitimacy to remove those hereditary peers?
Sir John Hayes
The Government’s mandate was for a more widespread reform of the House of Lords. I will not go into it again, but the manifesto of the victorious party at the general election, which now forms the Government, suggested a whole range of measures to reform the House of Lords. I do not really approve of any of those measures.
Sir John Hayes
I will give way one more time to the hon. Lady and give her a second bite of the cherry.
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for taking the intervention. I struggle to understand what the Conservative party’s line is on the Bill. It would appear that he disagrees with a number of his colleagues. At the end of the day, how will Conservative Members vote?
Sir John Hayes
That is a matter for those on the Front Bench. I see members of the Conservative Whips Office in their place and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) sitting behind the Dispatch Box. These days, I am merely a highly regarded, distinguished and senior Back Bencher. [Laughter.] The days when I had any say in how the Conservative Opposition—or in previous times the Conservative Government—chose to vote in Divisions are gone, but they are not gone forever; this is only a sojourn on the Back Benches. I want to make that perfectly clear.
Let me return to my principal theme, which is that of authority. The authority of this House is partly born of its relationship with the other House. Were the other House to become elected, its authority would by definition grow and our authority by comparison diminish, so I am strongly opposed to an elected second Chamber. While I accept the principled argument of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and others, it is not for me. There is also the matter of the authority of our constitution. Our constitutional settlement, which we have rehearsed briefly in the debate, is dependent on that relationship, but also—I think it is fair to say—on reforms of this kind being measured.
It might surprise Members to hear that last night, I was looking at a short book written by Hilaire Belloc and Chesterton. That book, which is available from the Library of the House, rehearsed the arguments that prevailed at the time of the debate on the Parliament Act—it was then the Parliament Bill—in the House of Commons. It might surprise right hon. and hon. Members to learn, as I learned last night, that when Asquith introduced those changes—when the House of Lords rejected Lloyd George’s Budget and it became necessary to curb the powers of that House—rather than rushing to legislate, he set up a conference between both sides of the House to determine a compromise. Belloc, as Members will remember, was elected as a Liberal MP. He parodied that process and said that what came out of it was no better than what went into it. None the less, it was an attempt, at least, to reach a settlement in a dignified way on how we might reform the second Chamber. [Interruption.] It did take two elections. It took the 1906 election, as the Paymaster General will know, when the Liberals triumphed. I wonder whether he wants to intervene on me to sharpen up the history.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That particular constitutional convention did not produce a consensus. It took two general elections in 1910—one in January and one in December.
Sir John Hayes
That is precisely right. In the first general election, there was an assumption that the Government would proceed, but the constitutional conference did not produce an outcome that brought about a reform that both sides could agree on. A further general election followed, and the right hon. Gentleman rehearses exactly what that short book describes. The point is that even Asquith at that time, who was determined to reform the House of Lords, felt that ideally that reform should be based on some kind of consensus, or at least a conversation about how that reform might happen and what shape it might take. That is important, because the authority of our constitution to some degree depends on its dignity.
Finally, I want to talk about the authority of Government. We have talked about mandates. It was long ago that the term “elective dictatorship” was first used. The nature of the relationship that I described earlier between Government and Opposition and between different sides of the Chamber is important to counter the risk of a Government with a very large majority ignoring counter-arguments and becoming—I hesitate to say corrupted—altered, changed or distorted by the scale of the majority. Frankly, in this Parliament, the Labour party will be able to legislate as it chooses at every turn. As experienced Members of the House know, including those on the Treasury Bench, Governments are better when they need to compromise, reach agreements and consider amendments.
When I was a Minister, many times in Bill Committees in particular, the shadow Minister would table an amendment. I would routinely and systematically have the argument and make sure that the amendment was voted down, but I would often go back to my civil servants and say, “I think that was rather a good argument. Why aren’t we doing it? I think he or she was right. We ought to alter the Bill.” I would engage with the shadow Minister privately and look at ways in which we could improve the legislation through that kind of scrutiny. Good Ministers and good shadow Ministers always worked in that way, as I did with the now Prime Minister when he shadowed me as Security Minister.
Governments need to understand that to alter their position through that kind of exchange and consideration improves the exercise of government and adds to, rather than subtracts from, the Government’s authority. Good Governments behave in a way that, rather than taking advantage of their power, mitigates it by the choices that they make.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need to govern responsibly and reasonably, whatever one’s majority. While I was sitting here, I was interested in his record of following through on that strong belief, so I googled his name and “Prorogation”, and I did not see any results. Will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps reflect on any points when he thinks recent Governments might have abused their power?
Sir John Hayes
When I was a shadow Minister for many years, I found that some of the Labour Ministers I shadowed did the job I just described very well, and some did not. When I became a Minister, I saw that some Conservative Ministers engaged in the kind of process I have described, and some did not. There has always been variability in the way that power has been exercised across political parties. I invite the hon. Gentleman to speak to any of the people who shadowed me when I was a Minister to see if they would validate how I described the way I acted in those days. The authority of Parliament, the authority of our constitution and the authority of Government are all at stake as we consider these matters.
I return to where I started in terms of efficacy. The last time we considered these matters, Members will remember that I quoted Proust. It was a bit too rich a diet for the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He is not a Proustian. I think it stretched the canon of his reading matter beyond breaking point. Today, I am going to test him a little more and refer to G. K. Chesterton, who I think might be more within his scope. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, he is acknowledging that. Chesterton said:
“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”
It is certainly true that, based on their mandate, the Government have the right to bring this legislation, but I am not sure that they are right in doing it, measured against my tests of dignity, legitimacy, continuity and authority. For as Chesterton also said, before you take a fence down, you consider why it was put up in the first place. The balance that exists at the moment, both within the House of Lords, and between the House of Lords and this House, is precious. It works. It ain’t broke and we don’t need to fix it.
Before I finish, let me say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. We must vote against the Bill on Third Reading, because whether we are in favour of more reform—as some of my colleagues are—or no reform, the Bill does not meet the standards we would expect of good legislation. It is therefore vital that the official Opposition make their position crystal clear by opposing this undesirable and unnecessary legislation.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
For the record, when we talk about more reform, it is with a lower case “r”.
For many people, the other place in its current format embodies what Britain really should not be: it is undemocratic, it is unelected and—to touch on this only very lightly—it has had its fair share of controversial appointments. There is a suggestion of nepotism here and a dash of financial scandal there, not to mention a sprinkling of oligarchy. Therefore, it represents what a classist society of haves and have-nots can produce. As we know, some Members are there on a hereditary basis, and some are there on the whim and wishes of political leaders who, of course, have their own political motives for having them in position. It is also clear that the different regions that make up the United Kingdom do not have fair representation. The other place does not just have a geographical imbalance, but a gender one—none of which I care for.
I believe that there should be an upper Chamber. In Scotland, we have seen some ill-thought-out political policy that has been financially costly. An upper Chamber would likely have prevented that with the benefit of added scrutiny.
Like British society, the other place needs transformational change. What the Government propose is only a step in the right direction to what I, as a Labour party member, will continue to campaign for from within the party, which is ultimately to change the other place into an elected Chamber where class and privilege are not the entry requirements, but where talent and ability are what get you there.
Sir Edward Leigh
It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), such a well-loved, distinguished and senior Member—even if he has only served 27 years in this House.
I have sat through the whole debate and I did not intend to speak, but I just want to reply to a few comments. By its very nature, the debate has been confrontational—that is what we do in this place. We tend to concentrate on what divides us rather than on what unites us, and I want to say something about what might unite us.
First of all, on the ideas that divide us, we are debating whether to abolish the hereditaries. The Labour party says that it is in its manifesto and therefore it can do what it wants. We say that that is gerrymandering, that the bulk of these people are hardworking and that by nature they are Conservatives, so this is an excuse to get rid of a large number of Conservative peers. The Government will carry on and do it anyway. That is clearly very controversial.
The next proposal, it seems, is to abolish the bishops. I heard what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), but there are all sorts of objections to doing that, not least because this is an established Church. Do we really want to attack a faith community? It is part of our history. Are the bishops really doing much harm in the House of Lords? Incidentally, because of our canon law, the Catholic bishops do not want to be Members of the House of Lords anyway, although they are apparently quite willing to support distinguished laymen to help the Catholic cause there—but we all know that. I do not think that we will ever reach an agreement on abolishing the bishops in the House of Lords.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does the Father of the House agree that inevitably, given the nature of the Bill, we have been talking more about the process by which people become Members of the House of Lords than about the activity that it carries out? In particular, although not everyone in the House of Lords is an expert, a large number of them are: people who have reached the top of their respective professions, whether those professions be academia, the law, the arts or the judiciary.
Can the Father of the House cast his mind back to 1984, when he and I, having both fought the 1983 general election—he stood in Gainsborough and Horncastle, which is why he was in the House; and I stood in Swansea West, which is why I was not—co-operated on trying to have postal ballots for trade union elections? Does he remember that he introduced a Bill that got nowhere in this House, because of the strong whipping system of elected Members, but when we took it to the House of Lords we were able to persuade people on the arguments because of the light whipping? The amendment went through, and when the Bill came back to the Commons the then Government brought in their own measures to meet the point. Does he agree that, apart from creating gridlock, an elected second Chamber would not have the possibility of introducing fresh ideas that, once introduced, may be accepted by a Government in this place, but which would never get off the starting blocks if they were introduced in this place initially?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very good point. I remember that rebellion very well—it was the start of my many rebellions. I suggest to Labour Members that they should not rebel if they want get on in this place. We had a rebellion and finally won on that issue, and my right hon. Friend makes a very good point about how we won the argument. That underlines how important it is to have a second Chamber that is not composed of elected politicians. I really do not see the point of electing politicians to a second Chamber, because it would just be like this place: full of people who want to become Ministers and who are completely subordinate to the Whips.
What is the point of having an elected second Chamber? The whole point of a second Chamber is that it should be independent-minded, and the Lords are independent-minded. They regularly defeat the Government, and they actually have better debates than we do. The House of Lords is full of people who have tremendous experience in the professions, business and charities. I just do not see the point of getting rid of them lock, stock and barrel, but there is a perfectly good consensual argument that the number should be reduced. There are some people in the Lords whom we should remove either because they have not been appointed in an entirely right way or because they do not turn up.
Sir John Hayes
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, Bagehot spoke about this issue. He said that the distinguishing feature of the House of Lords is that its Members’ views are emphatically their own views. In his terms, they are not subject to social bribe, by which he meant that they are not answerable to constituents in the way we are, so they can make judgments entirely free of that pressure. That is a virtue of the current arrangements and, frankly, a virtue of the hereditary peerage too.
Sir Edward Leigh
I think we can all agree that the other place, for all that it is seemingly undemocratic, works quite well. The Lords actually listen to debates, and they vote according to their conscience. They regularly defeat the Government, and they improve Bills again and again. If it works, why change it?
Will the Paymaster General please think about the idea that I have suggested? We could get some sort of compromise by which all parties in the House of Lords are reduced by the same amount. We could reduce the Lords to around 600 Members, give more power to the House of Lords Appointments Commission and, in future, keep the number at about 600.
Dr Murrison
I am very much attracted to the argument laid out by the Father of the House. He is right to say that consensus in these sorts of matters is nigh on impossible, as poor Jack Straw found out in 2007. The Father of the House is also right to aim for a reductionist strategy in trying to decide what we can do to improve the situation. That will get a majority consensus in this House, difficult though census most certainly is in these matters.
This debate has been characterised by some levity, which is okay—it is positive. It probably reflects the fact that most of our constituents are not usually seized by constitutional matters, which is not to say that such matters are not important, because plainly they are. The attendance here today is not what one might expect for a matter of this importance. That probably reflects the fact that when we are all knocking on doors a few months ago, this kind of thing really was not No. 1 among people’s concerns, but it remains important nevertheless.
I confess that I have been on something of a journey since 2007, at which time I was persuaded that the upper House ought to be elected. I am not any more, because I have seen in the workings of this place how it is possible for this place ultimately to be challenged by a subordinate secondary Chamber that is itself elected. Try as I might, I cannot work out how it is possible to avoid that kind of situation. This is the primary part of our legislature, and that must remain the case. We must be unchallenged, but we need checks and balances, which is precisely what the upper House aims to provide.
Many have spoken today about who we might remove from the upper House. I have no objection in principle to the things that the Government are trying to do, but I am persuaded that matters of this sort should be part of a wider package, which is why I will be supporting the Opposition amendment today. However, my view is that we have probably got this round the wrong way, which is why I very much support the amendments being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) in relation to the bishops.
I remember when I was pontificating in another country—a majority Muslim country that was a nascent democracy—on democracy. At the end of my spiel, a lady put up her hand and, to her great credit, said, “I have listened very carefully to what you have said, but with the greatest of respect, who are you to come here and lecture us, given that you have within your legislature people who are there by dint of hereditary right and people who are there because they are part of a particular religious persuasion?”
We have heard some quotes today, including from G. K. Chesterton. I am not sure whether I can match that, but I think I probably can. Robert Burns said:
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
I like that. He is saying that it is important to note how we appear to other people, other countries and other legislatures, and it seems to me that that lady, all those years ago, had the measure of it. We may not think we are a theocracy in the same way as Iran is, or that we retain the hereditary principle in the same way as Lesotho or Swaziland do, but we are and we do. We need to remedy that, because appearances matter and that lady was absolutely right. That is why I support my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that.
I also agree with the assertion of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that this is it, and that it is no good hoping for another Bill. That Bill is not going to come. If it does, there is no guarantee that it will not end up in the same place as poor Jack Straw’s measures ended up in 2007. Given the difficulty with consensus, I suspect that that is exactly where such a measure would land. So this is it.
I do not particularly want to see our legislature populated by people who are there because they are representative of one particular faith community in this country. I am an Anglican, just like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. I am a practising Anglican and I value the views of bishops —of course I do—but it is simply not right to have them being politicians in dog collars generally propagating a left liberal world view. I would much rather that they were in their dioceses engaged in the cure of souls. That is where I, as an Anglican, want to see them.
I will certainly support my Front Bench’s measured amendments this evening. I very much hope that the Government have been listening carefully to what has been said. These grave, serious matters need to be debated in a careful and measured way. I see virtue not in ploughing ahead with the Bill as an emergency but in incorporating it into a wider set of proposals at a later stage, although hopefully not too late, so that we can consider these things in the round. I hope we will be able to see those proposals before too long. I live in hope.
The Labour party has had 14 years to consider all of this. My view is that this Bill will be it. That is disappointing and a missed opportunity.
Sir Julian Lewis
It was not my original intention to speak but, given the nature of the debate, and in view of the signal I have received that I might be given a little latitude to go slightly wider than the narrow terms of the Bill, I will make a single point to elaborate slightly on the intervention I made upon the Father of the House a few minutes ago.
A lot has been said about how the public are deemed to regard the status of the upper House. I am not sure on what basis such sweeping statements have been made, although I can understand that when, from time to time, someone manifestly unfit or inappropriate to be ennobled is ennobled, it may cause a degree of public concern and disillusionment.
New Members on both sides of the Committee, but particularly on the Government side, should avail themselves of the opportunities to understand more closely what the House of Lords can do that the House of Commons cannot. In the first instance, peers can bring their expertise to bear. That is not to say that all peers are experts—they are not—but a lot of them are, because they have reached the top of their profession. They are not necessarily any brighter, more intelligent or more cultured than Members of this House, but as we chose to divert ourselves from whatever escalator we could have been on, in order to become full-time politicians, we do not reach the giddy heights of those in other professions, who are then able to bring their expertise to bear on the legislative process by being taken into the upper House.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not a doctor, but could he explain the biological process by which someone inherits expertise?
Sir Julian Lewis
I am not aware that anything I have said this afternoon has been in favour of retaining the hereditaries. It has not. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier interventions, he would have known that is the case. That is why I said I am going somewhat wider than this Bill, which focuses solely on the hereditaries.
The suggestion that the upper House stands in low repute is ill-conceived, and I urge the hon. Gentleman and other new Members to take advantage of the seminars that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members and I try to organise to enable new Members from all parties to be brought into contact with leading Members of the upper House, to see what they do. That would be a good use of his and other Members’ time.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is making an important point about the subtlety of the relationship between the two Houses. I spoke earlier about the relationship between the Government and the Opposition. In an unwritten constitution, political culture prevails, and that political culture is informed by that subtlety and by those relationships. My right hon. Friend described an occasion when legislation emanated from an origin in the other place, but very often legislation is improved and perfected through that connection. That should not be lost as we rush headlong into a piecemeal reform of the House of Lords.
Sir Julian Lewis
The elements that make up the House of Lords consist of different groups of people: some have got there by accident of birth and are now going to leave; some have got there as the result of political horse-trading of some sort, and perhaps should not have been put there in the first place; but a great many have got there, as I said earlier, by having reached the heights of their various professions and having proved themselves to be outstanding intellectuals who can bring a level of specialisation to the scrutiny of legislation. Even if we in this House were on exactly their same level of accumulated knowledge, we cannot bring that same level of scrutiny because of the demands we face on our time and in looking after our constituents, which inevitably works to the cost of the amount of attention we could give purely to focusing on improving legislation.
I wish to place on record that the reason why I became an ardent advocate of an unelected second Chamber—and why I would rather have no second Chamber at all than two elected Chambers—is precisely that it is impossible to whip such a Chamber to prevent people with good ideas from persuading peers of the virtue of those ideas. Members of an unelected second Chamber are able to have at least a sporting chance of amending legislation in good ways that would not get beyond first base in this House, because the elected Members, for the most part, almost all the time, obey the whipping.
Before I was an MP, when I was a political activist, I and my colleagues managed to get four pieces of legislation into law. Since I have been an MP, I have got only one, on the privacy of Members’ home addresses, on to the statute book, because, exceptionally, that was a free vote. How many free votes happen in this House? Hardly any. The equivalent of free votes in the upper House happen all the time.
We required postal ballots for trade union elections, which was incorporated into the Trade Union Act 1984 and the Employment Act 1988. We outlawed political indoctrination in schools, which was incorporated into the Education Act 1986 and carried forward in the Education Act 1996. We prohibited local councils from publishing material that
“promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another”,
which was incorporated into section 27 of the Local Government Act 1988. Finally, we more strictly defined the concept of “due impartiality” in the coverage of politically contentious issues on television and radio, which was incorporated into the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Every one of those measures was got through the House of Lords first, and then either adopted in the House of Commons directly or brought forward by the Government in their alternative proposals. We do away with the expertise of the House of Lords at our peril. All we will be left with are machine politicians, whether they are in one elected House or two elected Houses, and that is to the detriment of our democracy, not to its enhancement.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Chair. I am honoured to serve under your chairmanship.
Before I begin my prepared remarks, I wish to commend and pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their skills of oratory and persuasion and their education and ability to entertain. It has been an absolute privilege to hear Members with such experience speak, so well-informed are they on such topics.
I also wish to speak to new Labour Members who, like me, are finding their feet and learning the ways of the world in this place. I am pleased to hear that they are passionate about pushing and challenging their party to implement the laws and changes that the constituents and the country demand. but I remind them of the consequences of that. Rebellion, as I have seen in this short time, is rewarded with sanction or suspension, so it is better to get as much as possible into this Bill now than to hope that they may ever get a chance to do so again.
The House has been made aware that faith in political parties and institutions is at a low ebb—perhaps the lowest in my lifetime. We have been told that only 12% of the British public say that they trust politicians; political parties are the least trusted of any UK public institution, and trust in Parliament is on the decline. Any measure that helps to rebuild that trust is to be supported, which is why I support this Government Bill to remove hereditary peers. The anachronistic nature of hereditary peerage contributes to the sense not only that the House of Lords is out of touch, but that all our political institutions are out of touch. It feeds a disconnect between the people and their systems of governance and reinforces a belief that politics is the preserve of another elite, the political elite, that lives in its own bubble in Westminster.
Given this urgency to rebuild faith in politics and the need for radical change to that end, it is disappointing that the Government have chosen to be so timid in their ambition. I understand that further changes could be introduced further down the road. Indeed, hon. Members have said that they will try to push for more changes. For instance, perhaps they could remove the over-80s from the Lords, or retire the 26 bishops who are automatically given a seat.
The Lords themselves have raised the idea of removing those Members who rarely, if ever, attend. But even these tame reforms appear to be too much for this Government at this stage. We need much bolder action.
Phil Brickell
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he accept that this is the first immediate measure of modernisation of the other House and that there are a number of other commitments that are enshrined in the manifesto of this Government, which will be seen to in due course in this Parliament?
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that the Bill is a positive step, but it is the smallest of the steps that could have been taken by this Government. As we all know in this place, the promise of jam tomorrow is just a promise and hardly ever materialises. We need much bolder action now. It is bad enough that we are alone in Europe in having a fully unelected second Chamber. It is frankly ridiculous that, with more than 800 Members, it is so large. I will put that into some perspective: the US Senate has 100 elected members, who serve a six-year term, and a third of the membership is elected every two years; the Canadian Senate has 105 members and a mandatory retirement age of 75; and the French Senate has 348 elected members, who serve six-year terms, half of whom are up for election every three years.
The fact that our second Chamber has been allowed to balloon out of all proportion looks more sinister when we consider that last year Lords appointees donated over £50 million to political parties. When it looks like our political institutions are up for grabs to the highest bidder, with jobs for life, is it any wonder that people see it as another private members’ club?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a case for an elected second Chamber. Does he imagine that that Chamber would be elected at the same time as this one, in which case it would be a duplicate because the electorate are very unlikely to vote in different ways on the same day, or is he suggesting that it would be elected at a different time, in which case the Chamber that was elected most recently would surely claim greater legitimacy and therefore greater authority?
Iqbal Mohamed
The right hon. Member makes a very important point. I, as a new Member of Parliament, am not educated or informed enough to answer it immediately, and I would defer to the House to define how that process would work.
Dr Murrison
I am listening with the greatest of respect and interest to the hon. Member. Does he think that there would be virtue and merit in having a unicameral system, a bit like the plan B suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), rather than having a competing elected upper House—because this is the primary Chamber in our system?
Iqbal Mohamed
Again, I will confess to my lack of knowledge on the detail around the alternative proposed by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I would defer to the House to select an appropriate working model that best represented the people of our country.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The hon. Member makes a powerful point about listening and having the best system. However, does he agree that having all the power located in one Chamber and not having a division of powers—as exists in other countries—is an idea with merit, which should be looked at? The principle of sovereignty, of course, differs between English law and Scots law, and therefore we need to have a good and proper look at our governance mechanisms.
Iqbal Mohamed
That is a very important point. I agree that representation across the four nations is key, and that the balance between the two Houses and how they work together is also very important.
We have seen what happens when people feel alienated from their political system: they can gravitate to those with divisive answers. Unaddressed political grievances combined with a lack of faith in political institutions can be a toxic combination. Reforming the House of Lords so that it is fit and proper is not the sole solution to that problem, but is a key part of the solution. We in this House, as elected officials, have a duty to do the right thing at the right time in the right way to deliver the right outcome for our constituents and our country, and the right thing is to adopt the sensible and democratic amendments that have been tabled, and the right time to do that is now.
Ellie Reeves
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for taking the time to debate these issues in Committee, and I have listened to their contributions with interest. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), as well as to other Labour Members, for providing a powerful voice in support of this important legislation.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who demonstrated on Second Reading that there is strong cross-party support for this first step in reforming the upper Chamber. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who has taken a surprising interest in these issues, and to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I stress that we are grateful to all peers, including hereditary peers, who have committed themselves to valuable public service. I reiterate that there is no block to hereditary peers coming back as life peers if their party wishes to nominate them.
What has become clear during the course of this debate is that the Conservatives do not have a coherent position on House of Lords reform. It is not clear whether the Opposition Front Benchers want to retain hereditary peers; it is not clear whether they want faster and further reform; and it is not clear whether they agree with the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. But what is clear is that they cannot agree among themselves about the Bill—more division and chaos.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister will be aware that it has been over 100 years since Keir Hardie committed to abolishing the House of Lords so, to be clear, will we have to wait another 100 years for the Labour party to get around to it?
Ellie Reeves
We have taken an immediate first step, as set out in our manifesto, to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The hon. Member will know well that there were a number of other commitments in our manifesto, and we are considering the best way to implement them. It is right that we take the time to do that properly.
I will address the amendments. New clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. The Government cannot accept his new clause. His explanatory statement says:
“This new clause describes the purpose of the Bill.”
For his benefit, I am happy to clarify the purpose of the Bill, which should be self-evident to anyone who has taken the time to read it. The Bill is designed to remove the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper Chamber. In 2024, no place in our legislature should be reserved for individuals who are born into certain families. I add that his new clause fails to take into account the presence of the Law Lords. Several such peers sit in the other place, and make a valuable contribution to its proceedings, as Members of the Lords Temporal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. His new clause therefore falls at the first hurdle, and I respectfully ask him not to press it to a Division.
Amendment 25, also tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, seeks to delay the Bill’s implementation. Delaying its implementation goes against the Government’s manifesto commitments. We were clear that we would implement immediate reform to the second Chamber by removing the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Government set out in our manifesto a number of other commitments to reforming the other place, and it is right that we take the time to consider how best to implement them. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press the new clause to a Division.
Amendments 8 and 9, and new clause 7, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, seek to impose a statutory duty on the Government to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords via the introduction of democratically elected Members. Although the Government agree with the hon. Member that the second Chamber needs reforming, we cannot accept this amendment. This is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
The Government have committed to more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals in order to provide the public with an opportunity to give their views on how to ensure this alternative Chamber best serves them. Details of the process will be set out in due course, and the House will no doubt take a close interest in that process as it is taken forward. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement the other manifesto commitments, including our commitment to consult on an alternative second chamber, engaging with parliamentarians and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament. With that in mind, I ask the hon. Member to not press her amendments to a Division.
I now turn to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and new clauses 9, 10 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, regarding the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission in advising the Prime Minister on appointments to the other place. I thank the hon. Members for their interest in reform of the House of Lords’ appointment process. I think we are all in agreement that it is vital that peers meet the high standard that the public expect of them, for the good functioning and reputation of the second Chamber and of Parliament more broadly.
Constitutionally, it is for the Prime Minister—accountable to Parliament and the electorate—to make recommendations to the sovereign on new peers. As part of its role, the House of Lords Appointments Commission advises the Prime Minister on the propriety of nominations to the House. In that role, HOLAC considers whether a person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular, and whether the past conduct of that person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute. The Prime Minister of course respects and values the commission’s advice, and will place great weight on it when making decisions on peerage recommendations. The hon. Members will be pleased to know that the Government’s manifesto committed to improving the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments, and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country it serves. The Government are actively considering how this can be achieved.
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would remove the Prime Minister’s role in advising the sovereign on new appointments and hand it completely to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. That would be a significant change to the commission’s role, one that would require very careful consideration. This, however, is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. I therefore respectfully request that the hon. Members not press their new clauses to a Division.
New clauses 11 and 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, relate to Members or prospective Members of the other place who have made registered political loans or donations of over £11,180 since 2001. The Government believe that the second Chamber is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience in support of the House of Lords’ core functions of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for vetting all candidates for propriety, and considers party donations as part of that vetting. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member not to press his new clause to a Division.
Amendment 15 and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would prevent individuals who were Members of the House of Commons in the current or previous Parliament or in the previous five years from being appointed as, or remaining as, Members of the House of Lords. I should declare an interest: my husband, until recently the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, is now a Member of the other place and is also a Government Whip. This is recorded in the list of Ministers’ interests that was published last week.
I thank the hon. Member for tabling those amendments; however, the Government cannot accept them. As I said, the Government are supportive of the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds, and believe that the other place is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience. That of course includes former Members of this place. Former Members can bring valuable insights to the other place, particularly with their experience of the scrutiny of legislation. Denying such eligibility for a specific time period would be unnecessary and prevent valuable contributions being made. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.
Ellie Reeves
The Bill has the simple objective of removing the remaining 92 spaces reserved for hereditary peers in the House of Lords, thereby completing the process started in 1999.
Ellie Reeves
I was very generous with my time in my opening remarks and we have had a full debate.
Of course, the Government have committed to wider reforms to the other place, including establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals to seek the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them. However, as I have set out, this Bill is not the vehicle for considering wider changes. I therefore respectfully request that the right hon. Member does not press the amendments.
Amendments 3 and 7 and new clause 3, which were also tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, would introduce a retirement age of 80 for Members of the other place. Amendment 4 and new clause 4, which were also tabled by the right hon. Member, seek to impose a participation requirement on all Members of the House of Lords.
Ellie Reeves
The introduction of a retirement age or a participation requirement is not the purpose of the Bill. The right hon. Member, along with other Members of the House, will be aware that the Government included a commitment in their manifesto to introduce a mandatory retirement age, whereby at the end of the Parliament in which a Member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords. I am sure he is also fully aware that the Labour manifesto included a commitment to introduce a participation requirement for peers. The House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account, and the Government recognise the valuable contribution of many peers. It is important that all Members participate in support of those core functions.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. What is being proposed in these clauses is very much in the spirit of the Labour manifesto. I appreciate the fact that the Government are going to whip their party hard in order to defeat their own manifesto and any potential changes, but will she engage with me and other colleagues to discuss how she could implement these changes as part of the Bill in the other House, because there is an appetite for them and it is disappointing, especially on the Lords Spiritual, that they are going to impose a three-line Whip on an issue of conscience?
Ellie Reeves
It is good to see the right hon. Member’s enthusiasm for reform of the House of Lords; it is a shame that he has only found it now that he is in opposition, not over the past 14 years when his party was in government and could have done something about it. This is an immediate first step, as was set out in our manifesto. We have been clear that we will consult about the implementation of the other measures set out in our manifesto and we will do just that.
We have heard a range of views today on the Government’s other manifesto commitments, including exactly how a participation requirement might work. The debate has shown why it is exactly the right thing that the Government take time to consider how best to implement the other commitments, while starting with the immediate reform that the Bill will deliver.
In conclusion, the amendments tabled by Opposition Members are not appropriate for the Bill, which deals with one principal issue—the need to remove the outdated and indefensible right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is our objective and we are focused on delivering it. The Government intend to deliver the other manifesto commitments to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. We are also committed to replacing the other place with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. As I said, we will consult on proposals and seek the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.
Reform of the House of Lords is long overdue and essential. The Government are committed to delivering those reforms, and passing this vital legislation is the first step on that journey. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Extent and commencement
Amendment proposed: 25, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to end of line 17 and insert
“only when the House of Commons has agreed a resolution which—
(a) endorses the conclusions of the report a joint committee appointed for the purpose specified in subsection (3A), and
(b) determines accordingly that this Act shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this resolution is passed.
(3A) The purpose of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords referred to in subsection (3) is to consider and report upon the Government’s stated plans for reform of the House of Lords, including—
(a) the removal of the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords,
(b) the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for members of the House of Lords,
(c) a new participation threshold to enable continuing membership of the House of Lords,
(d) changes to the circumstances in which disgraced members of the House of Lords can be removed, and
(e) changes to the process of appointment of members of the House of Lords.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect after the report of a joint committee on wider reforms of the composition of the House of Lords has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. I am grateful to all those who contributed in Committee, as well as those who contributed to the lively debate on Second Reading last month. I also thank you and your colleagues for their chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed).
This Bill is a matter of principle. It has been introduced to address an outdated and indefensible feature of our legislature, rather than as a criticism of any contribution made by individual Members. The Government have listened to the debates in this House with interest and I look forward to following the Bill’s passage in the other place, where I am sure there will be further thoughtful contributions. I thank my officials and the whole team who have worked on the Bill.
This House will send to the other place a Bill that fulfils a manifesto commitment, and our manifesto was very clear:
“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.”
That is precisely what the Bill does. It has a clear and simple purpose, a single focus, and it completes a process that started a quarter of a century ago. It sends a powerful message to people growing up in my constituency —in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran—and beyond, right across the country: “You do not need to be born into certain families to make our laws.”
On Third Reading of the Parliament Bill—that landmark reform of the House of Lords—on 15 May 1911, the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, said:
“I repeat, as I began, that our first duty, in view of the electoral and Parliamentary history of this measure, is to place this Bill on the Statute Book. It is stamped, if ever a measure was stamped, with the authority and approval of the electorate of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 15 May 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1699.]
In that spirit, I commend this Bill to the House.
Alex Burghart
I echo the words of the Paymaster General in thanking everyone who has spoken this afternoon. It has been a good natured and interesting debate.
I want to echo some words of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in praise of the House of Lords. When I first came to this place, I bumped into Lord Young of Cookham, who I had known a few years previously, and I said, “How are you getting on in the upper House as a Minister?” He said, “It’s rather harder there than it is down your end.” When I asked him what he meant, he said, “Well, you see, when I stood up as a Minister in the House of Commons, I normally felt that, with the support of my officials, I was probably the best informed person in the room. But when you get to the Lords, you face five former Secretaries of State, three former heads of the civil service and people with expertise from across the sector, and what you find there is real scrutiny.”
I love this place and I do not wish to take anything away from it, but I do not wish to see it replicated; one of us is enough. That is why, despite the fact that the Opposition disagree with many of the things that the Labour Government are doing, we have been pleased to see that they have edged away from their long-standing commitment to an elected upper House. An elected upper House would replicate this place unnecessarily. It would inevitably get in the way of the primacy of the Commons and make the passage of law harder. It was very significant that, on 5 March, Lord Mandelson made an intervention with the Lord Speaker—on his very popular podcast—and said that the proposals of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, for constitutional reform had
“barely been put in the oven…let alone…baked.”
I am very pleased that the Labour Government have taken that on board.
That said, the Bill in its present form cannot have the support of the Opposition. The Labour party has reneged on the solemn promise it made in 1998 not to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers until it brought forward a comprehensive plan for a reformed upper House. Many Government Members have said that the hereditary peers sit in the House of Lords by duty of right; well, that is not entirely right. The reason the remaining hereditary peers are in the House of Lords is that the Labour Government put them there. That was the agreement that was reached in 1998.
The remaining hereditary peers—who already sit in the Lords and scrutinise, night after night, the legislation introduced by this House—should not be treated in this way. Had the Government respected their position and made provision for them in a reformed Chamber, it would be very hard—not impossible, but very hard—to oppose this legislation. However, as it is, the Government are seeking to remove established scrutineers in order to replace them with Labour appointees, and we cannot support that.
The Minister’s argument that the Conservatives can nominate replacements is obviously not entirely genuine. Although we can put people forward, we cannot guarantee that they will go into the upper House. The Government could make that commitment tonight, but they have not done so. They have said nothing about the 33 Cross-Bench hereditary peers who will be removed by the legislation. Labour has broken its promise from 1998, and it has broken its promise to bring forward all its reforms immediately. The Conservative party will not support it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I will endeavour to be brief. I think that the Bill is to be welcomed. It is many things, but it is not, I fear, what the Government have tried to dress it up as. It is the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment, but one that was made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) made clear, back in 1997. Blair blinked because my friend Robert Salisbury did what all Cecils have done since their appointment by Queen Elizabeth: he did a bit of deal-making and they found a solution.
If you are very quiet and listen, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can hear the voices of Labour radicals of the past muttering to themselves, “Is that it? Is that what all the intervening years since 1997 and the 14 years of Labour navel-gazing in opposition, as it contemplated its radical programme for government, have produced—removing 92 people who would have been removed in any event had Blair not blinked? No democratisation at all of the House of Lords? What a wasted opportunity.” What a wasted period of opposition that was—something I hope and know that our Front Benchers will not replicate. This timid church mouse of a Bill says, “We will take away some people who we would have taken away more than a quarter of a century ago.”
The Paymaster General, who I always consider to be one of the stars of the Treasury Bench and who is a good friend, told us that the principal motivation behind the Bill is for young constituents of Torfaen to say, “Ah, a glass ceiling has been removed,” as if they have sat there thinking, “You know, I would love to get involved in public life, if it wasn’t for this roadblock to my advancement”—namely, the 92 hereditary peers. With the greatest of respect to those on Treasury Bench, I think that a greater percentage of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—and constituents of all Labour Members—are probably asking themselves when the Labour party will crash the glass ceiling of having either a person of colour or a woman lead it.
Pete Wishart
I, too, congratulate the Paymaster General and his ministerial team on getting the Bill through Parliament at such pace and so early in the parliamentary calendar, as he has said on several occasions. I really hope that this will not be it. As the Conservatives have said, this really is a timid pipsqueak of a Bill.
The Paymaster General quoted Herbert Asquith’s words about the House of Lords, but could he not have quoted Keir Hardie, who pledged over 100 years ago to abolish it? Could he not have quoted Gordon Brown, who said only a few months ago that Labour would bring forward a new democratically elected second Chamber to represent the nations and regions of the whole of the United Kingdom?
Instead, what we have is the low-hanging fruit of the hereditary peers. Is it not remarkable that it has taken until 2024 to remove the earls, the barons, the dukes—all the assorted aristocrats—and we are to give Labour great credit for doing so? This should have happened several centuries ago, not in 2024.
I hope that Labour Back Benchers are not going to be disappointed, because we have heard several contributions, on Second Reading and today in Committee, suggesting that further reform is going to be coming; that these are the first stages of a whole package of reforms that will come before this House. I have to say that we have heard it all before from successive Governments, particularly Labour ones. We were promised a succession of reforms to the House of Lords, only for nothing to be delivered, so what we need to hear from Government Front Benchers is when those further reforms are going to come. We need a clear road map for their ambitions when it comes to the House of Lords, and that has to start with ensuring that that circus down the corridor is properly reformed and that we get to a position where it will be a democratically elected House.
Well done to the Government on getting this Bill through. I really hope that Labour Back Benchers have not been sold a pup and that they will get the further reform that has been promised to them, but what we really need to hear from the Government now is about solid progress on proper reform of the House of Lords.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 3 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Merchant Shipping
That the draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.
Income Tax
That the draft Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) (No. 3) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.
Financial Services and Markets
That the draft Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (Retail Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.
That the draft Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions (Meaning of CRR Rules and Recognised Exchange) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.
That the draft Securitisation (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.
That the draft Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 10 October, be approved.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health
That the draft Barnsley and Sheffield (Boundary Change) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.—(Martin McCluskey.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union
That the draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 10 October, be approved.—(Martin McCluskey.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).
Pubs Code: Guest Beers
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
In 1916, during the great war, the Government introduced the famous “Carlisle experiment.” Concern about the intoxicating effects of Carlisle’s pubs on nearby munitions production resulted in the state ownership and control of the pubs and beer trade in my constituency from 1916 to 1973. How great, Members may ask, was the concern that it warranted the nationalisation of Carlisle’s pubs and breweries, including those of my own great-grandfather? A few short miles up the road from Carlisle lay His Majesty’s Factory Gretna. Regarded as the greatest munitions factory on earth in the first world war, it was where the cordite, nicknamed the devil’s porridge, was mixed. More a town than a factory, it stretched 9 miles from Mossband in my constituency to Eastriggs in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), the same distance as between this House and Wembley stadium.
At the heart of this gargantuan site were 30,000 workers who lived in two purpose-built townships. The factory and the townships had their own independent transport network, power source and water supply system, but not pubs. For that the workers had to walk into the small town of Gretna, where the number of pubs could not cope with the demand, and so they would board the train to nearby Carlisle where pubs were so plentiful that it was said that one could swing from the door of one public house to the door of the next without touching the ground.
Thirsty at the end of a long shift and doubtless relieved to have survived another day mixing cordite, evening-shift workers would often bribe the train driver to ensure they would arrive early enough to get the drinks in before closing time. Meanwhile, in anticipation of their arrival the barman of Boustead’s bar near Carlisle station would line up 500 shots of whisky. Drunkenness ensued. With the landlords away fighting for King and country, the elderly and the widowed who were left running the pubs, along with a depleted local police force, were powerless to control the drinking. The result was a fourfold increase in alcohol-related offences in the city, high numbers of absenteeism and low levels of production at the Gretna factory. The scale of the problem was so severe that it was thought to be the major contributing factor in the shortage of shells on the frontline. Something had to be done.
The Munitions of War Act 1915 had given the newly formed Ministry of Munitions additional powers over factories and factory workers. A central control board was established with the power to control the sale and consumption of alcohol in areas, such as Carlisle, where the excessive consumption of alcohol was believed to be having an adverse impact on the war effort. With the Munitions Minister David Lloyd George already having declared drink to be the greatest deadly foe that Britain faced, Carlisle’s pubs and breweries were nationalised in June 1916. Some 138 out of 321 licensed premises were closed, with the remainder remodelled or rebuilt.
The first state management pub, the Gretna Tavern, opened just a month later in July 1916. Members might be interested to know that the very last state management pub, the Border Reiver, opened in July 1971, just four days before the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Act was passed. For almost 60 years, all of Carlisle’s public houses were completely tied to the state-run brewery in Carlisle. The beer was brewed at a reduced level of alcohol, its advertising was tightly controlled and specified by Whitehall, and the architectural design, both external and internal, was overseen by a state-appointed architect. Consumer choice, it is fair to say, was severely limited.
Following privatisation, the pubs were sold in large job lots and snapped up by the major breweries of the day, meaning that even to this day the majority of our pubs in Carlisle are owned by large pub-owning businesses where the beer supply is tied to them. Today, pub landlords continue to face restrictions on what they can buy, sell or serve, meaning that they cannot always provide what their customers demand. For the small local independent breweries—including Great Corby, the Carlisle Brewing Company, West Walls Brewing Co. and the Old Vicarage brewery in my constituency—getting their locally produced beers sold in a local pub remains a challenge.
Several hon. Members rose—
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I, too, have brilliant independent breweries in my constituency, such as Renegade and Double-Barrelled. They make a huge contribution to our local economy and, importantly, make a great pint. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Government’s determination to improve access to the market for independent brewers and to get great local beers into our pubs?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to ascertain what she was trying to achieve. Strangford has had a resurgence of alcohol production, including the microbrewer Ards Brewing Company, just a few minutes away from me on the Carrowdore Road in Greyabbey. It is a necessity that small brewers can sell in their local pub, and I believe it was a mistake not to allow exemptions for smaller breweries. I support the calls to allow these exceptions. Does she not agree that we must do what we can to let the wonderful craft breweries have a shot in the local market?
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Society of Independent Brewers shows that 75% of beer drinkers believe it important that pubs offer a range of craft beers from small breweries, such as Glastonbury Ales and Fine Tuned Brewery in my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that small breweries should be included in the new lower hospitality rate, so that they no longer need to pay 40 times more a pint in business rates than large breweries?
Ms Minns
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I will come later in my speech to other points that the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates is campaigning on. I will make a little more progress.
Recently in Cumbria, the Carlsberg Marston’s Brewing Company closed Cumbria’s principal brewery, Jennings in Cockermouth, and brought to an end 200 years of local brewing. The need to create opportunities for local breweries to sell their local beer to local drinkers in Carlisle is, therefore, more pressing than ever.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I have two fantastic breweries in my constituency—Tractor Shed and Ennerdale Brewery—which are not that far from Carlisle, despite the state of some of the roads and rail. Would it not be fantastic if more Cumbrian breweries found a route to Cumbrian pubs for their fantastic beer?
Ms Minns
I agree with my hon. Friend. From March next year, pub tenants just 700 yards from my constituency will be able to open up a direct relationship with local breweries such as those that my hon. Friend referred to and have beer from small independent breweries served to their customers. The Scottish pubs code, championed by the Labour MSP for West Scotland, who brought it forward as a Member’s Bill, is due to be introduced in 2025. It is similar in many respects to our own pubs code, which governs England and Wales, but for one crucial element. In regulating the relationship between tied pub landlords and tenants, it aims to promote fairness and equitable treatment within tied pub lease agreements. It also allows Scottish pub tenants to enter into a guest beer agreement whereby the tenant can sell at least one beer in any format—including cask and keg —chosen by them at a price they determine. They can change that as frequently as they wish. The beer must be of a brand where less than 5,000 hectolitres—I am reliably told that is about 875,000 pints—was produced in the previous production year. That means that it is beer from small local breweries that qualifies and not that from the larger breweries.
That will empower tenants, allowing them to respond to their customers’ requests, and support small local breweries. Introducing a guest beer agreement in the rest of the UK could be worth £28 million to local breweries. It would widen consumer choice, help landlords and support small local businesses, so I am delighted that the Chancellor and Ministers have been watching developments in Scotland closely and promised in the Budget last month a consultation on ways to encourage small breweries to retain and expand their access to UK pubs. The consultation provides an opportunity to maximise consumer choice and support local businesses by enabling more guest beers. It is an important development, and it shows that the Government want local community businesses to have the opportunity to compete, grow and expand.
As we have heard, 78% of the beer sold in our pubs comes from just five global brewing companies. In comparison, our 1,700 small breweries represent only about 6% of the market. That needs to be urgently reviewed to ensure that there is a level playing field where small businesses can compete fully.
On that point, I congratulate the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates on the launch of its new “indie beer” campaign, which seeks to make it easier for beer drinkers to identify beer from independent breweries in pubs, bars and shops as demand for local beer rises across the UK. Research shows that most beer drinkers are unaware that the mass-marketed craft beer brands that we see in our pubs across the UK are in fact owned by global brewers. A good example of that from my own county is Wainwright beer. Inspired by the chronicler of our famous Cumbrian fells, the name Wainwright is synonymous with the county of Cumbria, and that leads many visitors to believe that they are sampling a locally brewed beer when they come to Cumbria; in fact, it is just one of a range of beers produced by the global beer company Carlsberg. The majority of beer consumers say that they want to buy beer from genuinely independent local breweries. I believe that SIBA’s campaign will help many more do just that.
These issues are wider than just the tenanted pub market, with small breweries facing restrictions in the leased, managed and free house pub markets as well. Perversely, many free houses are not free at all when it comes to beer. Sole supply contracts with global breweries are prevalent, restricting and determining what beers can be sold. Increasingly, these global breweries are also using proprietary equipment in pubs, which prevents a local brewery from even being able to connect their casks to the pub and offer their products to the landlord at all.
Publicans, brewers and beer consumers in my constituency hope that the Minister will be able to start the consultation process as soon as possible. I wonder whether the Minister may be able to offer some clarity on when that might commence, so that all interested parties can have the opportunity to provide their insights and experiences. It would also be appreciated if he could confirm that this will include issues experienced right across the UK, including in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will it also look at the whole pub market, including tenanted, leased, managed and free houses? Will it include both keg and cask draught beer, which is predominately sold in our pubs?
Finally, will the Minister look closely at the Scottish guest beer agreement to see whether its provisions could be included in our own pubs code for England and Wales, perhaps as part of the statutory review of the pubs code, which I understand is due next year? Should the Minister ever find time in his busy diary, I would like to invite him to visit my constituency to meet some of my local breweries and to join me for a drink—albeit not a locally brewed one—in the Border Reiver, the last pub in Britain to have been designed, funded and built by the UK Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the Minister, I have been updated on the recent wedding this weekend of the hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey). I congratulate him, and I understand that his husband Ben has been waiting quite some time to see his new husband. That is some pressure for the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
May I start by extending my own congratulations? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing this debate and on a very engaging and well-informed speech. It took us through an interesting period in her constituency’s history. I was unaware of the nationalisation of pubs in Carlisle. If that is a suggestion that she wishes to put forward for our next manifesto, she will be aware of the policy-making processes and how to do that. Unfortunately, at this stage I cannot confirm that we have any plans to nationalise pubs—that probably will not come as a surprise to anyone.
Before I go on to address my hon. Friend’s points, I will say a little more about the industry more generally, because it plays a critical role in supporting local communities in every corner of the UK. The interest that we have had in this debate shows how important pubs are. They are not just any other local business; they are a part of our history, culture and heritage, and they are a huge employer. The wider hospitality sector employs around 2.2 million people.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Minister is making a very important point, because whether it is the Carlisle Brewing Company in the hon. Lady’s constituency or Kinver Brewery in mine, our family breweries play an important role in providing that diversity of product and high-quality beer that is particular to our local communities. Does the Minister recognise the devastating impact of the Chancellor’s changes to business property relief in the Budget on the future of so many family breweries across the country?
Justin Madders
I will go on to some of the very positive things that were announced in the Budget to help breweries and small businesses in particular.
There are about 154,000 businesses in the hospitality sector, generating revenues of around £52 billion per annum. They create vibrancy in communities, support wider social objectives, provide accessible jobs, support community cohesion, and provide welcoming spaces for those who feel isolated and want to enjoy the company of others.
It is an important fact that over 80% of the beer consumed in the UK is brewed here—not in the Palace of Westminster, but in the UK—while UK brewers also export over 1 billion pints of beer annually to over 100 countries, according to the British Beer and Pub Association.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for securing the debate. Although we might not be brewing beer in this place, we do consume some of it. In the spirit of shameless plugs that we have all participated in this evening, I would like to point out that my local brewery, the Keswick Brewing Company, is serving Keswick Gold down in the Strangers Bar. If it is slightly easier than travelling up to Cumbria, I wonder if the Minister would like to join us for a pint at some point.
Justin Madders
I absolutely do thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has obviously heard that I am quite easily tempted into Strangers. It is a very important part of the facilities that the Strangers Bar offers Members the opportunity to serve guest beers. It is a great opportunity to plug great local businesses.
Small independent brewers often reflect their local area in their products, from locally sourced ingredients to their marketing, branding and style. The resurgence in brewing in the UK over the last decade has strengthened awareness among the general public of local beers, whether it is the new-style craft beers or independent breweries resurrecting well-loved local beers that had been lost in the consolidation of larger breweries.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is quite right about the importance of local brewers. Stoke-on-Trent’s own Titanic Brewery serves a wonderful pint of plum porter in Strangers now and again. It is not just about the products they sell, although if they were able to access guest beer lines they could grow their business and create more jobs; it is also about the story they tell about the history of who we are. Titanic is so-called because Captain John Smith was from Stoke-on-Trent. That is often missed in our cultural storytelling: breweries are doing a great job of exporting who we are and what we are around the country and around the world.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a really important point. It is an essential part of our culture and a real selling point for us around the world. When people come here, they want to visit a traditional English or British pub, and we have a different style in every part of the country. The point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle about some of the larger breweries now mimicking the local brands is an interesting development, which shows that imitation is the best form of flattery.
More generally, we know there are challenges for the hospitality sector, which is still struggling to recover from the pandemic. The subsequent cost of living crisis has compounded the challenge for pubs, increasing costs and the ability of businesses to repay debts. This is an ongoing struggle. Our system of business rates is particularly unfair on high street businesses. It disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. That is why the Government are undertaking a review of the business rates system, to ensure that all businesses are paying their fair share, recognising and addressing the fact that high street businesses, including pubs, have shouldered the majority of the burden for far too long.
In her Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government are freezing the small businesses multiplier for 2025-26 to protect small properties from inflationary bill increases, and that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will receive 40% relief worth up to £110,000 per business. This support package alone is worth over £2.2 billion over five years. It was also announced in the Budget that the Government would reduce the alcohol duty on draft products. This will reduce businesses’ total duty bill by up to £100 million a year and increase the duty differential between draft and non-draft products from 9.2% to 13.9%, so that a pint in the pub attracts less duty than the beer in the supermarket.
The Government will also increase the cash discount provided to small brewers and producers for non-draught products and maintain the current cash discount provided to small producers for draught products. This in effect increases the relative value of small producer relief for both draught and non-draught products. Jobs, too, lie at the heart of our plans, backed by the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading earlier this month, and local growth plans will be a cornerstone of the place-based approach. We have heard already about the importance of pubs in the local economy.
Turning more specifically to the guest beers consultation announced in the Budget, the Chancellor said that the Government will consult on ways to ensure that small brewers can retain and expand their access to UK pubs and maximise drinkers’ choices, including through provisions to enable more guest beers.
At this point, let me echo the support for the work done by the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates and the Campaign for Real Ale in championing beer drinkers’ choice and pursuing the case for more independently produced beer in pubs. We will work closely with both those organisations, but also with the wider hospitality sector, to identify barriers to market access for small brewers and how they might be addressed. I want to ensure that we have a clear understanding of the current position, and of what interventions may be necessary and the impact of those interventions.
We want to find the right solutions to help small brewers gain access to the market, but to do that we will need to understand all the issues and ensure that any interventions are proportionate, that they address the problems, and that they do not result in unintended consequences. For instance, we will want to develop a good understanding of the extent to which tied tenants use existing flexibilities, by, for example, buying beer from small brewers through their pub companies on payment of a tied release fee. We will want to understand whether managed and retail pub chains could or do offer local beers, to understand the scope for increasing the provision of local beers in other licensed premises such as restaurants and hotels; and to understand the barriers preventing local brewers from gaining access to more pubs, and the reasons for those barriers. There are a range of issues that we will want to consider as part of the consultation. I can respond to my hon. Friend’s questions about what we would consider by saying that we are ruling nothing out at this stage, and that we intend to take a holistic view of the sector.
The next statutory review of the pubs code is due to take place next year, but it is only one part of the picture, as it applies to only about a fifth of all pubs in England and Wales. As has been mentioned, there is to be an interesting development in Scotland, whose pubs code will include a guest beer provision. That does not necessarily mean that the provision will automatically be transported to England and Wales, but it also does not mean that we would not be interested to see how it pans out—although, as it will not be introduced until March 2025 at the earliest, we will need a bit of time to understand how it works. We will be able to consider that as part of the consultation, and we will, of course, consult formally on all the options available to us to increase small brewers’ access to the market. It is important for us to get a handle on the complexities of the market before we undertake the consultation. We will work with SIBA and CAMRA and will engage with a range of stakeholders in the pubs and wider hospitality sectors before consulting on options.
In response to the questions about when this will happen, I can say that we will try to get on with it as soon as we can, but we do want to undertake that work before launching the formal consultation. We understand the points that have been made and the good intentions behind the suggestions that we have heard, but we want to ensure that this works for the industry as a whole.
Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend for initiating her first Adjournment debate. I look forward to working with her on these issues in the coming months, and I will certainly be taking up her offer of a drink—although, owing to diary constraints, I will probably do so on premises closer to the Chamber than to her constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024
(1 week, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
Allow me briefly to take the Committee through the background and purpose of the draft order. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is a multilateral development bank headquartered in London. It provides high-quality project financing to support economic and private sector development in 40 different countries. The UK is the bank’s joint second-largest shareholder and hosts the EBRD’s headquarters in Canary Wharf, London.
The UK engages with the EBRD on several UK foreign, development and economic policy priorities across its countries of operation, including assistance for Ukraine, supporting the transition to a green, low-carbon economy, and promoting equality of opportunity for women, young people and other underserved communities. The EBRD has been a long-standing partner to Ukraine. Over the past 30 years, it has been the largest institutional investor in Ukraine, with more than €20 billion invested in almost 600 projects. The bank provides technical assistance, lending, guarantees and grants to support policy reform and financial assistance in key sectors including energy, infrastructure and agribusiness. The UK welcomes the EBRD’s distinctive contribution to supporting Ukraine’s resilience and recovery in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion. The EBRD’s support since 2022 has amounted to over €4.5 billion for essential priorities, including supporting Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure against deliberate and repeated attacks by Russian forces.
The UK and other shareholders have agreed that the EBRD should continue its operations to support Ukraine, and that this support should be long-term and predictable. Given the exceptional circumstances in Ukraine and the EBRD’s commitment to sound banking principles, continued financial support was not possible without additional shareholder support. Last year, shareholders concluded that a paid-in capital increase is the most effective, efficient and broad-based means of enabling the EBRD to continue to finance Ukraine. Accordingly, in December 2023, the UK and other shareholders agreed to increase the EBRD’s paid-in capital by €4 billion.
The draft order is being made to enable the Government to participate in the capital increase in proportion to its current shareholding, with a contribution of €343.6 million paid in five equal annual instalments between 30 April next year and 30 April 2029. As determined by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, 71% of that contribution will be classified as official development assistance. The capital increase enables the EBRD to continue to support Ukraine’s resilience and recovery during wartime and in reconstruction through the provision of high-quality project financing, while securing the EBRD’s financial standing and its ability to maintain support to its other countries of operation.
With the additional capital, the EBRD plans to provide a sustained level of annual investment to Ukraine of about €1.5 billion during wartime, increasing to €3 billion annually once reconstruction begins. Over the course of a decade, that will result in tens of billions of euros of financing for Ukraine as the EBRD leverages the paid-in capital on the financial markets. I hope the Committee will agree that this complements the UK’s military and fiscal support for Ukraine and enables the EBRD to continue providing financing in support of the sustainable development goals across its countries of operation.
This is a topic that all parts of the House have been united on in support of Ukraine. I therefore recommend the draft order to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as always, Sir Roger.
It is worth remembering that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was founded in 1991 to support the transition to market-oriented economies in central and eastern Europe following the collapse of socialist and communist regimes. Since then, the bank has invested more than €200 billion in more than 7,000 projects across three continents.
As a founding member of the EBRD, the UK is a generous contributor to the bank’s work. It was one of the first donors to contribute to the bank’s Ukraine stabilisation and sustainable growth multi-donor account and, in October 2023, it signed a statement of intent with the bank to help UK companies do business in Ukraine. The draft order enables the Government to make a payment of €343.6 million to the EBRD for the purchase of additional capital stock. As the Minister rightly said, this follows a decision by the EBRD’s board of governors in December 2023 to increase the bank’s capital by €4 billion.
The Opposition fully support the Government’s decision to purchase additional stock in the EBRD. Alongside ensuring that the UK maintains its stake and voting power in the EBRD, the capital increase is vital to sustaining the ongoing work in Ukraine and ensuring the bank’s ability to meet the needs of other countries in its portfolio. However, given the size of the UK’s investment, it is right that the Opposition should seek clarity on three specific, simple points, which I hope will be straightforward for the Government.
First, can the Minister tell us whether other member countries of the EBRD are increasing, decreasing or maintaining their stock shares in the bank? Secondly, as she mentioned, the EBRD has green objectives, so is support for Ukraine subject to the EBRD’s target for at least half of its business volume to be green and does that allow for Ukraine’s most urgent funding needs to be prioritised? Finally, does she believe that this capital increase will be sufficient for the EBRD to fulfil its overall mandate, or should we expect further capital requests in the future? We support the draft order, but we would be grateful for clarification of those points.
Tulip Siddiq
It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne in his place. I thank him for his support for the measure, and he is right to ask those questions.
The other shareholders of the bank have confirmed their intention to participate in the capital increases. That includes other members of the G7. I am happy to write to the hon. Member with specifics if that would be helpful.
The capital increase will ensure that the EBRD can increase lending to support Ukraine’s resilience, while maintaining activity in all its countries of operation; it is not dependent on other factors. In 2023, the EBRD’s total investment in Ukraine was €2.1 billion, compared with a total investment of €13.1 billion across all countries of operation.
The hon. Member also asked about climate change. The EBRD’s aim is for more than 50% of its total investment in 2025 to be towards green projects, reducing net annual greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 million tonnes. Since 2006, the EBRD has invested €49 billion in more than 2,600 green projects, which are expected to reduce carbon emissions by 124 million tonnes yearly. I thank the hon. Member for his constructive comments and his questions.
The draft order will enable the UK to participate in a capital increase for the EBRD, which will improve the bank’s financial capacity to increase lending to support Ukraine’s resilience while maintaining activity in all countries of operation. I am happy to write to the hon. Member on the point about the G7 countries. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the draft order.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024
(1 week, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 9 October, will implement common charger measures in Northern Ireland. In particular, USB-C will become the common charging point for a range of portable electrical devices that require wired charging.
The instrument is expected to have limited impact in practice. Many manufacturers have already moved to USB-C to continue to supply the European Union market and, as a result, USB-C has effectively become the industry default in Europe—I am sure Members are at this moment looking at their chargers and phones to see whether they have already moved to USB-C. Industry tells us that it is using USB-C for the whole of the UK to avoid supply chain complexity. Devices that comply with common charger requirements will also be able to be legally placed on the GB market, so we consider it highly likely that the same devices will be available across the whole UK.
The common charger measures aim to reduce environmental waste, increase consumer convenience and save money for consumers, as they will not need to buy separate chargers for each device. We consider that it could help businesses and deliver consumer and environmental benefits, if we were to introduce a similar standardised requirement across the UK. Accordingly, we have launched a call for evidence on that issue. The implementation of common charger measures in Northern Ireland also ensures our compliance with international law, which facilitates Northern Ireland’s continued unique dual access to the UK internal market and the EU single market.
I will set out a bit of the background. The radio equipment directive 2014 established a framework of regulatory requirements for specific categories of electrical and electronic equipment that is placed on the EU market or put into service in the EU. When we were in the EU, the UK’s Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 implemented that directive into domestic law on a UK-wide basis.
In November 2022, the EU formally adopted the common charger directive, which amended the radio equipment directive. The EU common charger directive requires, among other things, a common charging solution based on USB-C for smartphones and certain other portable electronic devices—there is a full list in the regulations—that use wired charging. That will be implemented from December 2024 and for laptops from April 2026.
To provide for its continued unique dual access to the UK internal market and the EU single market, certain EU legislation continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor framework, including the EU radio equipment directive. The instrument will therefore amend the 2017 regulations to implement the latest changes in Northern Ireland, enabling them to be legally enforced.
This instrument introduces new regulatory requirements for specific categories of electrical and electronic equipment that use wired charging and are placed on the Northern Ireland market. It amends the 2017 regulations to provide for simplification, whereby USB-C will be the common charging port, meaning that one charger will work for multiple devices, bringing cost savings and environmental benefits. The instrument will standardise fast charging technology, meaning that the charging speed is the same when using any compatible charger for a device.
The instrument will also introduce the unbundling of the sale of a charger, meaning that consumers will have the option, when purchasing a new device, of whether to buy a charger alongside it. That will hopefully reduce electronic waste and costs for the consumer. There will also be additional visual and written information about charging characteristics, the power that the device requires and whether it supports fast charging, thereby improving the information available to consumers. That will help consumers to understand whether their existing chargers meet the requirements of new devices and help consumers to select compatible chargers.
The common charger measures will apply to certain categories of handheld devices, including smartphones that use wired charging from 28 December this year and to laptops from 28 April 2026. Offences will be amended to cover the common charger requirements that I mentioned, including to ensure that consumers are offered the choice of purchasing specific categories of electrical and electronic equipment without a charging device if they wish, and that equipment is accompanied by visual information showing whether a charging device is included.
I assure hon. Members that enforcement authorities will continue to take a proportionate approach to compliance and enforcement activities in accordance with the regulator’s code. In almost all cases, we expect that by working with and supporting businesses, compliance will be achieved without the need for recourse to criminal penalties.
The Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that it considers that the offences provided for by the instrument are consistent and proportionate and will not have any negative impact on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Officials in the Office for Product Safety and Standards will provide industry guidance to ensure that businesses have all the information they need on how to comply with the new requirements, and they will liaise with Northern Ireland district councils, which are responsible for enforcing the radio equipment regulations in Northern Ireland, ensuring that they have all the necessary information to do that.
With USB-C charging effectively becoming the industry default, my view is that this measure could help UK businesses, if we provide regulatory certainty, and that consumer and environmental benefits could be delivered by introducing similar requirements across the whole of the UK, which is why we have launched the call for evidence. We expect the instrument to bring consumer and environmental benefits to Northern Ireland. It also ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
As the Minister has set out so clearly, the instrument intends to give effect to the EU common charger directive, which applies in Northern Ireland, as is required under the Windsor framework agreement signed last year by the Conservative Government. We will therefore certainly not oppose this legislation. Accepting this regulation upholds the Windsor framework and contributes to the free-flowing trade within the UK, while protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our United Kingdom, and it safeguards the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
I note that the Minister mentioned the Government’s plans to consult on a UK-wide common charging solution for electronic devices. I am sure, from a consumer convenience point of view, that we will all welcome a world in which we can be sure to find the right charger at the right time. I welcome what he said about the impact on the environment, because over time, there will be less plastic waste sitting in our drawers in our homes. However, I encourage the Minister, as he looks at the consultation responses, to consider our ability to remain independent from the EU by not blindly following this regulation across the whole UK and by consulting appropriately with all the businesses and retailers that will be affected.
Despite all the years that we were a member of the European Union, we still seem to have a situation where we all have different plugs. It is very much on the consumer’s side to welcome progress towards a world where we all have the same charger, but at the same time, I know that market forces may enable that outcome. We do not propose to oppose these regulations.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Of itself, of course, there is nothing controversial about the type of USB charger that one might use, but there is something very controversial in Northern Ireland, quite appropriately, about the source of this legislation. Here we are in this Parliament of the United Kingdom and all it can do is to nod through someone else’s laws.
The decision that in Northern Ireland a person must have the EU-style USB charger flows from a decision by parliamentarians in a foreign power. It was the parliamentarians of 27 other countries who decided that this would be the common charger to be used. And, of course, it was the protocol now called the Windsor framework—which did not change one word of the protocol—that decreed that Northern Ireland, in 300 areas of law, of which this is one, would not be subject to the laws made in this place, or in its devolved Assembly.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Would the hon. and learned Member just remind us how Northern Ireland voted in the Brexit referendum?
Jim Allister
The Brexit referendum was a national vote, and it asked a simple question: “Do you want the United Kingdom to leave the EU?” It did not ask the question, “Do you want GB to leave, and leave Northern Ireland behind?” That is what we got, in that this United Kingdom surrendered control over those 300 areas of law to that foreign Parliament. The hon. Member may be comfortable with the fact that my constituents are disenfranchised in the making of the laws that govern them. I wonder whether he would he be so comfortable with that fact if it was his constituents who were disenfranchised in the making of laws, in those 300 areas, that govern them—I suspect not.
All I ask is that my constituents have the same rights —the same enfranchising rights—as everyone else’s constituents in Great Britain. Is that too much to ask? And yet, in the making of this regulation, this Parliament is answering that question: it is too much to ask, because Northern Ireland, we are told, must be subject to foreign colonial rule. That is what it is. When we say to an area, “You will be governed by laws, not that you make, or that your Parliament makes, but that a foreign Parliament makes,” that is the very essence of colonial rule, and that is what we are subjected to.
The degree to which the Government—of course, this was done under the previous Government—have abandoned sovereignty over Northern Ireland is illustrated by the explanatory document that accompanies these regulations. It says that there will be limited impact, but that the Government did not conduct an impact assessment. Why not? Well, paragraph 9.1 of the explanatory document tells us:
“A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared…because measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of assessment.”
So laws that will affect my constituents are “out of scope” of assessment by this Parliament, and this Government, because the right to make those laws was given away to the European Parliament.
This is not about whether, in itself, the type of USB is controversial or not. It is about the constitutional point that Northern Ireland has been disenfranchised—robbed of the right to have its laws made in its own country, and robbed of the right, now, to even have an impact assessment, because those 300 areas of law are beyond the scope of assessment. That is why, for this proposal, there is only an EU impact assessment—no UK impact assessment. That, in a way, says it all.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The hon. and learned Member is making a powerful and coherent argument. I think what he is saying is that this may or may not be a good law, but that he would have liked its impact to have been assessed properly and the people of Northern Ireland to have had a say on it—the say that he has in the Committee today. Does he think, overall, that this is a good law, albeit one that, constitutionally, he would have preferred to have been passed a different way?
Jim Allister
I said that what type of USB is used is not particularly controversial. But how it is made and imposed could not be more controversial, because it is imposed through the avenue of disenfranchising the people of Northern Ireland and saying, “You will have no say over whether it is a good or bad law. It is someone else’s law, and it will be imposed upon you.” That is the mischief that I am addressing. In that mischief lies the reason why this Parliament should not be a nodding dog to someone else’s regulation.
The Minister tells us that the Government will probably bring the same requirements into GB. That is well and good, but it should have been the Government—not a foreign jurisdiction—that were bringing the prescription for the type of USBs into the whole of the United Kingdom. They should not have surrendered control over that to a foreign power.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
In regard to the specifics of how the regulations affect Northern Ireland, I seek some clarity from the Minister about part two of the explanatory memorandum. He said that he had engaged with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice, but I note that there is an impact on the public sector because the enforcing authorities are Northern Ireland district councils. What engagement has there been those with councils on regulation that is due to be implemented on 28 December? To follow on from the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, if this legislation had been adopted in this place or through the Northern Ireland Assembly, that engagement would already have happened.
I welcome the commonality that the law will introduce, and the inference that the Government are putting out a call for evidence to ensure that we have continuity of type of charger across the United Kingdom. Have the Government considered stalling the implementation of the regulation in Northern Ireland, so that it can be implemented at the same time across the entirety of the United Kingdom, rather than being delivered in two different parts?
Justin Madders
First of all, I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, to her place, and I hope that we can work constructively across the Chamber. I welcome the comments that she made in support of the draft regulations. She made an important reference to our drawers and how many different chargers we all have in them. We can all see on a personal level why this change might well be a good thing for all consumers. I assure her that we are acting independently of the European Union, and are not blindly following its diktat. We are in the middle of a call for evidence on this subject, and the industry response has been that this was a direction in which it was travelling anyway. I assure her that we will consider all responses before we make a final decision.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made an impassioned speech mainly on constitutional issues and the application of the Windsor framework, which is the legal remit within which we are discussing the regulations. He said that he was not particularly concerned about the subject matter. I do not know whether he has had any constituents raise the issue with him, but I can assure him that we have worked closely with the relevant officials in Northern Ireland, and indeed, to pick up on the contribution from the hon. Member for South Antrim, local authorities in Northern Ireland on the application of the regulations.
The impact assessment from the EU indicated that this would have a de minimis effect on the market, as the industry had already moved towards it. That has been echoed in the conversations that we have had, so an impact assessment would not have revealed anything that would be of significance today.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Transport Infrastructure Projects: Elizabeth Line
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered future transport infrastructure projects and the Elizabeth line.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare an interest as a local MP who has received donations from two rail unions, ASLEF and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Also, I am a season ticket holder and in the past was involved in the Paddington rail crash. I secured this debate to celebrate the great success of the Elizabeth line, which I travel on almost every day. I was moved by the Royal Institute of British Architects’s tribute, and its award of the Stirling prize, to the Elizabeth line—nominated for its outstanding architecture.
In today’s debate I hope we can discuss the importance of rail investment and the need for long-term planning. I hope to highlight the Elizabeth line as a national achievement and possibly a model for further investments around the country. I also hope the Minister will be able to provide further details of future investments in other parts of England. I am conscious that I am likely to talk a lot about Berkshire, my own county, and the nearby parts of London that it is so intimately connected with. Two years on is an excellent point at which to reflect on the Elizabeth line and its wonderful benefits to our community.
I hope Members will indulge me this morning, because I have to say my family banned me from going on about the Elizabeth line. I was told by my wife to stop talking about it. I am very lucky to live near London and can travel home to Reading every day —apologies to colleagues who are not able to get home in the evening—but I was admonished by my wife, who told me, “Stop going on about the Elizabeth line. I don’t want to hear any more about it.” However, she and my son and daughter all changed their tune as soon as they had benefited from it; Sarah was able to get back from a show in the west end to a cup of tea in our kitchen in Reading in 50 minutes one evening, and that stopped her ever criticising it again. Now she is as big a convert as I am to that wonderful piece of engineering.
I have my “Matt Rodda’s pub quiz” section of this speech, in which I want to mention a few fun facts about the Elizabeth line. To sum up the scale of what the country has achieved, £19 billion has been invested in this piece of railway, but it has already, in just two years, generated £42 billion of benefits to the economy. There are some 700,000 journeys a day. Every day, the equivalent of the whole population of Berkshire, a reasonably large English county, travels on the line. To put it another way, 4.8 million people travel on it every week—more than half the population of London travel on that one railway line every week. It has generated 8,000 jobs and about 55,000 homes have been built along the line. I want to mention that later in my speech, because the connection between investment in rail, the economy, jobs, housing and growth and the clustering of new industries near railway stations is a really important topic in this debate.
The Mayor of London described the line as a “game changer” for London and the surrounding area, where we have seen 8% growth year on year in passenger numbers. The best way to understand this amazing piece of railway is to ride on it and look out of the window, or to get out of the station underground and soak up what we are passing through. Getting off the mainline train at Paddington—I do not travel on the Elizabeth line all the way to Reading every day—and going on to the Elizabeth line is quite a stunning change of scene. I go into a huge box station, down two sets of escalators and into an enormous modern station, rather like being inside an airport building. It is absolutely huge, several times greater than any normal tube station, with enormous capacity built in for extra passenger numbers. Already, even on the busiest days, the line is soaking up huge numbers of people. The crowds above ground are suddenly distributed below ground and there is a train every 2.5 minutes.
I travel to Bond Street, where, wonderfully, there is a little sign that says “Trains to Reading”—something that seems completely incongruous to anybody who lives outside London. I then move swiftly on to another tube. Looking at the view coming into Reading station the other way, there is now an equally stunning sight that we would not see in many medium-sized English cities or large towns. We are starting to see a significant number of tall buildings, and all those buildings represent a rise in land values, an increase in jobs and new businesses locating near the station, creating jobs, wealth and growth through investment and infrastructure. That is driving the economy of the area and leading to significant migration into Reading from around the UK and around the world, with businesses also relocating.
I saw one example of why that relocation is taking place with my visit to the Ericsson office, in Thames Tower next to the station. This illustrates the employer’s point of view, which is important. Senior managers at Ericsson explained that they moved from a business estate in Surrey to Reading because they wanted access to a much wider pool of workers. The transport connectivity meant they could get much better access to a much wider range of people with qualifications in telecoms, electronic engineering and other related skills they needed in their business by being in Reading. Staff can connect more easily to the midlands, east to London, west to Bristol and south too. I stress that rail connectivity, and the benefits it brings to employers, as an important part of this debate.
At a local level, PepsiCo, whose office is in Green Park near the M4 motorway, is moving to Reading town centre. That movement of businesses into Reading from out-of-town industrial estates could also apply to other areas where there is due to be a significant amount of rail investment—for example on the Oxford to Cambridge line or in the north of England. I hope that is the story when investment and infrastructure are brought together.
It is also worth mentioning the huge environmental benefit. We do not have much capacity in our major towns and cities to build extra roads and getting extra road space is incredibly difficult. There are more people and more vehicles in the country, and all those vehicles on the road at the same time can cause gridlock. Rail offers the ability to generate large numbers of journeys and move huge numbers of people quickly and effectively from one place to another. That can be seen in Berkshire and west London; in fact, the section of the Elizabeth line between Reading and Hayes shows the fastest growth in passenger numbers. Interestingly, it straddles two regional boundaries, where there was previously a stopping service that was nowhere near as effective at getting people from A to B—it was not as fast or as regular—as the Elizabeth line.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The Elizabeth line has been a game changer for my constituency of Ealing Southall, and Southall station in particular is very well used. However, two other stations, West Ealing and Hanwell, suffer from a less frequent service than Southall, and that is in the context of increasing development, particularly in West Ealing. There are also more delays and cancellations on the line than would be expected with new rail infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is it important that the Elizabeth line is extended to constituencies such as his, but that the reliability and frequency of the line is improved?
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend makes a good point about further enhancements and improvements to the line. I will discuss that later in my speech and I hope the Minister will also have a word to say on that.
On the wider context of the British economy and national achievements in recent years, it is fair to say that we are all proud of Great British sporting achievements, such as securing the Olympics and the performance of Team GB or our achievements in football and other major sports. I believe that the building and the growing success of the Elizabeth line are also an achievement in line with our achievements in sport or science and technology, and we ought to pay heed to that, learn from it and use it to fuel other investments, whether by learning the lessons on planning and infrastructure development or in other ways.
I also want to comment on some of the political lessons learned, on a cross-party basis: once again, it is important to focus on the crucial number of £42 billion of economic growth in just two years. That is a significant number, and we want to see more of that, not just in my region of the south-east of England, but across the country, in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England.
To reflect on what went well and learn some lessons, I would like to go back a bit—you will be pleased to know, Mr Vickers, that I do not want to go right back to 1840, when the Regent’s Canal company, which was very far sighted, first talked about a cross-London route, but I will go back to the 1990s to reflect, in simple outline terms, on the things we got right and the themes that come up when we talk to the people involved. For example, I spoke to the former Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, Nick Raynsford, who was a Transport Minister. The lessons seem to be that it is important that the Government have a vision, and plan and invest for the long term. They must listen to businesses and work closely with them in deep partnership, and they must do the same with local and regional government. Both the Mayor of London and local government across the south-east were crucial to this project—the Minister may want to comment on that later.
I must thank several people, or I will never live it down. In particular, I thank MPs from Berkshire: I want to single out the former Member for Maidenhead, now Baroness May of Maidenhead, who played a very important role in this project and was an incredibly important constituency neighbour when she was in this place. I also thank Lord Sharma and other MPs from the Thames valley, including the former Labour MPs for Reading West and Slough, among others. I thank the lead members for transport on Reading Borough council, including Councillor Tony Page and Councillor John Howarth, and leaders of Reading Borough council Liz Terry, Jo Lovelock and David Sutton.
I thank the local business community, including investors from outside our immediate area who have done so much to regenerate areas near the station—for example, the team investing in Station Hill are playing a really important role—and many others, such as the two corporates that are moving into the area near the station. I would particularly like to mention Nigel Horton-Baker, who brought the business community together, and I thank the various local enterprise partnerships and chambers of commerce that cover the Thames valley.
I also highlight the importance of the business and civic community in the wider region. When the Elizabeth line was envisaged—this is a bit of a detour down a branch line, but it is very important for Berkshire—there was no guarantee that it would come to Reading. The original plan was for it to go as far west as Maidenhead, but Reading borough council built a coalition of local authorities across the three counties of Berks, Bucks and Oxon. I see that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) is here, and I am sure he agrees; he may want to speak about the importance of local government collegiality across the Thames valley. That cross-party group of local authorities, led by all three main UK parties, wanted Reading to be the western terminus. It was so important that they agreed and worked together. I obviously have a vested interest as the MP for Reading Central, but the idea of Reading’s being the western terminus made complete transport sense, as it is a major transport hub and a point at which the railway divides north and south, to the south coast and the midlands, and a key point at which it splays out westwards, to the far south-west, Wales and the midlands.
I am proud to be the MP for Reading Central, and it is wonderful to be able to commend the work that has been done locally. In the time that I have left, I have some questions for the Minister from me, our local business community and other stakeholders. I particularly want to explore the notion of further electrification. One of the benefits of the Elizabeth line is that it is fully electric, which saves huge amounts of money in the long run, although there is obviously an up-front cost. Under the previous Government, there was a reduction in the amount of electrification from what was originally planned. I have had requests for more north-south improvements in electrification in our area, between the south coast and Oxford. There has also been some interest in introducing more semi-fast services on the Elizabeth line—in other words, trains that do not stop at every station but move more quickly between the major stations. Some people have raised further station development.
A western rail link is an important adjunct to the arguments about the Elizabeth line. The line has created a lot of connectivity and an east-west corridor between Berkshire, Essex and Kent, but people going to Heathrow have to approach London and go out again. Many colleagues from Wales and the west country—particularly south Wales, Bristol and further west—have, with me and other colleagues, lobbied for extra connectivity that would allow people to get on a train at Cardiff or Bristol and go straight to Heathrow, reducing surface transport and pollution near the airport, and freeing up local roads. It would also bring huge flexibility for commuters working at the airport, particularly residents of Slough and west London, where many airport staff live, although some live as far away as Reading.
The other point I would like the Minister to comment on—I realise it is an ongoing discussion—is the work to smooth the transition relating to the development of Old Oak Common. I am pleased the Government are committed to investing in the link between Old Oak Common and Euston; that is an important milestone and a national priority for all of us. However, in my area, and particularly to the west of London, in Wales and the west country, there is a great deal of concern about the blockading of Paddington to allow work to take place at Old Oak Common. That starts at Christmas time, and I hope the Minister can say some reassuring words about it. I know he is interested in those matters and wants that work carried out in the smoothest way possible.
It has been a pleasure to speak this morning; I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Vickers, in allowing me to commend some of my local government colleagues and others in the business community. I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions. I also thank colleagues for attending in such large numbers and from such a wide range of political parties, and I look forward to hearing everybody’s speeches.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. If Members restrict themselves to speaking for about five minutes, we should be able to accommodate everyone.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Mr Vickers, to serve under your chairmanship, and I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) on securing this crucial debate.
I would like to focus on two pressing issues relating to the current and future state of transport infrastructure in my constituency of Surrey Heath. First, and keeping it local, there are fragmented internal transport links between towns and villages in my infrastructurally left-behind constituency. Bus services, which are vital to some of my most vulnerable constituents, including children and the elderly, are thin on the ground and poorly scheduled. As a result, many people miss rail connections, arrive late at work or school, and struggle to make hospital appointments. Residents report having to spend more than £50 to make it on time for a 9 am hospital appointment, due to the lack of a public transport option. For residents in villages such as Chobham, the problem is particularly acute. They lack any bus services at all. There is no direct bus route connecting railway stations in Sunningdale or Blackwater to key hubs such as Camberley or Frimley.
That lack of integrated public transport has made car dependency the norm in Surrey Heath. Over 56% of households own two or more cars, and 60% of trips under 10 km are made by private vehicles. That is not, I would contend, out of choice but out of necessity. There is simply no viable alternative. That dependency creates severe congestion on major roads such as the A322. If anyone listens to the traffic reports in the morning, they will have heard that letter and those numbers mentioned all too often.
With the national planning policy framework placing a 250% increase on new housing targets in Surrey Heath, that infrastructural challenge will only become more severe, but it is one that our current transport funding and planning mechanisms seem inadequate to address. If we want new homes, which we surely do, and if we want business and economic growth, we simply cannot react to transport deserts and congestion after the fact. We need to anticipate better, look ahead and think proactively.
That brings me to my second point, which concerns transport links between Surrey Heath and London. Frankly, in Surrey Heath we pray for something like the Elizabeth line. Camberley, the largest market town in my constituency, is hugely underutilised by commuters, despite being only 28 miles from the centre of the capital. Camberley station served just 789 passengers daily in 2022-23—not, I would argue, because of a lack of demand for a high-quality commuter service, but because the slow, fragmented service on offer forces residents to access the rail system from outside our borough altogether. It is a sad reality that, in 2024, the journey to central London from Camberley now takes one hour and 15 minutes, involving at least one change. That is longer than the same journey in the 1920s, a century ago.
Most residents, including me, find it more practical to drive many miles to rail stations outside Surrey Heath, such as Farnborough, Brookwood or Woking, to access the faster, more direct routes to the city. Surrey Heath’s transport system is failing its residents, keeping children out of school, and stifling local economic growth, and it is now unable to keep up with the demands placed on it by new house building targets.
Like many other infrastructurally left-behind places in the UK, Surrey Heath urgently needs investment in fast, efficient and direct rail links to London, synchronised bus schedules and better rural transport options. Those improvements have the potential to tackle congestion, lower emissions and support sustainable development, while enhancing the environment and the quality of life for residents. Just as importantly for a Government with a focus on economic growth, improved infrastructure can act as the oil in the engine of economic growth, and I hope this Government see that as an investment worth making for our shared future prosperity. Surrey Heath businesses want and deserve access to game-changing infrastructure such as the Elizabeth line, and Surrey Heath residents would, I am certain, make for hugely vocal converts and give the hon. Member for Reading Central a run for his money.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing today’s debate.
I had the pleasure of serving as the cabinet member for transport in the London borough of Bexley from 2003 to 2006. During that period, the route for what was then called Crossrail was agreed. The Queen’s Speech of November 2004 confirmed that a Bill would be introduced to authorise the construction of Crossrail. Although the announcement confirmed that a southern spur would terminate at Abbey Wood rather than Ebbsfleet, people with long memories like me recall discussions at the time about terminating that spur at Canary Wharf or Custom House. I was quoted at the time, regarding the benefits for residents in Bexley, as saying:
“The most important achievement is getting Crossrail south of the river. If it had stopped at the Isle of Dogs, there would have been no benefit at all.”
My council lobbied to have that section reinstated, but it was not included in the final scheme, although the safeguarding directions for the associated land were retained.
As things stand, the southern spur of the Elizabeth line terminates at Abbey Wood station where, uniquely, the ticket office is located in the London borough of Bexley while the platforms are located in the royal borough of Greenwich. Although the station is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), it is within three quarters of a mile of my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford. The route has therefore brought many benefits to my constituents—particularly in the western part of the constituency—providing much faster journey times through to Canary Wharf, the City, the west end and Heathrow. It has also brought benefits for my constituents interchanging at Abbey Wood via Southeastern and Thameslink services from Slade Green. Sadly, the previous Government cut the majority of direct services from Crayford to Abbey Wood, making it difficult to interchange directly. I will continue to campaign for better services by train and bus to reach Abbey Wood from Crayford.
Passengers interchanging from Slade Green and other stations to its east have to rely on less frequent services to undertake this change. There remains a strong case to extend the Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet in order to serve residents in the thousands of new homes built there, in order to interchange with high-speed services and hopefully, in the future, with reinstated services to mainland Europe.
The Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet corridor covers the local authorities of Bexley and Gravesham and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson). The corridor has the potential to build on its existing strengths and diversify its economy, but it needs to improve transport links to make that happen. Although the corridor has large areas of underutilised brownfield sites, many sites are complex and cannot be brought forward for housing by the market alone, because of viability challenges, in part caused by poor transport connections, which limit land values. Significant evidence has been assembled to show how additional housing can be delivered by transport investment making the local area more attractive. An extension is also expected to support jobs growth due to enhanced connectivity and additional commercial floor space and through jobs to support the new population, which would support the regeneration of both Crayford and Slade Green.
The C2E Partnership was formed in 2016 as an informal group of authorities to promote an extension of the Elizabeth line beyond its planned terminus at Abbey Wood and towards Ebbsfleet. It comprises stakeholders representing local communities in the area, including the London borough of Bexley, Dartford and Gravesham borough councils, the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, Kent county council, the Greater London Authority and the Greater North Kent Partnership. The partnership has lobbied since its inception for funding to develop scheme options. It was successful in securing funding from Government for the development of a strategic outline business case, which was submitted to the previous Government in October 2021.
Despite that, there has still not been a formal response to that business case. The project continues to form a key element of the transport strategy for growth of the London borough of Bexley, being referenced in the Bexley growth strategy and the recently adopted local plan. That is echoed in the policy documents of the wider partnership, as well as regional partners, such as the Thames Estuary Growth Board and Transport for the South East.
The partnership’s ask is for further resource to refine the options presented in the business case and identify a preferred scheme for development to detailed design, and the securing of appropriate powers for delivery. The case for such investment is considered to be stronger than ever, in the context of housing and economic development imperatives. I shall continue to call for this extension to be delivered in the years ahead. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) on setting the scene and thank him for giving us an opportunity to participate. I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on where we are. My method of getting here is to travel from London Heathrow or London City airport. Coming into Heathrow, I get the Elizabeth line or the Heathrow Express, depending on time. It is obviously important for us as commuters and for my constituents. I have to mention them because it is not about me; it is about the importance for them.
Thank you for giving me the chance to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. It is a pleasure to add some thoughts on how infrastructure can work better. Others have contributed on the real importance for their constituents. I may not have a piece of the Elizabeth line, or even a train line, in my constituency, but I am incredibly interested in connectivity throughout the United Kingdom. This time last week we had a debate on flight cancellations and connectivity. I want to give perspective on the importance of airline flight connections and of the Elizabeth line.
I can remember before the Elizabeth line was upgraded. To be fair, sometimes the service was not always dependable. That was a fact of life, so commuters would not take the Elizabeth line if they felt it would not arrive on time or be late setting off, whatever the reason. They would take the Heathrow Express instead. There were occasions when it did work well. When the new Elizabeth line came in, it was much improved. It is important to put on record our thanks for that.
There are many things to boast about in London, such as the global seat of democracy at Westminster, the royal family home of Buckingham Palace, a rich history and successful city ventures. One of the many things in favour of this envy of the world is a rail and underground system that gets travellers where they want to be quickly.
I live in the countryside, where there are no bus connections, and have a diesel vehicle as my method of transport. In the city, tube trains, especially the Elizabeth line, and the Heathrow Express, are my main ways of connecting with my job, as they are for others. Does anyone need a car in London? If I lived here, no I would not, because tube trains are so handy, once someone gets into the way of it. When I first came here, I found it quite hard to fathom how tubes worked. It is no secret that I am a country boy. Before I was an MP, I think I had come to London four times in my life. Coming to the big city was almost like a holiday, in that I was somewhere different from back home.
My point is that we get used to the tube and understand how it works and its connectivity, and the Elizabeth line is part of that. Enhanced connectivity is what everyone here wants: they want people to be able to get where they need to go in a cost-effective and timely way.
Connectivity needs to go further than the London underground; it must be everywhere in the United Kingdom. I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but it is tied to the connectivity of the Elizabeth line, the tube and the Heathrow Express, which is important to people like me and my constituents who come into Heathrow then into the city centre. Connectivity must relate to all parts of the infrastructure, because people fly in and then use the trains to get here.
I will give some examples that relate to my constituents. Last week, the planes from Northern Ireland to London were cancelled; we had an urgent question about it last Tuesday. I am not sure if British Airways has learned its lesson because, although it agreed to a meeting, on my way home on Thursday—guess what?—the plane was cancelled. It is at the stage where I phone the ladies in my office to say, “Will you check to make sure that the flight is on?”
If we do not have flights, and their connectivity with trains, we do not have a system that works. On behalf of all the tourists on planes from Belfast, Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I say to the Minister: if the planes do not work, it does not really matter if the train works. It must be right for those who are coming for appointments, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) referred to, and for disabled people, with wheelchair access on the tube.
We have so much to offer as a nation—there is so much investment from other countries—but our connectivity needs to be dependable, whether that is taking the tube between Paddington and Westminster or hopping on a flight from Belfast to London and then on to the tube. We must do better and put it all together: flying and the trains.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) on securing this important debate. We may be at different ends of the Elizabeth line, but we have a shared interest in getting the most out of it for our constituents.
My Dartford constituency is one of the fastest-growing communities in the country, with the population of the local authority increasing by 20% between 2011 and 2021, and likely by significantly more in the three years since 2021. Ebbsfleet in particular has grown by over 5,000 homes, with another 10,000 planned over the next decade. Yet the Elizabeth line stops at Abbey Wood, rather than reaching Ebbsfleet as was originally envisaged in the 2003 and 2004 consultations on Crossrail, as it was then known. When my hon. Friend settles down at Christmas for his Elizabeth line quiz, perhaps he could add a question: where was the intended final south-east station in the original Crossrail plans? The answer is, of course, Ebbsfleet. A quick look at the map shows the discrepancy, with services north of the river reaching all the way out to Shenfield but south of the river only as far as Abbey Wood.
I warmly welcome the fact that new residents are being attracted to live in Dartford thanks to the amazing development that is taking place, with many young families looking for comparably more affordable homes and often commuting into London. Despite not being a London constituency, we are dependent on transport links into the capital, which are crucial to economic growth in Dartford and across the Thames estuary, which could be an engine of growth for the new Labour Government.
Five years ago, in 2019, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided funding for the C2E Partnership—an informal group of interested local authorities—to undertake a comprehensive study into options for improving transport connectivity between Abbey Wood, Ebbsfleet and Gravesend, to support new housing and employment along that growth corridor. In 2021, those options were refined to just three: first, an extension of the Elizabeth line to Northfleet, Ebbsfleet and Gravesend, sharing existing tracks with National Rail services; secondly, extending the Elizabeth line to Dartford with the construction of new tracks; or thirdly, improving the frequency of National Rail services, and a new rapid bus transit service from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet. Given the challenges with traffic that my constituency already experiences, I am somewhat sceptical about the third option, and there are significant challenges to sharing track with the existing National Rail services, making the first option difficult.
Unfortunately, since that narrowing of options in late 2021 when the business case was submitted to the last Conservative Government, we have seen little progress. The idea was revived earlier this year by Local London, a collection of nine local authorities in north-east and south-east London, which included it in research it commissioned on the region’s long-term transportation needs. The London borough of Bexley and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) are keen to see the work progress, as he so ably and articulately set out.
I urge the Minister and his colleagues across Government to look at how we can get on and finish the Elizabeth line as originally intended to grow the economy, boost productivity and improve lives across our region. That means extending it to Ebbsfleet, where the links with high-speed and international services would create an ideal interchange. That must be a priority when considering the future of the Elizabeth line.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my fellow Berkshire MP, the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), because many of the trains that pass through my constituency land in his, so it is something that we need to have regular discussions about. Our constituents want us to get this right.
Wokingham is well served with choices to get to London, and many commuters take the journey every day. To provide a brief tour, residents in Winnersh and Wokingham are slowly taken by South Western Railway through a suburban route via Waterloo to the Reading line. In the north, Twyford is on the Great Western main line into Paddington, carried by the Elizabeth line and Great Western Railway. It is a blessing that all 8.8 million Londoners are merely 33 minutes away from the many beautiful villages in Wokingham.
The Elizabeth line is a great addition to London and its route through Berkshire, helping to promote a shift from private vehicles and in turn reducing carbon emissions and particulate pollution. However, Wokingham has one of the highest levels of car dependency in England, and the quality of our railways likely explains why that is the case. Our railway services are unreliable and they do not work for passengers.
I thank the House of Commons Library for the following data. Only 66.6% of GWR services arrive on time, below the UK average of 67.5%. South Western is marginally better, on 66.8%, but still below the national average. With that perspective, I must give credit to the Elizabeth line, because 81% of its services arrive on time. In addition, 4.8% of all GWR services are cancelled—again, above the national average. That might not sound too bad on the face of it, but if I forgot my house keys 4.8% of the time, I would be locked out of my house 18 days every year.
For someone travelling on a Great Western service on Monday 28 October, 55 services were cancelled and 301 trains were late. How can we expect people to travel by train if passengers are not getting to where they need to be at the right time and for a reasonable price? As the Government begin a process of nationalising the railways, we need to seriously reflect on how we got here in the first place and how we can ensure that we are never here again, because people in Wokingham will continue to use cars if trains are not working for them.
I ask the Minister this: how do the Government intend to increase the reliability of service on the Great Western main line, and will he explain the role better infrastructure plays in that? What particular attention has been given to improving the reliability and speed of the Waterloo to Reading line? When can my constituents expect genuine change from Great British Railways? Finally, I support the proposal to build a western rail link to Heathrow airport. Heathrow airport, the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, local MPs and many other organisations have backed the proposal, so Network Rail should get on and build it. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State’s infrastructure review will include considering a western link to Heathrow airport, and will the Minister for Rail meet with me to discuss the proposal?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this key debate. I come to the debate as an interloper from the east midlands, although my constituency is not quite as far away as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in Northern Ireland, who made some powerful points about the importance of connectivity.
My connection to the Elizabeth line is that its trains were built at Alstom in Derby. Derby has been building trains since 1840. The most recent order of 10 additional Elizabeth line trains to address capacity issues helped train building in Derby, which had been grinding to a halt because of a gap in train orders. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the importance of rail infrastructure in the mission to drive economic growth—some hon. Members may have heard me speak about it once or twice before. This debate is an opportunity for us to highlight the importance of infrastructure in bolstering not just our local economies but, in its ripples, the broader economy; in providing jobs and opportunities for skills growth; and in improving physical and social mobility.
There is a future infrastructure project that runs right through Derby: the midland main line, which is the backbone of our rail system. I have long supported plans to continue its electrification, and I was reassured by the answer from the Minister for future of roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), that the project will go ahead,
“subject to business case approvals and affordability considerations.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 438.]
The benefits are enormous: significant decarbonisation and faster and quieter trains through one of the most densely populated lines in the country.
I was recently invited to speak at an event hosted by the High Speed Rail Group, which was launching its report, “Driving Investment in Rail Infrastructure”. The report called for rail infrastructure to be viewed as
“strategic long-term investments that drive sustainable development”,
and I agree. As the Institution of Civil Engineers has said, decision making needs to give weight to the benefits of infrastructure investment.
Rail infrastructure is about more than just the tracks that the trains run on. It is the rolling stock that carries the passengers or the freight. It is about the skills of the workforce who build the tunnels, wire the overhead lines and guide multi-million—often billion—pound projects from conception to the big business case review through to line energisation. It is also about the train drivers, cleaners and ticket booth operators; the impact it has on stations and the surrounding areas; and our efforts towards decarbonisation, taking cars off our roads and cleaning our air.
The decisions we take on how money is invested , which projects go ahead and how infrastructure is put in place must be taken with a long-term view because it impacts everyone. After so many years of stop and start and boom and bust, the industry is in desperate need of stability and clarity. Investors need to feel that there is support for projects, the businesses in the supply chain need to be able to anticipate work and retain skills, and workers need to know that they have jobs for the future. That forward planning builds sustainable growth and development.
Rolling stock manufacturers such as Alstom are key examples of the need for stability. As I mentioned, Alstom builds trains in Derby and is a major employer in our city, but thousands of jobs at Alstom and in its supply chain were lost because of the production gap earlier this year, which was in part due to the HS2 delays. We had a day where 1,000 years of welding experience walked out the door.
The additional Elizabeth line trains are a huge relief. Businesses such as Alstom and other manufacturers need an ongoing pipeline of work, new train orders and network upgrades to bring the growth, jobs and skills that our country so desperately needs.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Vickers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Today is an important opportunity to highlight how Wales is losing out when it comes to transport, infrastructure projects and funding. To be blunt, we can only dream of having a £19 billion investment in Wales. We would love that money to come across the border. The unfair Barnett formula means that Wales is missing out on billions of pounds of transport funding. The autumn Budget announced that Wales’s Barnett comparability factor for transport had fallen yet again to 33.5%—it was 80.9% in 2015. That is due to HS2 and Network Rail being included in the calculations for Wales, which is eroding the funding available to us over time. That is not the case in other parts of the UK. Academics from Cardiff University note:
“At 95.6% Scotland and Northern Ireland continue to benefit from full Barnett population shares for transport funding that can be used for electrification, opening new lines, or to meet any other spending demand. This is a funding inequity that has long-term consequences yet continues to be ignored at the UK level”.
I remind hon. Members that the Barnett comparability factor for Wales is 33.5%, yet for Scotland and Northern Ireland it is 95.6%. Given that Wales receives roughly 5% of the spending that England does, the fall in our comparability factor means that we are now effectively receiving a third of a fifth of what is spent on transport in England. Does the Minister believe that is a fair way for Wales to be funded? The Government are set to renegotiate the fiscal framework with the Welsh Government. Will that include looking at improving Wales’s transport comparability factor?
While the erosion of Wales’s comparability factor may be new, the lack of investment is a historic problem. It is estimated that Wales has received approximately 1% to 2% of rail enhancement investment, despite the fact that the Welsh route makes up approximately 10% of the UK rail network. Professor Mark Barry of Cardiff University estimates:
“In terms of rail enhancement, in the period from 2001 through 2029…that the current constitutional arrangements have cost Wales a minimum of £3Bn in Barnett consequentials”.
Those sums could be transformational for our infrastructure in Wales. They could fund a programme of electrification and build new lines north to south, finally connecting our nation, rather than commuters having to travel hundreds of additional miles via Shrewsbury or Crewe. To add insult to injury, at the recent Budget the Chancellor announced several electrification and rail infrastructure projects across England, such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade and the Oxford-Cambridge rail, and she confirmed that High Speed 2 will end at Euston. Meanwhile, there was nothing for Wales, and no commitment of the £4 billion that we are owed for HS2.
The Welsh Labour Government have argued for the full devolution of rail; as has been noted here today, there is a strong financial case for rail infrastructure along the lines of the Scottish model, to address the broken funding for Welsh rail. What discussions have the UK Labour Government had with the Welsh Labour Government on the devolution of rail? Does the Minister agree with his Labour colleagues in Cardiff that rail should be devolved? The Government cannot continue to ignore this issue. As everyone knows, Plaid Cymru will continue to push for fair funding for our railways and the full devolution of rail for Wales. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing such an important debate; we have heard many important points already. My constituency may not sit on the Elizabeth line, but it forms a part of that wider rail connectivity that many of us are interested in, and it makes a huge contribution to that network as well. My constituency of Tamworth is a rail hub for that connectivity, with direct trains right across the country, but much more needs to be done to improve those connections.
There have been some recent improvements. Avanti West Coast services through Tamworth and neighbouring constituencies will see some additional services added from 15 December, as well as a phased increase of hourly services that will serve the lines between Liverpool and London, which stop at Tamworth. This week, Avanti West Coast has also launched its all-electric train fleet, which is a great move towards electrification and greatly contributes to our goal to reach net zero. I welcome those improvements, but we have to do more to widen the connections from the midlands to other regions.
Many of my constituents have raised concerns about travel between Tamworth and Birmingham, including by both bus and train. Birmingham is a key connectivity point for Tamworth residents; many use it for commuting, work and leisure, but poor services have left many of my constituents frustrated. Transport projects often have a focus on distance or reach, but it is vital that we ensure that those smaller commutes are efficient, effective and reliable. I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport yesterday and the steps that this Government took to implement a remedial plan to deal with the cross-country services, reduce their cancellations and get services back on track. That is very important to my constituents in Tamworth.
The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) just mentioned HS2, which of course goes through my constituency. It brings huge infrastructure improvement, which has been discussed already, particularly with the Elizabeth line, through both its architecture and its contribution. However, building it has plagued my constituency with traffic problems, and as many of my constituents do not feel that they will ever travel on that line, it comes with a slightly negative tinge.
However, the HS2 growth strategy, published by the Constellation Partnership covering Cheshire and Staffordshire, included ambitions for 100,000 new homes and 120,000 new jobs, all by 2040. That is spurred by the connectivity that HS2 aimed to create. It is also predicted that £6.4 billion will be contributed to the economy, so I am very interested that the Elizabeth line has contributed £42 billion in just two years since opening. That is a positive thing to potentially be looking forward to once HS2 is complete. During its construction, HS2 is expected to deliver a £10 billion economic uplift, and that is before trains even begin to run.
The Government have started to put foundations in place to support successful transport infrastructure projects. The introduction of Great British Energy will provide this country with a stable supply of clean energy, which is important as we look to the electrification of trains and other transport modes. However, there are still barriers that we need to overcome. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on interventions that I am sure his team will be bringing forward and what contribution rail infrastructure can make to net zero.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing this important debate.
Despite some genuine issues, it is clear that the Elizabeth line has been a tremendous success. It was an engineering marvel, and one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Europe. Crossrail dug out 42 km of new tunnels in the centre of one of the biggest cities in Europe, weaving around existing underground tunnels, cable ducts, gas pipes and other utilities. The result? Economic growth and revitalised communities along the length of the line. Since opening, 60% of employment growth in Greater London has taken place within 1 km of an Elizabeth line station, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said. The line has increased the capacity of the London underground by 10%, which is why passenger numbers on the underground have bucked the national trend by recovering to post-pandemic levels. Such success shows what happens when we are ambitious and invest in rail.
It is not just in London where the impact has been felt. As we have heard, towns in Essex and Berkshire now have direct links to central London and Heathrow, promoting investment and creating new opportunities from Reading to Romford. The construction of the Elizabeth line has also increased employment across the country. Crossrail awarded 62% of its contracts to firms outside of London, creating 55,000 new jobs, 1,000 apprenticeships and helping to keep rolling stock manufacturing in Derby, as so articulately described by the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson).
While the Elizabeth line shows the best of what transport infrastructure can do, it also shows some of the pitfalls. Management issues led to overspending and delays—something we have sadly become all too accustomed to with infrastructure projects in this country. In 2010, the project was forecast to cost £14.8 billion. By the end it had ballooned to £18.8 billion—clearly not in the same league as HS2, but still representing a 28% overspend. At a time when public finances are tight, it is simply not acceptable.
Like many rail projects, Crossrail showed a flexibility towards deadlines that would make even the most laid-back of my former students blush. I appreciate that rail passengers have become all too accustomed to delays, but waiting three-and-a-half years for a train is probably pushing it. As we embark on new infrastructure projects, it is vital that we understand what causes delays and cost overruns and learn lessons for the future.
In March this year, the Department for Transport and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority published their joint report into the lessons learned from Crossrail. The new Government must take heed of the recommendations to avoid another HS2. With talk of greater devolution and new public-private partnerships, the Government must take particular note of what the report says about the issues that arise from joint sponsorship of projects. Making sure that we get this right will be vital to ensuring that we build the infrastructure our country needs in years to come. The ongoing saga with HS2 has undermined public confidence in the UK’s ability to successfully complete infrastructure projects. If we are to get the full benefit of development, we must rebuild public trust and show that lessons have been learned—not just in transport, but in all infrastructure projects.
With many of our current lines at maximum capacity, we desperately need investment in our rail network to encourage rail freight, improve consumer choice and push forward the transition to net zero. We also need to replace existing infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life. The District line in my constituency of Wimbledon is notorious for breakdowns, cancellations and delays. It needs investment urgently.
The key lesson from Crossrail is that when we invest and put spades in the ground, the impact can be transformative. Disappointingly, however, that lesson does not appear to have been fully learned by the current Government, although I suspect the Minister here today agrees with what I said in the main Chamber last week: if this Government are serious about economic growth, why did the Chancellor cut the transport budget?
Transport should be the engine of our economy. After years of neglect by the Conservative Government, the time has come to make the targeted investment that will make a difference to people’s lives. Yes, costs must be controlled—what happened with HS2, as the Secretary of State for Transport conceded in the main Chamber yesterday, is unacceptable. If we are to get this country moving again, we must learn from the Elizabeth line and give the transport network the infrastructure it needs.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is reassuring to have a friendly, if entirely impartial, face in the Chair, Mr Vickers, surrounded as I am by Members who are my opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing the debate and for the tone in which he led it, including his generous sharing of congratulations for the work behind the creation of the Elizabeth line. There have been excellent contributions, which I will leave the Minister to highlight because that is his role and not mine.
There is lots to celebrate in our transport network, but we need to go further to increase connectivity and to react to demographic changes and changing work practices. That is something the Conservative Government tackled head-on. People may not have realised it from the tone of some of the contributions today, but over the last period more than £100 billion was invested in our railways, and under the Conservative and Conservative-led Governments some 1,265 miles of line was electrified. I will spare the blushes of the hon. Member for Reading Central, but were he to ask at his Christmas quiz how many miles were electrified under the previous 13 years of Labour Government, the answer would be not 1,265, nor even 65, but 63. There has clearly been a step in the right direction over the last decade.
There has also been investment in the midlands rail hub, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the Access for All programme—I will talk about some of those in further detail later—but we are here primarily to celebrate the Elizabeth line, which has been a huge success. It was a courageous, large-scale project that has actually delivered and continues to deliver, and I hope it will continue to deliver for many years to come, not just for the residents of London, but for the south-east more generally and for UK plc.
I mention in passing that the Elizabeth line did not have to be over time and over budget. When it was managed by the previous Conservative Mayor of London, he left it on time and on budget, and if the project no longer followed that path, perhaps we should ask Sadiq Khan about the quality of his project management. Nevertheless, the Elizabeth line has created, as the hon. Member for Reading Central said, £42 billion of economic benefit in just two years, creating 8,000 jobs and leading to the building of 55,000 homes. That is unequivocally a success story for London and the greater region.
The next project for London and the south-east is the lower Thames crossing. We have huge bottlenecks at the Dartford crossing. The previous Government had been progressing with the crossing, but the current Government have now kicked it into the long grass. That is a genuine cause for concern regarding connectivity in the south-east, and I fear that it may lead to the next step, which is cancellation. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the House, and the many people who are no doubt watching this debate, that the lower Thames crossing is still very much on course and part of the Government’s projections for infrastructure development in the south-east?
It is not just in the south where the new Government are generating delay and doubt. Labour is potentially failing in the north as well, because Network North funding is now in doubt as we wait for the Government’s infrastructure strategy. People may ask themselves what the Network North funding is. Well, it is £19.8 billion of investment in Bradford’s new station, and in a mass transport transit system for Leeds and west Yorkshire; it is £12 billion of investment in stronger connections between Manchester and Liverpool; and it is £9.6 billion of investment in the midlands rail hub and in improving 50 stations in the midlands.
It is not just in rail where doubt is creeping into our infrastructure development projects, for the Government have already cancelled major road improvements in their first few months, including the A5036 Princess way scheme; the A358 Taunton to Southfields scheme; the A47 Great Yarmouth Vauxhall roundabout, close to my home; and the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham scheme. The restoring your railway programme has been cancelled. That is a terrible start in just a few months.
Is it the Minister’s intention to follow the example of his colleagues in Wales? Is it the Government’s intention to deprioritise road infrastructure? Is it the Minister’s intention to have a “no new roads” policy? It is beginning to sound like it. If that is not the policy, will he explain why that would be a bad idea, both in England and in Wales? Will he move against the imposition of 20 mph speed limits without local consultation? Will he put in place the updated guidance, which has already been drafted, on how such schemes should be introduced? It was prepared by the previous Government and is ready to go. If the Minister will not introduce it, will he explain why not?
On the record so far, St Francis of Assisi could have said—he probably did not—that Labour brings doubt where there was direction, indecision where there was investment and delay where there was dynamism. What have we got instead? We have inflation-busting pay rises with no working practice reforms to the unions. Paid for how? By debt? Yes. By increased taxes on poor pensioners? Certainly. By jacking up bus fares by 50%? That is true, too. And by delaying critical infrastructure.
The Government need to think again. This excellent debate, which I again congratulate the hon. Member for Reading Central on securing, has given the Minister the opportunity to provide clarity, to focus on transport users rather than just the unions, and to recommit to key transport infrastructure investments throughout the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) for securing it. I appreciate the transformational impact that the full opening of the Elizabeth line has had on my hon. Friend’s constituents. The Government fully recognise the importance of investing in infrastructure to support economic growth, promote social mobility and tackle regional inequality.
The Government recently delivered to the House their first Budget, which set out significant investment in transport to support everyday journeys and address poor connectivity in towns and cities across the country. That includes capital investment, such as £485 million for Transport for London’s capital renewals programme, including funding for rolling stock on the Piccadilly and Elizabeth lines; funding of more than £650 million for local transport to ensure that transport connections improve in towns, villages and rural areas, as well as in major cities; a £500 million increase in 2025-26 compared with 2024-25, for local road maintenance; an additional £200 million for city region sustainable transport settlements, bringing local transport spending for Metro Mayors in 2025-26 to £1.3 billion; an investment of an additional £100 million in cycling and walking infrastructure in 2025-26, to support local authorities to install cycling infrastructure and upgrade pavements and paths; and over £200 million in 2025-26 to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Let me turn to the Elizabeth line. This fantastic east-west rail link through central London has revolutionised travel in the city and beyond. Since it opened in 2022, it has enabled more than 400 million passenger journeys. It has dramatically improved connectivity—particularly for areas that previously had poor accessibility—and reduced crowding and cut journey times. Indeed, it has proven so popular that, with Government support, TfL has ordered 10 additional trains. They will be produced by Alstom in Derby, with the first train scheduled to be delivered to TfL in 2026. That will not only further improve the service capability on the line, but enhance supply chain capability throughout the country.
There have also been challenges, of course. I am sure that my hon. Friend is concerned about the issues regarding the overhead electrification on the Great Western main line. I am advised that many of those failures are due to dated equipment installed in the 1990s. Network Rail plans to renew the outdated equipment during the next five years to improve reliability for passengers. Furthermore, some delivery challenges arose due to the relationship between the Department for Transport and Transport for London having grown strained at times. I am pleased to say that that has been reset under this Government, and both organisations are working together to continue to deliver the full benefit of the Elizabeth line.
The benefits of the Elizabeth line will continue to grow. My Department is working closely with the wider industry, in particular TfL, to integrate existing Elizabeth line services effectively into the new station at Old Oak Common. The interchange between High Speed 2 and Great Western main line services at Old Oak Common will provide significantly enhanced connectivity with the west of England, Cornwall and south Wales. Old Oak Common will operate as the London terminus for HS2 until construction of the link into Euston. Onward connectivity to central London will be provided via an interchange with the Elizabeth line, with journey times of about 14 minutes to Heathrow airport, 15 minutes to the west end, 20 minutes to the City and 25 minutes to Canary Wharf.
My Department is working with the rail industry to minimise disruption during the construction of Old Oak Common station. We have allocated £30 million to enable services to continue to operate during construction. That includes electrification of the “Poplars” line, which will enable Elizabeth line trains operating west of Ealing Broadway to get into their maintenance depot.
I will now reflect on some other items raised by hon. Members. I will take part in my hon. Friend’s quiz and say that the Elizabeth line is the most significant addition to London’s transport network in a generation. As I said, journey times have been slashed and new journey opportunities created, while crowding on other routes has declined. Crossrail and its supply chain have supported the equivalent of 55,000 full-time jobs across the country and have created more than 1,000 apprenticeship opportunities. Crossrail was an ambitious, multi-decade £19 billion infrastructure project to build the Elizabeth line, a new, world-class, high-frequency 73-mile railway across central London and beyond, jointly sponsored by the DFT and TfL.
I can tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) that transport will of course play a central role in our mission-led Government. We have already seen the introduction of Bills on buses and on the public ownership of our railways. We are absolutely determined to ensure that public transport is improved.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson) asked about the extension to Ebbsfleet. Transport for London is responsible for the operation of the Elizabeth line. Currently, there are no plans to extend the line from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet International, although the route is still safeguarded. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will continue to lobby TfL on that issue.
Turning to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), of course connectivity is critical. He will be pleased to know that work has already commenced on our integrated transport strategy, which will be an important part of our work in Government.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about railways. The starting gun has already been fired on reform of our railways. In fact, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill was the first Bill I stood at the Government Dispatch Box to take through the House. I will ensure that the Rail Minister writes to the hon. Member about his other points.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) that increasing infra- structure investment is a vital part of delivering on our No. 1 mission of growing the economy and creating jobs. We are serious about ending the cycle of under-investment that has plagued our infrastructure systems for more than a decade.
I will pass the comments from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on to the Rail Minister, but needless to say, we are looking at our infrastructure investment as part of the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) mentioned net zero. As well as placing passengers at the heart of our railway, ensuring that we maximise our potential for freight will go a long way towards achieving that.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned the overspend. Over the years, the cost for phase 1 of HS2 soared due to poor project management, inflation and poor performance from the supply chain, with a failure to deliver to budget. On 20 October, the Transport Secretary announced a series of urgent measures to control the cost of HS2 and bring that back on track.
Looking ahead, the next spending review will focus on the Government’s mission and manifesto commitments through growth and public service improvements over the long term. It is important that opportunities presented to invest in complementary infrastructure west of London are considered fully in the context of the forthcoming second phase of the spending review and the need to drive economic growth. The Government will continue to work closely with local communities, local leaders and industry to continue to deliver transport infrastructure projects that ensure that transport remains at the heart of our mission-led Government.
Matt Rodda
It is a pleasure to have secured today’s debate—thank you for your wise chairship, Mr Vickers. I found the positive mood and spirit in which colleagues conducted the debate wonderful and quite inspirational. It is hugely important to recognise when we do achieve something as a country, and this really was, and is, a national achievement. I just wish it could go all the way to mid-Wales and Northern Ireland—perhaps one day.
I thank the Minister—indeed, the shadow Minister hinted at this—for taking part in my Christmas quiz and repeating the key line that I hope we will all take home: this is £42 billion in just two years, so imagine what it could do over the longer term. Indeed, some of the studies on the economic benefits are yet to be fully updated, and I look forward to further benefits being discovered, including on connectivity just beyond the line. The points from my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about the relationship to the area just beyond the Elizabeth line are well made, and indeed, places west of Reading and my area have benefited as well. I would like to thank the House again, and you Mr Vickers, for today’s opportunity to speak.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered future transport infrastructure projects and the Elizabeth line.
Breast Cancer: Younger Women
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I will call Vera Hobhouse to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered breast cancer in younger women.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the Minister for being here to respond.
Every woman deserves a fair chance against breast cancer, no matter her age. It is the most common type of cancer in the UK. Most women who are diagnosed are over 50, and it is therefore a disease often associated with older women, but young women are at risk, too. Breast cancer in younger women is often caught later when it is more advanced. That is because there is no routine screening and too often symptoms get dismissed as something less serious. That must change. Awareness and early detection are crucial, no matter your age.
The issue arose for me during a constituency surgery when my Bath constituent Lucy shared her story, which resonated with me because my nephew’s mother died many years ago of breast cancer aged 35. In 2021 Lucy, who was 38, had two young children and was diagnosed with primary breast cancer. She underwent a mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy before being given the all-clear. In 2024, when she was 41, a self-initiated MRI scan tragically came back showing that her cancer had returned, leading to a diagnosis of secondary breast cancer, which is currently incurable. In both cases she found it a struggle to be diagnosed.
The first time, despite her mother having had breast cancer and Lucy presenting with a lump, at least three different doctors told her that it was likely to be hormones and nothing to worry about. It was not until she requested the biopsy, which ultimately came back showing it was cancer, that the diagnosis was made. The second time she repeatedly voiced concerns about a symptom that she was experiencing, but she was repeatedly assured that it was just a side effect of the treatment. Still concerned, she approached the GP, who did some initial tests but ultimately suggested that her worries were anxiety-driven. After that appointment she came out and sobbed in her car.
Searching for peace of mind, Lucy then paid privately for a breast MRI, which tragically revealed that the cancer had returned, but by then it was too late. In both cases—first by requesting the biopsy and secondly by initiating an MRI—it was up to Lucy to fight for a diagnosis.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Because of the age restrictions in accessing NHS mammograms and the importance of early diagnosis, which she highlights, does she agree that self-awareness and self-examination in young women is critical in the battle to beat breast cancer?
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to continue to raise awareness, but I am pointing out that even when young women are aware and go to a doctor, the doctor says, “Don’t worry about it.” However, I agree that we need to continue to make sure that women examine their breasts and are aware of the risks of breast cancer, even when they are young.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Lady yesterday. This is a massive issue for me and my constituents back home, and they bring it to my attention all the time. It was great to attend the Breast Cancer Now “Wear It Pink” event last month to raise awareness of the most common cancer in the UK. Studies have suggested that breast cancer among younger women has a more aggressive pathophysiology, correlating to poorer outcomes compared with those for breast tumours in older patients. Does the hon. Lady agree that consideration must be given to lowering the age requirement for breast screening to ensure quicker intervention for younger women?
Wera Hobhouse
I will come to that later in my speech, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are here to make the case for earlier screening programmes for younger women, because it is becoming such an issue—the rates are increasing. It is because of Lucy’s struggle to get a diagnosis that she felt the need to speak up on behalf of the countless young people who would not question decisions made by medical professionals.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. After I survived breast cancer, one of my many emotional conversations with my daughters was about having the BRCA gene. Currently, there is a postcode lottery for the availability of counselling with proper genetic guidance for those who are identified as having the gene. Does my hon. Friend agree that NHS England should ensure equitable access to information and counselling services, and that fixing the system should be a feature of the Government’s future cancer strategy?
Wera Hobhouse
I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend went through a cancer diagnosis, and I am glad that he recovered. Breast cancer in men is not as well known; people do not necessarily recognise that men can develop breast cancer. Once a diagnosis is made, it is quite traumatic for the whole family. Counselling services need to be adequate, and I agree that there should not be a postcode lottery.
The description of Lucy’s story is in no way meant as an attack on the NHS. Since she was diagnosed, Lucy has received the top-class care for which the NHS is renowned, but she is not alone in having her age used against her. There are countless similar stories of women of a similar age or younger who have found it difficult to receive an initial diagnosis, with concerns often dismissed too early by doctors as hormones, anxiety or tiredness. This is by no means the doctors’ fault; they are forced to make difficult decisions about who to prioritise because of the impossible time and budget constraints that are imposed on them. That does not, however, make it acceptable.
There is a long-standing myth that breast cancer only affects older women, but there has been a global surge in cancers among the under-50s over the past three decades—sadly, the issue is not limited to breast cancer. Last year, a study found that cancer cases in under-50s worldwide are up nearly 80% in the last 30 years. More than a million under-50s are dying of cancer each year, and that figure is projected to rise by 21% by 2030.
I draw attention to the “Jess’s Law” petition, which has more than 350,000 signatures, to improve the awareness and diagnosis of cancer in young adults. It points out the struggles young adults face in getting diagnosed, even though adults aged 25 to 49 contribute around a tenth of all new cancer cases. According to Cancer Research UK, cancer rates in 25 to 39-year-olds in the UK increased by 24% between 1995 and 2019. In 2019 alone, almost 35,000 people in that age bracket were diagnosed with cancer.
The trend is especially alarming in breast cancer. Diagnoses of breast cancer have increased steadily in women under 50 over the past two decades, but in recent years the increase has been even more stark. In 2013, breast cancer cases in women under 50 topped 10,000 for the first time. To the alarm of experts, breast cancer diagnoses in women under 50 have risen by more than 2% annually over the past five years, so the trend is clearly an increase. That is deeply concerning, especially since women under 50 are nearly 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are women over 50.
It is truly alarming that in the UK, breast cancer accounts for 43% of all cancers diagnosed in women aged 25 to 49. Despite that, we continue to wait until women are 50 or older to begin routine screening. Why are we delaying early detection when the rates of breast cancer in younger women are rising year on year? Cervical cancer screening is available to women from the age of 25, but of the top 10 cancers detected in those aged 25 to 49 in the UK, breast cancer outweighs cervical cancer by more than five times, so that discrepancy simply does not make sense. If we can screen for other cancers earlier, we should do the same for breast cancer. We all know that early detection saves lives, so we must ensure that all women, regardless of their age, have the opportunity to access lifesaving screenings.
Young women are more likely to develop aggressive forms of the disease. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and it remains one of the leading causes of death in women under 50 in the UK. Unfortunately, as Lucy’s story shows, younger women often face more challenges to diagnosis. They are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of the disease, with larger tumours and greater lymph node involvement. Cancer in younger women is also more likely to be biologically aggressive: sub-types such as triple negative breast cancer are harder to treat and have poorer outcomes. As a result, younger women have significantly worse prognoses, with a higher risk of recurrence and death than older women. We cannot ignore that stark reality.
Premature death from breast cancer among women in their 40s accounts for the same years of life lost as those in their 50s, and substantially more than those diagnosed in their 60s. That is crucial. A death of a woman in her 40s or 50s represents not just a loss of life, but a tragic loss of potential life years.
Researchers also found an increase in the diagnosis of stages 1 and 4 tumours, which suggests that if stage 1 tumours are missed in younger women, they tend not to be found until they reach stage 4, at which point the cancer is incurable. Early detection can make all the difference. During the previous Parliament, a petition calling for funding to extend breast cancer screening to women from the age of 40 got more than 12,000 signatures. That widespread public support reflects the growing concerns about early detection.
The Government’s response was deeply disappointing. They continue to use the Marmot review as their main reference point, citing the lower risk of young women developing breast cancer and the fact that women below 50 tend to have denser breasts, reducing the accuracy of a mammogram. It is true that the risk of younger women developing breast cancer is lower, but statistics show that rates of breast cancer in women aged 25 to 49 are rising fast, and that upward trend demands urgent attention.
Although mammograms can be less effective in women with denser breast tissue, that should not limit our approach to early detection. We should continue to use modern digital mammography, but the Government should expand the use of automated breast ultrasounds. Ultrasounds are especially effective in detecting abnormalities in dense tissue that might be missed on a mammogram. The technology is not invasive; it is quick and radiation-free, and it is often used for secondary screening for women with dense breasts. Automated breast ultrasounds can detect up to 30% more cancers in women with dense breasts than mammograms alone. By embracing both mammography and ultrasound, we can significantly improve detection rates, ensuring early and more accurate diagnosis.
Last week, in the light of Sir Chris Hoy’s bravery in sharing his story about his struggle with prostate cancer, the Health Secretary asked the NHS to look at the case for lowering the screening age for prostate cancer, particularly for people with a family history of the disease. That is an important and welcome step, but we must look at extending that approach to breast cancer too. Both diseases share a significant genetic link, and a family history often increases the risk. Aligning the screening policies for prostate and breast cancers in recognition of the shared genetic risks would provide a better safety net for those affected.
Various parts of the NHS are competing for investment, but it is clear that short-term investment in this area will save money in the long term, with fewer women needing extensive long-term treatment if breast cancer is caught early. According to Breast Cancer Now, breast cancer will cost the UK economy almost £3 billion in 2024, and the annual cost could rise to £3.6 billion by 2034.
I call on the Department of Health and Social Care to review the national breast cancer screening programme to identify where changes can be made to increase capacity in the system, to ensure that, where appropriate, a woman’s initial screening appointment can happen at a lower age. I also call on the Government to investigate the merits of early optional ultrasound for women aged 30 to 49. Finally, we must educate healthcare professionals and increase resources so that younger women who seek help are always taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, and never dismissed.
It is about not just policy change, but giving people the best possible chance to fight back against cancer and live healthier, longer lives. I hope that the Minister has heard Lucy’s story and will actively look at changing the way we screen for breast cancer for good.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for bringing this debate to the House, as well as other hon. Members for their interventions. I also pay tribute to the hon. Lady for championing the story of her constituent Lucy and others, such as Jessica Parsons, who have done so much to raise awareness. We have a powerful role as Members of Parliament, and I commend the hon. Lady for doing an excellent job.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that awareness raising is key to catching cancer early, and the most effective way to tackle breast cancer in younger women is to encourage them to check their breasts regularly. The NHS is going through the worst crisis in its history, and this Government will turn it around so that cancer patients are diagnosed and treated on time. The investments we are making now in breast cancer treatment and research are part of our plan to make the NHS fit for the future.
Although women of any age can get breast cancer, it is much more likely to occur over the age of 50. That is why our screening programme sends women their first invitation at 50. However, I will take this opportunity to emphasise that the take-up of breast cancer screening is currently below 70%. That is worryingly low, and we are determined to change that. I make a plea to all hon. Members to help the Government achieve greater take-up of breast cancer screening in women over 50. Women need to come forward for screening.
Taken as a whole, the evidence does not support regular mammograms for women below the age of 50. Decisions on screening, including the age at which to offer it, are made by experts on the UK National Screening Committee, and those decisions are kept under review so that they continue to be based on the best available research. Ultrasound can be used as a diagnostic tool, but it is not appropriate for screening. Mammograms provide a fuller picture of the breast, and are better able to spot early signs of cancer. As the hon. Lady said, mammograms used for screening are less reliable for younger women given their denser breast tissue. Change in the screening age could mean a greater risk of false negatives, where cancer is missed, and there would also be a greater risk of false positives, which may lead to invasive testing when there is no need for it. Our approach is in line with that of most European countries, which screen women between the ages of 50 and 69.
For younger women who have a greater risk because of their family history, we offer screening using mammogram or an MRI scan. As I have said, the most effective way to tackle breast cancer in younger women is to encourage them to check their breasts regularly, and to consult their GP straight away if they have any concerns.
Wera Hobhouse
Lucy did that and was dismissed. Today’s debate is particularly important for awareness raising among the medical profession to ensure that women, particularly those who know about a family history of breast cancer—some do not—are not dismissed and are taken seriously.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. When people come in, particularly with a family history, their relationship with their GP should be better and should take that history into account.
We know that the sooner cancer is diagnosed, the more treatment options are available, and that treatment is more likely to be effective with an early diagnosis. Primary care and GPs are essential in that pathway and I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to pay attention to the upward trend in demand. NHS England runs campaigns to increase knowledge and awareness of key symptoms, but we can all do more. Breast cancer is thankfully rare among younger women, but the more aware they are of the symptoms, the likelier they are to see their GP, and the GP will be made more aware of those trends.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight Breast Cancer Now’s “Touch, Look, Check” advice. The NHS and the Government support this advice, and I encourage women no matter how young or old they are to check their breasts often. Breast cancer remains one of the most common cancers in England; almost 50,000 people are diagnosed each year. Instances of many types of cancer are rising among young people in this country, and we are not yet certain of the cause of that. Although breast cancer is thankfully less common in younger women, we cannot afford to be complacent and, as the hon. Lady has highlighted, we must remember the human stories behind that number—the lives disrupted, the trepidation of diagnosis and the uncertainty faced by loved ones. We can take some comfort from the fact that more women are surviving breast cancer than ever before. Between 2016 and 2020, the one-year survival rate for breast cancer was over 96%, enabled by advances in screening, treatment and care.
There is much more to be done, and I want to reassure hon. Members that it is a top priority of this Government to speed up the diagnosis and treatment of every type of cancer. On 30 October, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor restated and backed that commitment. The first Labour Budget committed £70 million for new radiotherapy treatment machines and £1.5 billion for new surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners. This investment will allow the NHS to undertake 30,000 more procedures each year, and the capacity for diagnostic tests will increase to 1.25 million. This further funding will enable us to ensure that cancer can be diagnosed or ruled out as quickly as possible, which is something we all want to see.
We also continue to pave the way in identifying the best possible testing and treatment for all types of cancer. Research is a crucial part of this. That is why the National Institute for Health and Care Research has spent £33 million on directly funding breast cancer research in the last five years. But investment alone will not be enough to tackle the problems facing the NHS; it would be like pouring water into a leaky bucket. We need investment and reform. People who work in the NHS, as I have, see first hand what is great but also what is not working—the things more money will simply not fix. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we need to take the best of the NHS.
We need to do more to meet the challenges presented cancer now and in the future for people of all ages. We recently launched the biggest national conversation about the future of the NHS since its birth to help to shape our 10-year plan, which will allow us to do more to prevent cancer where we can, identifying it as early and as quickly as possible and treating it with speed and precision. But we need suggestions from hon. Members on how to go further. We need to learn from the experiences of people like Lucy, which the hon. Member for Bath outlined today. I urge everyone to visit change.nhs.uk and help us build a health service fit for the future.
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important matter to the House and raising her constituent’s issue. I thank all hon. Members who have made such valuable contributions on this important subject. I am pleased to assure them that rebuilding our NHS and delivering world-class cancer treatment and prevention services for every person will always be a top priority for this Government.
Question put and agreed to.
NHS Dentistry: South-west
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered NHS dentistry in the South West.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means to have been granted a debate on NHS dentistry in the south-west of England, which has particular problems.
I know that the new Minister will have encountered enough problems with NHS dentistry as it is, but the south-west is a special case. To illustrate: if we were to go back to 2015, 51% of adults in the south-west could see a dentist. That was also the case across England at the time, with 51% of patients who wished to see an NHS dentist having access to one. By 2024, however, that figure has declined sharply. Now, the current average across England is 40%, and in the south-west it is just 34%.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In Somerset, the percentage of adults who have seen a dentist has dropped by 20% over the past decade. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should guarantee access to an NHS dentist for everyone needing urgent and emergency care?
Richard Foord
That is exactly what is needed for urgent and emergency care. My hon. Friend draws attention to Somerset; the situation is bleak in Devon too. In Devon in 2015, 55% of adults were able to see a dentist, but that has since dropped to just 37% today.
I have had so much correspondence from my constituents on this subject, and the decline, as I see it, is a direct result of 14 years of Conservative neglect of our health services and of NHS dentistry in particular. I find it really troubling that the situation is affecting people in some of the most vulnerable categories, such as older people and children,
Children in Devon are missing out on crucial dental check-ups. Once upon a time, they used to have check-ups twice a year; now, it is not possible for children to be registered for NHS dentistry in many dental practices. It is therefore no surprise that tooth decay is now the leading cause of hospital admissions for five to nine-year-olds in the country. I talked to one primary school and was told that pupils are going to hospital in Bristol to have their teeth removed—often between four and 10 teeth at a time. The number of NHS dentists in Devon has dropped from 549 to 497, so the reality is that NHS dentistry is simply no longer available for all.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I entirely accept the points that have been made about Devon and Somerset. In Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, we have some of the most deprived areas in the country. I have met people who have chosen to access dental care privately at the expense of heating their homes or eating food. This is where we are today: we are in a dental emergency across the south-west, and in Cornwall, the situation is now critical. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot wait any longer for emergency dental care across the south-west?
Richard Foord
The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to move NHS treatment back into primary care and away from the most critical acute care, yet it seems to me that primary care services are moving in the other direction.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Royal United hospitals in Bath saw nearly 260 people last year with serious dental issues such as abscesses, largely because those people could not get a preventive care appointment from a dentist in their community, forcing them to go to A&E. Does my hon. Friend agree that a lack of NHS dentistry drives up costs because people go to A&E when it should only be there for emergency cases?
Richard Foord
I agree that emergency care should not suddenly become the routine. It is there for the most critical cases, but we have not seen that, given the drying up of NHS dentistry provision in our towns and villages.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that part of the problem is that we are only talking about emergencies? The Secretary of State, in his first week in the job, talked about working hard to look at preventive medicine. That should apply to dentistry as well. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to look at a serious timeline for reviewing the dental contract? We cannot only talk about emergencies all the time.
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Prevention is clearly cheaper than dealing with the problems down the line. There is no better example than offering check-ups for children’s dentistry.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I find it absolutely shocking—I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—that the recommendations of a report published 15 years ago by the previous Health and Social Care Committee have still not been implemented.
Richard Foord
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead has clearly done her homework. It is quite staggering that recommendations from that long ago are still not implemented.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Lord Darzi said in his review of the NHS that
“urgent action is needed to develop a contract that balances activity and prevention, is attractive to dentists and rewards those dentists who practise in less served areas”
such as mine in South Devon, where not a single dentist is taking on NHS patients any more. Would my hon. Friend agree that we urgently need a timeline for this work to be done?
Richard Foord
Yes, I think so. My hon. Friend is right to point to some of the recommendations in the Darzi report. I was encouraged to see reference to neighbourhood hubs, where perhaps we can have delivery of primary care, such as NHS dentistry, nearer to the constituents we represent.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Does the hon. Member not agree that the story in the south-west is being replicated across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? He may not be aware of a survey of almost 300 dentists in Northern Ireland that found that almost nine in 10 intend to reduce or end their health service commitments in the coming year. That could be the end of NHS dentistry. Is he experiencing the same thing in the south-west? If he is, Government must really grasp this issue, and, as the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) said , get it done.
Richard Foord
I am glad that the hon. Member for Strangford made that point, because I did not know about the situation in Northern Ireland. It sounds like some regions of the UK are not getting the attention that they require when it comes to NHS dentistry.
I want to share the story of two of my constituents, Mike and Shirley. I have received correspondence from them and many other residents, such as Martin Loveridge, who has had a similar experience. Mike and Shirley are hard-working people. Mike is almost 75 and retired after more than 50 years in horticultural work. Shirley, aged nearly 70, is still taking on part-time cleaning work to make ends meet. In 2023, their dentist in Sidmouth finally went private, driven away by the broken dental contract that we have heard described. The impact of that shift has been devastating.
Shirley developed a dental abscess. Anyone who has had a dental abscess will know what excruciating pain it can involve. Years ago, Shirley suffered from a similar infection, which led to sepsis. This time, instead of receiving urgent care from the NHS, Shirley faced the following choice: either wait in pain or go private. Plainly, this incident is a stand-out case, given that it was crucial that she received NHS treatment for sepsis, but typically, it would cost them £1,200 in dental fees—a sum that is simply unaffordable for people in Mike and Shirley’s position. Mike has not seen a dentist since May 2022 because he simply cannot afford it. Mike and Shirley tried to get NHS dentistry—they went to NHS England, Healthwatch Devon and the complaints department of the Devon NHS—and they had people admitting to them the dire state of the system, but they were offered no real solution. They spent hours on “Find a dentist”, an NHS website just for that purpose, but they were referred to a clinic that was 80 miles away, an impossible journey for them.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Cheltenham, similarly, is a dental desert. My residents often find themselves referred out of our region and into the midlands for treatment, to places as far away as Malvern, if they are not lucky enough to get somewhere in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre). Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply wrong and unacceptable? Will he join me in thanking community campaigners in Gloucestershire, including Councillor Paul Hodgkinson, the health lead for the Lib Dems on Gloucestershire county council, who are trying to fight this at the local level?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to community campaigners, but frankly it should not require grassroots organisations to self-organise and mobilise; as representatives and as Government, we should be able to provide that in this, the sixth richest economy in the world.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for arranging this debate and for his forbearance on the incredible number of interventions. Does he agree that to solve this problem once and for all, and not just deal with the emergency situations that have been mentioned, the Government need to move towards a model similar to that for GPs, in which dentists are reimbursed for their work and rewarded for caring for patients and taking a more preventive approach?
Richard Foord
Dentists need to be rewarded under an NHS dental contract that recognises that not everyone has the same ability to pay. Frankly, if a little money were invested early in preventive measures, some of our constituents would not cost the system nearly so much later.
At a Westminster roundtable on dentistry last year, it was made plain that the issue was about not so much a shortage of dentists, but a need to attract private practising dentists to NHS work. Many dentists, even those who would ideally prefer to work within the NHS, avoid NHS work or leave it, because the current system is not fit for purpose.
On Remembrance Sunday, I was talking to a couple near the war memorial in Sidmouth. They were both veterans. Between them, they had served for 62 years, and they were unable to get NHS dental appointments. They felt that they had dedicated their lives to public service and this was how the state was rewarding them.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I am sure that the issues in the south-west are similar to, and as challenging as, those in Wokingham in Berkshire. Commons Library data states that only 32.6% of children in Wokingham have seen a dentist in the past two years, compared with a 40.3% figure for the whole of England. Both figures show the Conservative party legacy of rotten teeth, fillings and agony. Arborfield and Swallowfield in my constituency are without dedicated dentists. That simply is not good enough. Does he agree that NHS primary care needs to be properly funded?
Richard Foord
I am appalled to hear about those examples from my hon. Friend. The really disappointing thing is that some of the expense of secondary care could be avoided with a little more investment upstream in primary care.
There is a clear disparity between the work that dentists do in the NHS and in private practice. There is so much more emphasis in private practice on preventive care. We need to see that same level of preventive work happening in the NHS.
At an Adjournment debate last week in the main Chamber, it struck me that although many of us were there seeking to draw attention to NHS dentistry, not a single Conservative MP attended. I thank the Minister in the new Government for showing more commitment to NHS dentistry than the last administration, yet we have further to go. The Government prioritised the NHS in the Budget, allocating it an additional £25.7 billion. However, we needed more reference to dentistry in the Budget. The Labour party’s manifesto talked about a dental rescue plan that would provide 700,000 more appointments and, most critically, focus on the retention of dentists in the NHS. We urgently need that.
We urgently need a dental rescue package to bring dentists back to the NHS, particularly in the south-west, where we have a dental training school in Plymouth. We understand that dentists, once trained, often stay where they went to university, so we need more dentists to be attracted to the south-west and to stay once they are there.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
It is important to look at the role of public health in local government as well. Better Health North Somerset has a great programme led by Catherine Wheatley that is all about promoting oral health, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in early years and for children and young people. One thing I have noticed is that what works and good practice is not often shared between integrated care boards across local areas. With the strength of feeling here, demonstrated by the amount of south-west MPs that have attended this debate, there is a real opportunity for us to collaborate and share what works. That would be really useful.
Richard Foord
I agree. One way in which we can share best practice is by thinking about not only training places, but the recognition of qualifications. After the UK’s exit from the European Union, we saw a breakdown in the number of EU dentists wanting to stay or being attracted here. With fewer eastern European dentists, in the south-west of England, for example, we need to look again at dental qualifications and whether there are some dentist qualifications we might recognise that might make it more attractive to be a practising dentist in the UK.
The rural south-west of England needs to be able to expect the same level of NHS dentistry provision that we see in urban areas across the country. Will the Minister commit to the reform of NHS dentistry so that constituents such as Mike and Shirley do not have to go into the red or forfeit heating their homes to get dental care that avoids them going to acute hospitals such as the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital at Exeter?
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they should bob. If they could limit their contributions to an absolute maximum of four minutes, we will probably get everyone in. But it is going to be a squeeze, particularly if there are too many interventions.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
My constituent Jonathon Carr-Brown recently went to his dentist for a routine check-up. Dr King seated him in the dentist’s chair, as he had done many times before, and felt his throat, as he had done many times before. Unlike those other times, Dr King found something: he found a lump. After that visit to Bournemouth dental centre and further investigations, a tumour was identified.
I saw Jonathon at the weekend. He had just completed a course of chemotherapy, because his dentist had helped to spot cancer. He was doing well: he was a little tired following his treatment, but he was not too tired to talk passionately about the importance of dentistry within our wider healthcare and about how more lives could be saved with the right changes by our Labour Government.
Jonathon’s story shows the potential of so many things, including co-location, the promise of innovation and the possibilities of integration. Imagine if Jonathon had been able to go up the corridor to get diagnosed even faster and receive the right kind of support even faster. Jonathon’s story shows the power of prevention. There are so many people in Bournemouth East who are struggling to get the routine appointments that could spot problems and fix them sooner.
Of course we need more appointments and of course we need more workers, but we also need a rethink of who does what. In my constituency, as elsewhere, I know the potential for local hygienists and therapists to use the full scope of their practice, and indeed for Bournemouth to pilot a new model of therapy-led practices, with dentists covering only the work that sits outside scope.
I would welcome investment in the training and development of an oral health team who could learn by doing, providing clinical and preventive services to people who need them. Right now, Health Sciences University in Boscombe could help to increase local people’s access to oral health care by training even more professionals for the future and getting support to people who need it, bringing down the waiting list while also training people up and particularly providing outreach in areas of deprivation.
There are so many areas of policy that we could focus on. I would love to talk at length about the reform of the dental contract, but in the hope that colleagues will do so, I will focus instead on the importance of empowering people by giving them accurate and clear information about NHS dentistry.
The NHS app and the nhs.uk website are managed by NHS Digital and the NHS Business Services Authority—I said “NHS” quite a lot there. It is the responsibility of NHS contractors to update for their specific provision. That means that there is no kind of oversight or meaningful guarantee of accuracy of information.
In April, before the general election, my team rang around all the surgeries in Bournemouth that were offering spaces to new NHS patients. They discovered that many had not updated their details, sometimes for years. Since then, there have been a small number of updates, perhaps prompted by my team’s calls. However, most of the surgeries that were recently showing as not having updated their details were private. They were only offering private appointments and seemed baffled to be rung by somebody looking for NHS care.
It is not just that time-poor people who are desperate for dental care might be accessing incorrect information. It struck me and my team that people could be ringing surgeries listed on NHS platforms for NHS care—they are not listed as private dental providers. When those people are unable to access NHS care, they may be so desperate for any kind of care that they will buy into private dental provision.
When we checked it out with the NHS, it had no way of determining whether patients commit to private dental provision, or what service members of the public may be offered. We were told that although so many private surgeries were not listed as private on the website and digital platforms, the NHS could not comment on the advertising of private dental providers. In April, under the Conservative Government, we discovered that there were no new NHS places available in a dental surgery in Bournemouth. Things have improved slightly since then, but only slightly.
We need to improve the accuracy of the information that we provide to our public by putting in place the right mechanisms. We need to strengthen our digital platforms to ensure that citizens can book appointments, get personalised notifications to book routine check-ups and compare waiting times and patient satisfaction scores.
Lastly, we need a digital health record as a single source of truth about someone’s health. That information is fragmented across pharmacies, GP surgeries, dental practices, hospitals and people’s phones. How much better would it be to bring that information together so that someone’s medical record is in hand and complete when they are seen? That would allow them to be seen by the right person at the right time in the right setting.
Our NHS was founded on the principle that health should not depend on wealth. However, people who can pay are paying. The use of private healthcare will continue to rocket, perhaps even through unintended encouragement on NHS platforms, unless we co-locate, innovate and integrate.
A healthy population will unlock a stronger Britain. I look forward to supporting the Government in their efforts to change our NHS and our NHS dentistry, so that they can survive and serve our public.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing the debate. As the MP for a rural constituency in Somerset, I do not need to repeat the well-known fact that the south-west is one of the worst dental deserts in England.
As a mum, and as someone who received excellent dental care as a child because my grandad was a dentist, I particularly worry about the effects on children. With such a scarcity of NHS practices accepting new patients and with the rising cost of living, working families simply cannot afford to go private. More often than not, that means that parents have to unwillingly forfeit their children’s health.
This is a topic that people care about up and down the country. The regular emails I receive about it from my Frome and East Somerset constituents normally describe the same regrettable situation: they cannot get a space, there is no room anywhere in the vicinity and they are forced to go to hospital. However, one recent casework email was particularly stark: it was from a retired man and his wife who have recently become kinship carers for their two grandchildren following the sudden death of their daughter. Although one child had “luckily” already started orthodontic treatment prior to their mum’s death, the grandparents cannot find a single NHS practice that will onboard the other child. They receive the state pension and one child benefit. Luck should never be a factor in the question of children’s health, let alone set two siblings apart. NHS dentistry should be there to level the playing field and give access to all, regardless of background or family set-up.
I know from having met local dentists and national dentist groups that the growing consensus is that there are two reasons why there are so few spaces in NHS dental practice. One reason is budget; the other is the availability of NHS dentists, many of whom are leaving the NHS or leaving dentistry altogether because of low morale and stress. Recruitment is already difficult, but retainment is even more so. NHS dentistry has been chronically underfunded. The UK spends the smallest proportion of its health budget on dentistry of any European nation, and England spends almost half less per head than other parts of the UK.
Just as working families in the south-west are struggling with the rising cost of living, high inflation, energy costs and the cost of everyday household items, so are NHS dental practices. The chronic underfunding has coincided with rising overheads. Most notably, the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will have a severe impact on NHS dental practices, which are already on their knees. That tax rise will significantly affect health and care services for patients. The Liberal Democrats fear that it will only make the crisis in our NHS and social care sector even worse.
We have urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to urgently rethink the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions, either by cancelling it for all employers or at the very least by exempting those employers that provide vital health and care services, including GP services, dentists, social care providers and pharmacies. Without that exemption, the health and care crisis will only worsen and regional disparity will widen. Children in the south-west region will depend on good fortune. Parents will feel helpless and will be forced to make sacrifices. It risks setting apart and setting back thousands of children.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I will not rehearse the numbers that Members have already given for the south-west, except to say that fewer than half the children in Cornwall have been seen by an NHS dentist in the past 12 months. That is down 13 percentage points from five years earlier. It is just getting worse and worse: people simply cannot get an NHS dentist now in the whole of Cornwall. It is impossible.
We are fortunate in that we have a new Government. We are looking at 700,000 new urgent appointments. Everybody recognises that the dental contract needs reforming, and there is a commitment to reform the contract. Obviously that will take time, so in the meantime we may need to look at what can be done locally.
In Cornwall, the commissioning of dentistry has been passed down to the integrated care board, which has done some quite innovative things. A surgery in Lostwithiel that was just about to hand back its contract went into bespoke negotiations so that the under-18s, the elderly and vulnerable people could retain their NHS dentist. There is the option, within the contract, for local ICBs to do more, to go into bespoke negotiations and maybe to salvage some things while we are waiting for the large renegotiation of the dental contract.
There are other things that I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider; I am sure he has done so. Could he say more about health hubs, about having more bespoke contracts and about how much power ICBs have to enter into those contracts? Will he look at things such as emergency dental vans, which I understand are a sticking plaster, but which have been used in some places?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) mentions dental vans: we were due to have one in Dorset, but I heard from my local NHS dentist in Corfe Mullen that they were seriously concerned about the prospect. They were worried that if they took it out to their rural community, there would be mayhem and frustration on the part of people who had not seen a dentist in so long. They were actually in fear for their staff, so they decided not to take the dental van. They also noted that it was 2.4 times more expensive than operating a practice, so they decided that they would invest the practice’s extra money in an additional graduate dentist. I met her a few weeks ago: her name is also Vicky. I am really excited about the work she could do, particularly in children’s health, but the decision to increase national insurance without exempting dentists means that the equivalent of half her salary will now go on additional national insurance for the staff within the practice. That is jeopardising the opportunity for practices like Corfe Mullen dental surgery to take on such staff.
It is interesting that dental care was available on the NHS from its inception. The original advert for the NHS stated that it would provide
“all medical, dental and nursing care”
for everyone—
“rich or poor, man, woman or child”.
I am sure Beveridge and Bevan would turn in their graves if they thought that adults were pulling out their own teeth and children were being hospitalised for tooth extraction. It has already been said that fewer than a third of adults in the south-west are receiving dental care. When we describe it as a desert, we are not talking about our wonderful beaches. It is genuinely a dental desert.
I find it hard because NHS Dorset has told us that it had a £9 million underspend in the last year, yet people are spending hours on the phone, begging for help. I am pleased that our ICB has approved an increase in the price of the unit of dental activity, but why is that being delayed until next year, and why are we not going further? Why is it that our hospital can find the money to go to a private hospital and sort out all the knee replacements, but our dentists cannot be brought online to deal with urgent cases? I ask the Minister to instruct ICBs across the south-west and beyond to ringfence the underspend in dental budgets, so that it cannot be used to plug the gap elsewhere in the service while people are struggling.
Katie in Bearwood told me that she will lose her front tooth if she does not get help soon. She wakes up every day with blood on her pillow and all over her teeth. The pain is so unbearable that it has her in tears, and she has lost two stone in weight as she can barely eat. She cannot get a referral to hospital without paying to see a private dentist. She is ashamed to go out in public. She said that she will have to pay £1,000 in private costs before she can be seen, but nobody will give her a loan. Zoe in Wimborne told me it has been nine years since she has seen a dentist, and that she is close to using the old-fashioned method of string and a door. It is absolutely ridiculous. It cannot be allowed to carry on.
I cannot not talk about the children in our area. It is wonderful that the Government are bringing in supervised toothbrushing, but what is the point if children then cannot see a dentist? I was mortified in 2022 when I took a foster child who had come to live with me to my dentist, because I had assumed that, as with GP practices, looked-after children would automatically be added to a family’s NHS practice. How wrong I was. We did not realise, so we insisted on telling the dentist that they had to see this child. He was 11 years old and he had seven teeth gone already. He needed those teeth replacing for his future and for his smile. If we cannot do it for the adults, we must at the very least do it for our children, especially our looked-after children.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I am here to speak on behalf of Exeter residents about the parlous state of NHS dentistry in our city after 14 years of the Tory Government, who allowed NHS dentistry to fall into complete disrepair.
We have heard that the south-west is one of the most notorious dental deserts, but most troubling is the proportion of children who get to see a dentist. In Devon, it has dropped by a fifth, from about 61% of children in 2016 to 47% in 2024, well below the English average of 55%. The reality is truly shocking. Across the country, tooth decay is now the No. 1 reason why children are admitted to hospital, and more than 40,000 children in 2021-22 had teeth removed at hospitals across the UK. That is the case in Exeter too. The Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS foundation trust states in its annual accounts that tooth decay is still the most common reason for hospital admission in children aged between six and 10 years old. According to the oral health survey of five-year-old children, more than a fifth of children in Exeter—22%—have tooth decay by the time they are five.
I talked to one of my local primary schools in preparation for this debate, to get the views of its staff. They said that they know of multiple children who have had teeth removed due to a lack of dentistry and then had to miss school. Some children have joined reception with all of their teeth brown or blackened stumps. Children are missing school due to being in agony from toothache and having no dentist, and many families—and indeed teachers—are unable to find an NHS dentist that will take them on. It is truly shocking, and, as with many things, our primary schools do what they can to pick up the slack. This primary school already teaches children how to brush their teeth, and they do so each day in reception. Exeter’s NHS dentist crisis is not just having a detrimental impact on people’s teeth and health; it is having a detrimental impact on children’s education and on our economy. It is also having a detrimental impact on our local A&E department, which is already stretched to capacity. Tooth decay forced 740 patients to attend the emergency department between April 2022 and March 2023, according to NHS Digital data.
Comparing NHS regions, those in the south-west and south-east were least likely to have an NHS dentist and most likely to have a private one. Given that the cost of simply being accepted on to a private dentistry register can be upwards of £70 a month for a small family, before treatments are added in, this is clearly a cost of living issue for many.
As referenced already, the NHS dental budget across the south-west is underspent by more than £86 million in the financial year 2023-24. That is not due to any lack of demand, of course, but largely due to dental practices being unable to work under the current NHS contract, which simply does not cover the cost of treatment. We are asking dentists to deliver NHS services at a loss, which is clearly unsustainable.
Instead of seeking to provide flexibility in the dental contract, as I know some integrated care systems do across the country, Devon ICB simply reallocates that dental funding elsewhere in the budget, despite the fact that it is supposed to be ringfenced. That is causing us further issues in Devon, as the BDA informs me that dentists are leaving the NHS in droves. In Devon, we saw a 9% drop in the number of NHS dentists last year alone.
My residents welcome the Labour Government’s pledge to provide an extra 700,000 urgent dentists’ appointments and to reform the NHS dental contract, as part of a package of measures to rescue NHS dentistry. I know the Department is working at pace to roll out those extra, urgent dental appointments, and to pave the way for a new reformed dental contract.
I met the chair of the BDA recently to talk about Exeter specifically; he stressed that NHS dentists, who are stung by the many broken promises from the previous Government, need the Labour Government to deliver meaningful change, including a clear timeline for negotiations. I know the Government treat NHS dentistry extremely seriously—the Health Secretary made the BDA the first organisation he met after the election—and I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say recently at Prime Minister’s questions that he would work as quickly as possible to end the current crisis. Given what I know and what we have heard today, for my constituents in Exeter that change cannot come soon enough.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) on securing this vital debate about NHS dentistry in the south-west.
My constituents know the issues with access to NHS dentists only too well. Since 2020, the number of dentists in the county has fallen from 549 to 497. That means that each remaining dentist must see almost 300 additional patients a year. It is clear that we have a significant shortage of dentists in Devon. Only 34.7% of adults in the county have seen a dentist in the past year, compared with 55% 10 years ago. As we also heard from the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), very few children are seeing dentists: 46.6% of children in Devon in the past year, compared with 61% in 2016.
For those who live in or around Ivybridge in my constituency, there are currently only two dental practices within a 10-mile radius accepting new patients. That only gets worse for the more rural and coastal communities, and the statistics are not good for the communities within the Plymouth boundary. I am aware that an anomaly in Devon is that there is actually a waiting list for NHS dentists.
At one recent meeting with local senior health officials, it was pointed out that Devon’s waiting list is unusual, perhaps even unique. We have 60,000 people on that list, believing they are entitled to an NHS dentist, when, as was discussed at the same meeting and I was led to believe on the day, the existing NHS contract was designed to serve only 55% of the adult population. The assumption was that others would access dental care privately.
I am not making a judgment about whether that is right or wrong; I am just stating the fact that most people do not understand that. The dental system was set up to be more like that for opticians than GPs at the time. The issues we currently face in Devon have in many ways gone beyond those points’ being particularly relevant, but it is worth reflecting how important it is to be honest with people, as we make changes, to ensure they understand what the impact of those changes might be for them.
Before I reach the main point I wish to make today, I will briefly mention two challenges we face in Devon: how we train dentists and how NHS contracts are awarded. Devon is fortunate to have an outstanding dental school at the University of Plymouth. When it opened, many believed it would provide the city and the region beyond with a ready supply of new dentists to help us tackle our dental shortage. The school, however, is so successful that it is incredibly difficult to secure a place to study there, which has an impact on local people’s being able to study at home and perhaps stay after graduation.
Equally, I have been informed by an expert on dental training that the way we train dentists makes it very difficult for people to stay where they have studied. Currently, the system almost forces the non-local dentists—the ones that might be coming down from the midlands —to go back to where they came from, rather than staying in the south-west if they want to. I urge the Minister to look into what more can be done to ensure that students can more easily stay where they have studied; at the moment, even if a dental student falls in love with Devon, it is very difficult for them to stay and help us to solve our problems.
Secondly, I am concerned about the lack of flexibility in the awarding of new NHS contracts at a time when we are in desperate need of more dentists. I was contacted about a year ago by a dentist seeking to open a practice in my constituency, who was told by the ICB that the window for applications had closed. That may have been the case but, given that we are in such dire need of dentists, perhaps an exception could have been made.
That leads me, finally, to my main point. In the last 12 months, 876 people attended the emergency department at Derriford hospital for a dental reason. Of those, 18% were under the age of 20 and 82% were over 20. That is an average of 2.4 people per day having to resort to using the emergency department to access dental care. Of these patients, 77 were then admitted for treatment. That is why we need to see the stalled review into funding for Derriford hospital’s urgent and emergency care facility, because it is part of the bigger picture of how we provide dental care across the south-west. If we free up emergency, we have more capacity to look after the region more fully.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) on securing this important debate on NHS dentistry in the south-west.
NHS dentistry stands at a critical crossroads, facing the most challenging period in its history. A recent report from the Nuffield Trust described the threat to NHS dentistry as “existential”. Under the previous Conservative Government, NHS dentistry was put under immense strain, with only enough dentists to serve half the population and a severe shortage of investment. The Tories left Britain with one of the smallest dentistry budgets across Europe. At the start of the year, a staggering 13 million people were unable to access NHS dental care, which is more than three times as many as before the pandemic. Tragically, 7% of adults have resorted to the most desperate of measures: performing DIY dentistry, including pulling out their own teeth.
In the south-west, and particularly in my Gloucester constituency, the situation is deeply concerning. The region is one of the worst dental deserts in the country, as we have heard today, with just over a third of adults in the south-west having seen an NHS dentist in the last two years. In some cases, people are waiting up to four years for an appointment. The effects on children are particularly shocking. In the south-west, only one in two children was seen by an NHS dentist in the last year—well below the national average. That is a disgrace. We see an increasing number of children suffering from tooth decay, to the point that the most common reason for hospital admissions among children aged five to nine is to have their teeth removed due to rot.
In my constituency of Gloucester, two in five constituents are facing significant delays in accessing dental treatment, with many unable to see an NHS dentist at all. I heard some of these challenges first hand on a visit to the Bupa surgery on Painswick Road in my constituency. Sadly, Gloucester falls below the national and south-west averages for children and adults seen by a dentist, and has one of the lowest numbers of dentists in England. Families across Gloucester are suffering.
Plans are afoot to change that, and I have had positive early discussions with the ICB and the University of Gloucestershire about their plans to establish a new dental hub at the university’s new campus in the city centre, which is very exciting for my city. I am also aware that we need long-term change and investment from the Government to ensure that we meet the current challenges in NHS dentistry and reverse the worrying finding that 60% of NHS dentists in England have considered leaving the profession.
That is why I am proud to support the Government’s plan to fix NHS dentistry to deal with the immediate crisis. The Government have committed to providing 700,000 additional urgent dental appointments to tackle the backlog and to provide immediate relief to those suffering in my constituency. I look forward to the Minister’s update on that in his closing remarks. I know that the Labour Government are committed to providing the necessary investment and reform to ensure that our dental services are fit for the future, but these measures are desperately needed in Gloucester and across the south-west.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) on leading a genuinely important debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)—to mention but a few. I also thank Government Members for their contributions to this important debate.
Nearly three years ago, in 2022, long before I was a Member of Parliament, I launched a survey of dental provision for the NHS in my Taunton and Wellington constituency. It showed that fewer than half of people there had access to an NHS dentist. Nearly three years on things have, incredibly, got worse. There are 64,000 children in the county who did not see a dentist last year. That puts Somerset in the worst-hit 5% of local authorities in the country.
As has been mentioned, access to NHS dentists in Somerset has fallen from more than half of people back in 2015 to less than a third—32%—this year. Over half the constituents who contacted me did have an NHS dentist but were then told it was going private, so they lost it. That decline has been consistent. My constituents are having to travel out of county and, as I said in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago, one of my constituents, a stage 3 cancer sufferer, is having to use her savings to pay for dental treatment that she is entitled to for free on the national health service.
Taunton and Wellington has many of the same problems as other areas of the country, in particular the terrible state of the dental contract, which is at the root of much of this issue. I have met the BDA chair, as have Government Members, and it definitely wants a timescale for the negotiation of the new dental contract. I hope the Minister will give a clear timetable for the negotiations so that we can have a new contract, which is what is needed to unblock this situation. If we are to train and equip the profession for the future, which we need to do, we have to end the uncertainty that is exacerbating the drain from the profession and the retention crisis we have seen over the past few years. It is vital that that uncertainty comes to an end.
Uncertainty hits in other ways as well. For example, we all want more housing built—certainly, those on the Liberal Democrat Benches do, and I know that Government Members do too—and we want new housing developments to be infrastructure-led, with GP surgeries and dental surgeries. Developers could contribute to those surgeries, but what would be the point in building them if they are to lie empty, unstaffed by the dentists we need? Will the Minister consider whether ICBs can be required to support the finding of dentists to staff those facilities, when they are provided?
I put on the record the fact there was a huge £11 million underspend in Somerset last year. Children, pregnant women and cancer sufferers are all being denied free treatment and £11 million is sitting in the coffers—it is a scandal. I hope the Minister will consider ensuring that that money is ringfenced year on year, so that it is ultimately spent on the patients who need treatment.
I urge the Minister both to give a timetable for the negotiation of the new contract and to safeguard the underspends so that the money can be used to help patients in Taunton and Wellington, in Somerset and in the south-west as a whole.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing this essential debate about dentistry in the south-west. My mailbox is full of people complaining about the lack of NHS dentistry, and we have heard all the horror stories. As a GP, I see people staggering into my surgery holding their face. I know no more about teeth than anyone else here, but we GPs have to try to treat them with painkillers and antibiotics, because there is nothing else available. We must change that.
Let me quickly talk through the dental contract; I then have a couple of positive stories, which will perhaps stimulate the Minister in respect of what could lie ahead. As has been said, the current dental contract nationally has an £86 million underspend, which is absolute madness, but it is because the contract is incredibly restricted and restrictive. The funding for units of dental activity is very poor.
Richard Foord
The £86 million underspend relates to the south-west in particular.
Dr Opher
Yes, but that is even more shocking, is it not?
There are also disincentives in the contract for dentists to take on new NHS patients. When we look into it, there are all sorts of other things. For example, a dentist cannot provide urgent NHS dentistry unless they have used up their quota of UDAs, which are issued to dentists at the start of the year. The whole system is crazy, which is why there has been such a massive saving. As we have heard, dentists are leaving the profession, and it is clear that we are not training enough. I accept what the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) said about how dentists are trained and where they are likely to end up working, because that is incredibly important.
As to solutions, we must have prevention. Dentistry is exceptional because dental treatment is preventive in its own right, so as soon as NHS dentistry is stripped away, there are immediately problems. We also have to make sure that young people’s diet is better. Dentist Cerri Mellish and I have developed a project in our area. Cerri sees young pre-school children who are under five. She has a quick look in their gobs and if there are signs of decay, they are whipped out and the children are given treatment. If there are any other signs of problems, she can give them fluoride enamel. These types of innovative solutions are really important.
One thing that happened with the pandemic was that NHS dentists stopped registering new patients. The pandemic started in 2020, so almost all pre-school children are likely not to be registered with a dentist, which is a real disaster. We should remember that two thirds of general anaesthetics used for children are used for dental reasons, and a general anaesthetic is not without risk.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) on securing this important debate. I apologise for being an interloper from the west midlands, but it such an important debate that I want to add some thoughts.
My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. As the father of a toddler, I struggle every day to ensure that he brushes his teeth. The gap in the number of registrations since covid is creating a generation of children who are not used to going to the dentist. We have to reverse that trend; otherwise, we will have huge problems as a society, having to treat teenagers and adults with severe dental problems who have never been to the dentist.
Dr Opher
That is absolutely true. Simple things such as dental brushing schemes, which we introduced in the Stroud area before the election, are essential. Those sorts of things are often laughed at, but they are probably the most important thing we do as a Government.
One other quick win relates to urgent care. The Gloucestershire ICB, particularly in the Stroud area, was able to pay more for the units of dental activity and allowed all NHS dentists to do urgent care. In that way, some of the £86 million that the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about was spent. We were able to quadruple the number of urgent appointments.
We can do that kind of work on a smaller scale, but I suggest that we need to do things step-wise. We must get the prevention in place and start doing urgent dental care, and when we have enough money we can do more. It is all very well talking about fantastic NHS dentistry, but we need the funding for it and we need the taxes to pay for it. As a Government, we are responsible for that. In the long term, we need to look to universal NHS dentistry in this country.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank you, Mr Vickers, for ably chairing the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing it.
I represent Torbay, which is sadly a dental desert. We have more than 2,200 people on our waiting list, desperate to receive support from a dentist. I fear that is just a shadow of the reality of the need there, because people think that it is a forlorn hope to be able to register for a dentist. More than half the adults of Torbay have not seen a dentist in the past two years. More than a third of children have not seen a dentist in the past year. This is a cocktail of severe dangers for the health of communities across the United Kingdom.
I have spoken to a number of residents since being elected, and I want to share a couple of examples of how the situation is impacting on real people. One of them told me that she was halfway through treatment to resolve challenges in her mouth when her dentist withdrew, leaving her with a job half done. She still suffers with pain and is upset about her dentistry needs.
Another resident, Kirstie, tells me that she suffers with a condition that means she is highly likely to develop mouth cancer. She is meant to receive three-monthly checks yet, as she has no NHS dentist and cannot afford a private practice dentist, she is having to go without. That is resulting in severe depression and her having to medicate for those depression issues. That is not where the United Kingdom should be.
Coastal and rural communities face real challenges in dentistry. When we look at the national picture, urban areas tend to be rich in dentists; our far-flung areas are much more challenged. I am delighted that we are looking at about 700,000 new emergency appointments, but how many of those will happen in Torbay? On the renegotiation of the dentists’ contract, how will we be able to take account of rurality and coastal issues as part of the mix?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing the debate.
Last year, a staggering 58% of children in south Gloucestershire were not seen by an NHS dentist, despite the NHS recommending that under-18s see a dentist at least once a year. When we talk to dentists, however, that is not surprising. As we emerged from the pandemic, one local dentist stopped NHS work for all, including children. When I spoke to those at the practice, they were clear that the contract was at fault, but they also explained that they would have liked to continue NHS dentistry for children but NHS England in the south-west was not supportive.
The last Conservative Government failed to fix the broken contract, and the new Government have yet to show that they grasp the scale of the challenge. We are calling for an emergency rescue plan, including the use of the underspends that have been referred to today to boost the number of appointments.
I will mention a couple of examples from my inbox. The first I alluded to recently in the Adjournment debate on rural NHS dentistry led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson). A constituent who had to retire from his job due to health and mobility issues is entitled to free NHS dentistry, yet he was unable to find treatment anywhere near where he lives. Facing a dental emergency, he ended up having to seek private treatment, because of the pain he was in. He struggled to afford it, but felt he had no choice.
Later, my constituent experienced another painful dental issue. This time, when he contacted the NHS, he was told that there was provision but, because he was now registered, it was unavailable to him; it was available only to unregistered patients. As a result, he had to pay £95 for a small temporary filling at a private practice. He was then told he was not entitled to be enrolled as an NHS patient, as he was registered as a private patient with the practice. I hope the Minister will agree to look into that situation to ensure that everyone can get the care they need.
Another issue I will draw attention to is people missing appointments. A constituent of mine got in touch to complain that, although he is one of the lucky ones in the area who is still able to access dental treatment on the NHS, he was shocked to see a sign saying that 39 people had missed their appointment last month. Staff confirmed that that was the number of people who missed appointments at the practice with no warning or formal cancellation—and that is just one practice. They also said that number was actually quite low, and that it was regularly much higher.
Because those missed appointments were no-shows, not cancellations, the slots could not be offered to other people desperately in need. That resulted in the equivalent of more than eight days of lost work. That brings us back to the question of the contract and how we can make sure that dentists are rewarded for their time, because it adds to the problem of them not being remunerated in a way that enables them to continue NHS work. It is also a question of making the best use of limited resources. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how to ensure that happens.
Over 12 million people were unable to access NHS dental care last year. That is more than one in four adults in England, and three times as many people as before the pandemic. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) about the challenges, particularly in rural areas, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that. We have been warning about the issues for years, yet there has been little decisive action to address the crisis. The British Dental Association has been pushing hard to get the Government to ditch the current failed dental contract and instead move to a more prevention-focused, patient-centred system that rewards dentists for improving the overall health of the communities they serve.
In short, I welcome the warm words from the Government on dentistry, but we need more than words; we need action. I urge this Government not to kick the can down the road as the previous Government did.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this debate. The strength of the contributions by south-west Members from all parts of the House show how important this issue is for everyone in the region. I thank my hon. Friend for making the debate about the south-west. I grew up in Gloucestershire, and my dentistry as a child began in Tewkesbury. The comment by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) that dental treatment is preventive in its own right was helpful. Indeed, thanks to the insistence of my mother, Christine, on my going to the dentist twice a year, I never got a filling until I was into my 40s. I thank her for that.
While I welcome the Government’s injection of funds into the NHS as a whole, we must be clear that dentistry should not be forgotten. That is why I, along with many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, have today written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask her to reconsider the proposed increases in employer national insurance contributions in the case of various healthcare providers, including the dentistry sector and those providing NHS dentistry. Commenting on that letter, the British Dental Association said that the changes, should they go ahead, will inevitably punish patients.
Before coming to this debate, I had meetings with the National Care Forum and the children’s hospice charity Together for Short Lives. In all those forums, grave concerns have been raised about the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on the work that providers do, and the potential cuts to the number of people they employ and the services they offer. I ask the Minister to urge his team in the Department of Health and Social Care to reconsider and to press the Treasury to rethink the increase, or at least look at finding some form of dispensation.
As hon. Members have said, tooth decay is the most common reason for hospital admission in children between the ages of six and 10. Thanks to a freedom of information request commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, we know that over 100,000 children have been admitted to hospital with rotting teeth since 2018. That is shameful, yet also entirely preventable. That is what makes it so tragic.
Our failures stretch across the full breadth of age groups. Last year, a poll commissioned by the Liberal Democrats revealed that a shocking one in five people who fail to get an NHS appointment turn to DIY dentistry. Indeed, during the general election, I knocked on the door of somebody who told me that he had pulled his own teeth out. It is simply Victorian that that has happened to dentistry in our country in 2024. The Darzi review found that
“only about 30 and 40 per cent of NHS dental practices are accepting new child and adult registrations respectively.”
To me, and I think to everyone here, the fact that our dentistry system is in a position where people feel the need to pull out their own teeth is appalling.
The south-west is feeling the full force of the crisis, having lost more than 100 dentists last year alone. However, the issue is not limited to the south-west. Only one of the 13 dentists in my constituency of Mid Sussex is accepting children as NHS patients, and none is accepting adults. Using data from the House of Commons Library, it is estimated that 44% of children in West Sussex did not see a dentist in the year to March 2024.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are calling for three things and we have a plan to make them happen. First, we need guaranteed access to an NHS dentist for everyone who needs urgent and emergency care. Secondly, we need guaranteed access to free NHS check-ups for those already eligible: children, new mothers, those who are pregnant and those on low incomes. Thirdly, we need guaranteed appointments for all those who need a dental check before commencing surgery, chemotherapy or a transplant.
The first thing that we can do to achieve those vital baselines in dental care is to deliver a dental rescue package, including investing in extra dental appointments, fixing the broken NHS dental contract and using flexible commissioning to meet patient needs. Secondly, we need to ensure that a proper workforce plan for health and social care, including projections for dentists and dental staff, is written into law. Thirdly, we would reverse the previous Government’s cuts to public health grants to support preventive dental healthcare. We must tackle the root causes of the oral health catastrophe in the south-west by focusing on investment in prevention. In doing so, we can put an end to the suffering of so many children and adults, take away the need for DIY dentistry and provide some much-needed respite for the NHS system as a whole.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) on securing a debate on this important subject, starting at the significant time of two-thirty—I thought that was particularly skilled of him. [Laughter.] I thought you would like that one, Mr Vickers.
Nobody should have painful teeth and nobody should have difficulty accessing an NHS dentist. Lincolnshire, which is home to my constituency, suffers similar challenges with access to NHS dentistry; indeed, I led an Adjournment debate on the topic in October 2021. It has been pointed out that the number of dentists is not the issue; in fact, we have more dentists per capita than we did 10 years ago. Rather, dentists are either in the wrong place—concentrated in urban rather than rural and coastal areas—or they do not perform NHS work, for a variety of reasons. That leads to the underspend that has been described.
There has been some progress, with 500 more practices accepting NHS patients as a result of the dental recovery plan, and 6 million more dental treatment processes completed in 2023 than in 2021-22. One thing that helped with that was the patient premium for new patients, who are more likely than repeat patients to have a problem with their teeth that requires treatment. They are also more expensive for dentists to treat, so the current contract disincentivises the seeing of new patients. The patient premium is funded until April 2025. Will the Minister say whether he plans to continue it beyond that date? Another help has been the golden hello of up to £20,000 for dentists working in underserved areas, including the south-west, the midlands and East Anglia. Will the Minister say whether that scheme will continue?
A number of hon. Members have mentioned a long-term workforce plan. There are already additional dental training places in the south-west, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) pointed out, there can be challenges in the way the training is organised, which means that people do not stay in the local area—although more do stay than if they had been trained elsewhere. Will the Minister look in detail at the problems my hon. Friend raised?
Ultimately, we have more dentists than ever before, but private dentistry is much more lucrative than NHS dentistry, and the NHS contract is complicated, offers disincentives and needs reform. The previous Government began reforming the 2006 contract by increasing the UDA rate to £28 as a minimum. The Labour party had a manifesto promise to negotiate with the BDA. Will the Minister confirm if negotiations have started and, if they have not, when he expects them to start?
Tom Hayes
I have just been rereading the 2010 Conservative manifesto—a delightful read. On page 47, it promises full dental contract reform. I then looked at comments by Conservative Ministers in 2024, when they promised to “consider” dental contract reform. Can the hon. Lady explain why no meaningful reform happened over those 14 years of Conservative government?
Dr Johnson
It is unfair to say that there was no meaningful reform. There was reform, but it has not been enough to ensure that everyone gets a dental appointment, and we need further negotiation and reform. We can relitigate the election, but the Labour party won a majority for this term and it needs to use it to do what it promised. One of those things is reforming the contract, and that is why I am asking the Minister to tell us whether he has entered negotiations to do so.
One thing the Government have done—this was brought up by the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett)—is increase national insurance contributions and lower the thresholds at which they are paid, which presents a challenge for dentists across the country. I know the BDA has written to the Chancellor to ask for an exemption, and I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that. I have tabled a number of written questions, and the answers I have received have been less than satisfactory; they are really not proper answers at all. The Government do not seem to have worked out how much they intend to mitigate the increase in national insurance contributions, for whom they might do so, or how much it might cost. That is clearly a great worry.
The Health Service Journal published a leaked letter suggesting that the cost of the 700,000 extra appointments —and presumably, in many cases, the national insurance contributions—will have to be found within the current budget. The Department of Health and Social Care has suggested that the letter was never sent and therefore may be inaccurate. Will the Minister put on the record the reality of the situation? Will the funding be expected to come from the current budget, or will there be extra money—and, if so, how much?
The Minister has said himself that water fluoridation is safe and effective and reduces tooth decay, so will he be adding fluoride to our water? He said in answer to a parliamentary question that he would do so “in due course”. Will he tell us what that means and how quickly he expects to do it? The Government have talked the talk on prevention; now they need to take action.
The previous Government conducted a consultation on whether newly qualified dentists could be tied into working for the NHS for a period of time. What is the Government’s assessment of that consultation, and what do they intend to do about the issue? Supervised toothbrushing is an interesting plan, but what about children of other ages? What is being done to encourage parents to take responsibility for ensuring that their children’s teeth are cleaned?
Armed forces families move around the country a huge amount, and our forces do an excellent job keeping us safe. The Conservative Government brought in the armed forces covenant to protect our armed forces and their families. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that families can access NHS dental care as they move around the country, and that they do not have to wait for a place only to not get one, and then move again and have the same problem?
I think it was the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth who brought up international dentists. An international dentist with equivalent qualifications can work in the UK privately, but they need to go through an additional process to work for the NHS and be on the performers list, which is unnecessarily complicated. What will the Minister do to ensure that, if a dentist is able to practise privately in the UK, they can also practise on the NHS—or does he think that is not the right thing to do?
Other Members have mentioned fluoride varnish. Does the Minister have a plan to ensure that young children have access to that treatment? Finally, the Secretary of State for Wales has said that Labour will “take inspiration from Wales”. Given that dental activity is at 58% of pre-pandemic levels in Wales, compared with 85% in England, and that 93% of practices in Wales—a greater proportion than in the rest of the UK—are not taking on new adult NHS patients, will the Minister reassure us that that is definitely not the case?
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) on securing this very important debate on NHS dentistry in the south-west.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that this Government will be honest about the problems facing the NHS and equally serious about tackling them. The truth is that we are very far from where we want and need to be. Lord Darzi’s report laid bare the true extent of the challenges facing our health service, including NHS dentistry. Even he, with his years of experience, was shocked by what he discovered.
I pay tribute to all the hon. Members from across the House—too many to name in the short time available to me—for helping to highlight and elucidate their concerns. In many ways, those reflected what Lord Darzi set out, but we have also heard today some heartbreaking examples of the experiences our constituents are having. Colleagues across the House have brought those to life today.
Lord Darzi’s report is vital because it gives us the frank assessment we needed to face the challenges honestly. Lord Darzi is clear that rescuing NHS dentistry will not happen overnight, but we will not wait to make improvements to the current system, to increase access and to incentivise the workforce to deliver more NHS care.
We inherited a broken NHS dentistry system. It is truly shameful and nothing short of Dickensian that the most frequent reason for children of between five and nine years old to be admitted to hospital is to have their rotten teeth removed. That is, frankly, disgraceful. Those are the sort of challenges that we need to face.
Some 13 million people in England have an unmet need for NHS dentistry. That is 28% of our country. It is absurd that people cannot access NHS dentistry when each year the budget is underspent—in recent years, that has been to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of care going undelivered. That is why we need to reform the dentistry contract.
In NHS Devon integrated care board, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth, 34% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months to March 2024, compared with an average of 40% in England. In 2023-24, there were 40 dentists per 100,000 of the population, whereas the national average, across all integrated care boards, was 50 in the same year.
We acknowledge that there are areas of the country that are experiencing recruitment and retention issues—including many rural areas, where the challenges in accessing NHS dentistry are exacerbated. As Lord Darzi said, we have enough dentists and dental care professionals at an aggregated national level; the problem is that not enough of them are doing NHS work in the right parts of the country, where they are most needed.
The mountain that we have to climb is daunting, but this Government are not daunted and we are working at pace. Take for example the golden hello scheme, which will see up to 240 dentists receiving payments of £20,000 to work in those areas that need them most for three years. ICBs have already started to advertise those posts through that scheme. Nationally, there have been 624 expressions of interest and 292 of those have since been approved. Thirty-eight posts are now being advertised with the incentive payment included. Or take our rescue plan, which will help to get NHS dentistry back on its feet by providing 700,000 additional urgent appointments as rapidly as possible.
We know that rescuing NHS dentistry means acknowledging that we need more dentists doing NHS work and we know from survey data that morale among NHS dentists is low. We must turn that around. This Government will do all we can to make NHS dentistry an attractive proposition. Strengthening the workforce is key to our ambitions, but for years the NHS has been facing chronic workforce shortages and we have to be honest that bringing in the staff we need will take time.
We are committed to reforming the dentistry contract to make NHS work more attractive, boost retention and deliver a shift to prevention. There are no perfect payment models, and careful consideration needs to be given to any potential changes to the complex dental system, so that we deliver genuine improvements for patients and the profession. We are continuing to work with the British Dental Association and other representatives of the dental sector to deliver our shared ambition to improve access to treatment for NHS dental patients.
The Secretary of State met with the BDA on his first day in office, and I engage with it regularly, including at a meeting earlier this month. I share the BDA’s desire for a timeline for negotiations, but we have had to wait for the Budget and the ensuing discussions with the Treasury to initiate and conclude those discussions.
Stephen Kinnock
As the hon. Gentleman will understand, we are in a sequence: we have the Budget, then the complex negotiations around the spending review. We cannot engage in meaningful, formal discussions and negotiations until we are clear on what exactly the financial envelope is. We are working at pace on that. However, we have been meeting informally to sketch it out, so I would say that the scope of the negotiations is agreed. The formal negotiations will really start only once we have the detailed budget in place.
We will listen to the sector and learn from the best practice to improve our workforce and deliver more care. For example, the integrated care boards in the south-west are applying their delegated powers to increase the availability of NHS dentistry across the region through other targeted recruitment and retention activities. That includes work on a regional level to attract new applicants through increased access to postgraduate bursaries, exploring the potential for apprenticeships and supporting international dental graduates.
There are two dental schools in the south-west: Bristol Dental School, and Peninsula Dental School in Plymouth. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Bristol Dental School and seeing the excellent work that they are doing there, training the next generation of dental professionals, supporting NHS provision by treating local patients, and reaching underserved populations through outreach programmes. I also know that Peninsula Dental School, which first took on students in 2007, is doing the same for Plymouth and its surrounding areas.
I would also like to pay tribute to Patricia Miller of NHS Dorset, Lesley Haig of the Health Sciences University and council leader Millie Earl for working so constructively with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on improving oral health in his constituency.
A number of hon. Members have rightly highlighted the importance of prevention, and we are working around the clock to end the appalling tooth decay that is blighting our children. We will work with local authorities and the NHS to introduce supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds in our most deprived communities, getting them into healthy habits for life and protecting their teeth from decay. We will set out plans in due course, but it is clear that to maximise our return on investment, we need to be targeting those plans at children in the most disadvantaged communities. In addition to that scheme, the measures that we are taking to reduce sugar consumption will also have a positive effect on improving children’s oral health.
Separate from the national schemes, I was pleased to note that NHS Devon integrated care board has committed £900,000 per annum for three years to support further cohorts of children for supervised toothbrushing, fluoride varnish and Open Wide Step Inside, with a new fluoride varnish scheme due to go live in September 2025. Open Wide Step Inside is a local scheme in which a dental outreach team, run by the Peninsula Dental Social Enterprise, goes into schools to deliver 45-minute oral health education lessons across Devon and Cornwall. It is a truly commendable scheme.
The steps we take in NHS dentistry will feed into the wider work we are doing to fix our broken NHS. We have committed to three strategic shifts: from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital. Our 10-year plan will set out how we deliver those shifts to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future.
Dr Johnson
The Minister has iterated the problem, and he has spoken warm words about listening, talking and working with people. However, he has said little that is concrete, except about things that were happening already, either locally or as a result of the previous Government. With a minute left to answer all the questions he has been asked, can he commit to answering in writing those he does not have time to answer in the remaining minutes?
Stephen Kinnock
The first thing I will say is that I am not going to take any lectures from any Conservative Member about the state of our dental system. What brass neck we see from that party, both in the Chamber and in this place—lecturing us, given the disgraceful state of our NHS and the fact that the biggest cause of five to nine-year-olds going to hospital is to have their rotten teeth removed! I will not be taking any lectures on that from the Conservative party. Of course, I am more than happy to answer the hon. Lady’s detailed questions, many of which I feel I have already answered in my preceding comments. I will not take any more interventions from her because I need to finish shortly.
Our 10-year plan will set out how we deliver these shifts to ensure the NHS is fit for the future. To develop the plan, we must have a meaningful conversation with the public and those who work in the health system. We are going to conduct a range of engagement activities, bringing in views from the public, the health and care workforce, national and local stakeholders, system leaders and parliamentarians. I urge hon. Members from across the House to please get involved in this consultation—the largest in the history of the NHS—at change.nhs.uk. I urge them to make their voices heard in their constituencies, through the deliberative events.
Vikki Slade
I have been on to the survey, and it is incredibly limited. It would be helpful if there were a way for the public to be encouraged to introduce more freeform responses.
Stephen Kinnock
I am slightly surprised to hear that. The presentation I received on the portal showed there was a clear channel through to having a more discursive engagement with the platform. I will take that feedback away and, through officials, will come back to the hon. Lady on that point.
I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth once again for bringing the issue of dentistry in the south-west to this debate. On 4 July, we inherited a profoundly challenging fiscal position, but I can assure him that we remain committed to tackling the immediate crisis facing NHS dentistry, and that we are taking steps to make delivery more efficient through long-term reform.
To recap, we are committed to providing 700,000 more urgent dental appointments, delivering the golden hello scheme to recruit more dentists in areas of greatest need, bringing in preventive measures to improve our children’s oral health and negotiating long-term contract reforms to make NHS dentistry more attractive. Those steps will help tackle the place-based disparities commonly seen in dentistry, and ensure that everyone who needs to access NHS dentistry can get it, including in the south-west.
Our NHS dentistry is broken after 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence, but it is not beaten. In 1945, it fell to Clement Attlee’s Labour Government to create a health system for the 20th century. Now, 79 years later, it falls to this Government to clear up the mess we have inherited, to get NHS dentistry back on its feet and to build an NHS dentistry service fit for the 21st century. That is what we shall do.
Richard Foord
I acknowledge what the Minister said about the Conservative Government’s legacy for NHS dentistry, which is apparent for us all to see. The Health Service Journal revealed last month that in Devon and Cornwall, the wait for an NHS dental appointment for a new patient is 1,441 days—almost four years. Many of my constituents cannot wait that long. I hope the Minister has heard not only the examples of pain and suffering set out today but some of the prescriptions proposed by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and other MPs from across the west country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered NHS dentistry in the South West.
Tackling Image-based Abuse
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling image-based abuse.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I declare an interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee. I am bringing this motion before the House to maintain the steady pressure from campaigners and parliamentarians on an issue that is both urgent and often neglected: image-based sexual abuse, which is a form of violence that overwhelmingly affects women and girls.
Today, I aim to shed light on where our legislation on image-based sexual abuse is falling short and to propose three reforms that this Labour Government can deliver. This will build on the fine work conducted by Members across the House—including the Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips); Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes); the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and current and previous members of the Women and Equalities Committee—as well as Members of the other place.
Image-based sexual abuse encompasses a wide range of violations, from digitally altered images such as deepfakes to invasive acts such as upskirting, downblousing and so-called revenge porn. In an increasingly digital world, this abuse—this violence—is an escalating crisis.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. This is a massive issue in my constituency, and that is why we are all here to support her. The Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland has revealed that 96% of deepfakes surveyed online were non-consensual pornographic materials, and 70% of targets were private individuals’ photos that had been harvested from social media. Does she agree that more must be done in schools to make young people aware of the dangers and risks that come with sharing private content online?
Kirith Entwistle
Yes, that is an important point. It goes to show the extent and the seriousness of the issue.
Drawing on two powerful accounts that have profoundly shaped my own perspective, I will highlight the three glaring flaws that we must confront. The first is the failure to ensure the permanent removal of abusive content, which leaves survivors chained to their trauma. The second is the weak regulatory enforcement that allows platforms to shrug off their responsibilities. The third is the lack of civil remedies for survivors, a lifeline that we know to be critical to restoring dignity, control and hope.
I will not have the space today to discuss how we can prevent online violence against women and girls by embedding it into the relationships, sex and health education curriculum, to which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded, or how proceeds from the digital services tax and Ofcom fines could sustainably fund lifesaving support services for victims. However, those issues loom large in the debate.
I am grateful that the Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is present. I look forward to hearing how tackling image-based abuse aligns with this Government’s unprecedented commitment to halving violence against women and girls. I also hope to hear from the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on these issues. In the UK, we face an escalating crisis of image-based sexual abuse. Every week, new victims emerge and women and girls lose their right to control their most intimate images.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
So many young women are having their life destroyed by the proliferation of deepfakes and AI-enabled images. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill introduced by Baroness Owen—the Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill—would go some way towards addressing the issue, and that the Government should look favourably on it?
Kirith Entwistle
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I will come on to that important Bill. I know that Baroness Owen has already done a great deal of work on the issue.
In 2023 alone, the Revenge Porn Helpline reported nearly 19,000 cases of abuse, a staggering increase from just 1,600 cases in 2019. Deepfake-related abuse has surged by 400% since 2017, with over 99% of these vile creations targeting women and girls. The numbers are shocking, but they are more than statistics. Behind each one is a life and a human story—another innocent person whose confidence, relationships and sense of safety is shattered. Survivors often describe their experience as digital rape, a term that captures the intensely personal and profoundly scarring nature of this violation.
Just two weeks ago, the escalating crisis hit home in my constituency of Bolton North East with the case of Hugh Nelson, who was sentenced at Bolton Crown court to 18 years in prison for creating and distributing depraved sexual images using artificial intelligence. Detective Chief Inspector Jen Tattersall of Greater Manchester police described Nelson as
“an extremely dangerous man who thought he could get away with what he was doing by using modern technology.”
Yet Nelson’s sentencing is something of an exception. Too many perpetrators remain beyond the reach of justice, shielded by gaps in our legal framework. This reality raises a question: has our response truly kept pace with the escalating scale of this crisis? Are we really doing all we can to support victims and survivors?
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case on this important subject. I was deeply shocked to learn from Refuge that, in some cases, reports of intimate image abuse are not being taken seriously by the police force. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for police officers to receive consistent, comprehensive training on internet image abuse so that they understand how the law can further protect women and girls?
Kirith Entwistle
Yes, training would be exceptionally valuable in combating the issue. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to Westminster’s attention and giving us the opportunity to debate it. I place on the record my interest as another member of the Women and Equalities Committee.
We must also do better to protect male victims who reach out to the Revenge Porn Helpline. It is time we prioritised victims. We must not let technology develop without the necessary safeguards to protect us all from harm. I was alarmed to hear last week that online platforms do not take images down while they are reviewing their harmfulness; that practice simply exacerbates the harm that victims face. It is vital we ensure that image-based abuse does not get lost in the excitement of this Government’s new, packed legislative agenda. It is time that the legislation recognised adult non-consensual intimate images as illegal content, in the same way that abusive images of children are so considered. The Online Safety Act 2023—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions are supposed to be short. May I ask the hon. Member to conclude hers?
Kirith Entwistle
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We should absolutely be putting victims at the heart of any legislation on this topic.
I do not believe that in their 14 years the previous Government did anywhere near enough to tackle the issue. I can already see the Labour Government taking decisive steps to change the answer to the question of whether we are doing enough. I welcome the Government’s manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes, an essential step in safeguarding women and girls from malicious technology. I am encouraged by the collaborative work under way among the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to identify a legislative vehicle to ensure that those who create these images without consent are held accountable. I am also pleased that new changes to the Online Safety Act will make image-based abuse a priority offence.
Although those are positive steps, they represent only modest progress. As experts such as End Violence Against Women and the #NotYourPorn campaign have pointed out, sharing intimate images without consent was already prioritised under the Online Safety Act. So far, the changes under this Government have been merely administrative and merely incremental. Having listened to survivors of image-based abuse, I urge the Minister to agree that this is no time for incremental change.
Georgia Harrison is a courageous campaigner who shared her story with the Women and Equalities Committee. Georgia’s images were distributed without her consent, leading to years of harassment, scrutiny and anguish. Even after her abuser was convicted, Georgia continued to see her images circulate online—a haunting reminder that, as she has stated, her life will never be the same again.
Another survivor is “Jodie”, who bravely spoke to the BBC about the trauma of being deepfaked by someone she once considered her best friend. Jodie discovered that images from her private Instagram account had been overlaid on pornographic material and posted across Reddit and other forums, with users invited to rate her body. Jodie endured this abuse for five years. She recalls:
“I felt alone. The emotional toll was enormous. There were points I was crying so much I burst the blood vessels in my eyes. I couldn’t sleep and when I did, I had nightmares.”
In Jodie’s case, the perpetrator was asking others to create explicit images of her, revealing a shameful grey area in our current legislation. That is why Jodie, along with campaign partners the End Violence Against Women coalition, Glamour and #NotYourPorn, is calling for an image-based abuse law.
Speaking as a mother, I cannot imagine having my child endure such horror. I am grateful that Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge has introduced a private Member’s Bill in the other place to address this gap. She has done a great deal of work on the issue, keeping victims like Georgia and Jodie at the heart of her Bill.
Georgia and Jodie’s experiences underscore three critical flaws in the Online Safety Act. The first is the glaring failure to criminalise abusive images themselves. Georgia’s story illustrates this brutal oversight: despite her abuser’s conviction, the absence of a stay-down provision allows her images still to circulate online, forcing her to relive the trauma with each resurfacing. To quote Professor Clare McGlynn,
“every day these images remain online is another day of extreme suffering for victims.”
Survivors deserve certainty that once their abuse is addressed, it is addressed permanently.
A second flaw in the Act is its reliance on Ofcom, whose current enforcement powers lack the agility and speed needed for an online world in which, if one website is blocked, another can appear instantly. Initiatives such as the StopNCII.org campaign have revealed how social media platforms consistently outmanoeuvre Ofcom. This is effectively leaving tech giants to determine whether supporting survivors like Georgia serves their profit-driven interests. To close the enforcement gaps, I stand with the End Violence Against Women coalition, Glitch and others in calling for a national online abuse commission —a dedicated body to champion the rights of victims and survivors of online abuse.
Finally, our legislation fails survivors by denying them accessible civil remedies—such as immediate take-downs and compensation for emotional harm—outside the criminal process. For survivors such as Jodie who have endured years of abuse, the inability to seek swift relief without a lengthy, retraumatising trial is a devastating gap. Creating a statutory civil offence for image-based abuse would not only empower survivors to seek redress directly against perpetrators and platforms, but give them that all-important second chance. The Minister will know that organisations such as South West Grid for Learning and the UK Safer Internet Centre consider civil remedies as much-needed lifelines for survivors. I wholeheartedly agree.
Today, through Georgia and Jodie’s stories, we have seen the devastating cost of our inaction on the escalating, ever-evolving crisis of image-based abuse. For too long, our legislation has had three glaring deficiencies: the absence of a stay-down provision, the lack of an online abuse commission and the unavailability of civil remedies.
Returning to my earlier questions, I want to be able to tell survivors that this Government are doing everything possible to support them. I want to reassure them that our Ministers are responding in real time to the scale and urgency of the crisis. With every day we delay, more women and girls are thrust into cycles of harm without the protections that they urgently need and deserve. I look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly how we will deliver this assurance. I would also be grateful if I could discuss the matter further with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology at the earliest opportunity.
Let us not wait another day to act. Survivors need real action, not just incremental change. We owe it to Georgia, Jodie and all those who have suffered.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for tabling such an important debate, and she made some really powerful points.
I declare an interest: being very elderly, at one stage I was the Minister for Women and Equalities, and I was responsible for bringing forward the Revenge Porn Helpline. When that legislation came through, I was hopeful that that vital resource would be something temporary, and that one day it would be abolished because we did not need it any more. In actual fact, quite the opposite is true: it is busier than ever. As the hon. Member for Bolton North East said, it is catching some terrible perpetrators of the most horrific online abuse.
I was also the Minister for Digital and Culture who held the baton for a couple of years on the Online Safety Act 2023. I hope that legislation will offer more protection for the victims of this humiliating crime, which, as we know, disproportionately affects women. But technology moves so fast. I am concerned that, despite the protections in the Act and the Revenge Porn Helpline, the emergence of deepfakes in particular has opened up a new front in the war on women—I say that because 99% of pornographic images and deepfakes are of women. Literally tens of millions of deepfake images are being produced every year, most of them sexual, as the hon. Member for Bolton North East said.
The fact that the use of nudification apps and the creation of ultra-realistic deepfake porn for private use is still legal, and worse, becoming more popular, is a war on women’s autonomy. It is a war on our dignity, and a war on our identity. The creation of these unpleasant sexual or nude deepfakes serves to push us out of those spaces and to undermine and silence us, both online and offline. We must do everything we can to stand against it.
I am sure the Minister agrees that we owe a debt to my noble Friend Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge for her work to legislate in this area. She encountered some hate of her own when she was appointed to the other place—she was too young and too female—but her very presence there indicates exactly why we need young women in both Houses to stand up against these injustices and bring them to the fore. I hope the Minister will do everything in her power to see my noble Friend’s fantastic Bill become law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for securing a debate on this very important subject. I look forward to discussing it with her and other members of the Women and Equalities Committee later this month.
This Government are absolutely committed to tackling violence against women and girls, and to restoring trust so that victims know that the justice system sees them, hears them and takes them seriously. In our election manifesto, we promised to make tackling violence against women and girls a political priority—finally, after years of neglect—with a pledge to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. It is an ambitious target, but I believe we can do it.
Tackling online abuse is crucial. As outlined so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East, the statistics are clear, but behind them are real people—real victims. Many of us will have experienced it ourselves, or know friends or family who have. Women have the right to feel safe in every space, online and offline. The rise in intimate image abuse is utterly devastating for victims, but it also spreads misogyny on social media, which can develop into potentially dangerous relationships offline. It is truly an abhorrent crime, which is why the Government are determined to act. It will not be easy and we are just at the start, but we will use all the tools available to us to tackle it.
Let me set out some of the work we are doing right now. First, it is vital that our criminal law is equipped to deal effectively with this behaviour. A range of criminal offences tackle intimate image abuse, whether online or offline. That includes offences of voyeurism and sharing or threatening to share intimate images without consent. However, the current law has developed in piecemeal fashion, with new offences introduced over many years to address different forms of offending. The result is a patchwork of offences with known gaps in protection for victims. For example, while it is currently an offence to share a deepfake of an intimate image without consent, it is not an offence to make one. That is why the Government’s manifesto included a commitment to ban the creation of degrading and harmful sexually explicit deepfakes. This is not porn; this is abuse. We are looking at options to swiftly deliver that commitment in this Session of Parliament. We will consider what further legislative measures may be needed to strengthen the law in this area.
While intimate image abuse rightly has serious criminal consequences, we also need to tackle the prevalence of such content online. That is why, on 12 September, we laid before the House a statutory instrument to add the new criminal offences of sharing or threatening to share intimate images to the list of priority offences under the Online Safety Act. This strengthens the duties on providers to prioritise tackling intimate image abuse under the Act by holding them responsible for stopping the spread.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Strengthening those duties is key. As the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) mentioned, Ofcom does not have the teeth it needs. Would the Minister agree that Ofcom needs to use its codes of practice to push social media companies to be more innovative to tackle the issue at the source?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady makes a very good point; she has pre-empted my next sentence. As I have said, this is a start. Ofcom’s codes of practice are being developed and will give it the tools to go after the platforms, but there is nothing stopping the platforms taking decisive action now. They do not need to wait for Ofcom to have the powers available to make them act. They could remove this imagery now; there is nothing making them wait. Other things could be done to take that further by building safety into design, which I know the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is looking at very carefully.
Ofcom is working on the illegal harms codes of practice, which will take effect next year, and already working with the tech companies to ensure that the Online Safety Act is implemented quickly and effectively. Firms will also need to start risk assessing for that illegal content by the end of this year. Ofcom will have robust enforcement powers available to use against the companies that fail to fulfil their duties. It will be able to issue enforcement decisions that may include fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying global revenue in the relevant year—whichever is higher. The Online Safety Act also means that when users report illegal intimate image abuse content to the platforms, they will be required to have systems and processes in place to remove the content.
It is important that the police respond robustly to such crimes. We have heard the importance of that today. In our manifesto, we committed to strengthening police training on violence against women and girls. We must ensure that all victims of VAWG have a positive experience when dealing with the police. That is essential to increased reporting of these crimes and delivery of better outcomes for victims. We will work closely with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to improve and strengthen training for officers. This is a start, but I am clear that it is not the be-all and end-all of tackling intimate image abuse. We can and must do more. If we want to see true and lasting change, we need a culture shift. I have said this before and I will keep saying it: we need everyone, especially men, to play their part in slowly but surely, bit by bit, wearing away outdated views and misogyny to ensure women are safe, wherever they are.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I echo that point. When we see this abuse on social media, hear of it in discussions in our constituencies and, in particular, hear from young men—this horrifies me—about the number of men sharing these images, we have to challenge it. We must be strong on that and do more.
Alex Davies-Jones
I could not agree more. This is about all of us playing our part and saying that we will not stand for it—we will not be passive bystanders and we will challenge these views to tackle it. It will not happen overnight. It will take time, but I believe we can do it. Women deserve to feel safe, whether that is online or out in the physical world. Men who abuse, harass and discriminate should have nowhere to hide.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her work on this policy so far, which is among the most meaningful things that has happened since we came into office, particularly the removal of the intent provisions. We have seen too many women unable to get justice because of a technicality, including a horrific case in my constituency that the Minister is well aware of. We are talking a lot about the online space today, so can she clarify that, where intimate image abuse is part of the commission of an offline offence of voyeurism or rape, for example, that will factor into the work that she is doing?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am well aware of the horrific case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am pleased that we have been able to go further on intent versus consent with some of these crimes. The right to banter should not trump the right to feel safe; I have said that before in this place and I will say it again. Women have the right to feel safe everywhere and we are looking at all offences in that regard, but it will take a whole system effort. My colleagues and I across Government know that, and that is why we are working together to get to the root causes of violence and misogyny to create the lasting change that we all want and need to see.
Finally, we need to ensure that when someone has been the victim of intimate image abuse, they get the support that they need and know that they as victims and survivors have done nothing wrong. A key part of that is the invaluable work of victim support organisations such as the intimate image abuse helpline, which is funded by Government and was set up by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). Not only do these services provide high quality support and advice to victims of intimate image abuse, but they work with law enforcement and others to improve the response to these awful crimes. Representatives from the helpline recently gave evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee on this very issue, and I am grateful to them for all that they do to support victims. Their work is more valuable and more needed than ever.
Charlotte Nichols
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time—she is being very generous. Just to clarify, non-contact offences, including intimate image abuse, are not currently covered in the criminal injuries compensation framework. Could conversations be had with her ministerial colleagues about providing financial support for victims to access things such as therapy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) brought up as a really important feature of the debate?
Alex Davies-Jones
I was about to come on to therapy, support services and other things that the Ministry of Justice funds to support victims and survivors. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East mentioned redress, and compensation can be made available from the perpetrators directly through the civil courts. That has been pursued previously, and it is available to victims and survivors to get the redress that they need by claiming that compensation.
On victim support, the Ministry of Justice funds many other services to help victims cope and recover from the impact of crime. For example, we have the rape and sexual abuse support fund, which supports more than 60 specialist support organisations. As others have mentioned, we also have Refuge, which the Government fund to deliver a specific tech abuse function. It has been at the forefront of the response to tech abuse. We also provide police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local, practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, not just intimate image abuse.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will aim to improve support to victims of sexual abuse, including intimate image abuse, by placing a duty on local commissioners to collaborate when commissioning support services so that victims and survivors get the support that they actually need. That brings me back to the key point: collaboration, with everyone pulling together and playing their part. That is what we need if we are going to truly see a shift. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East for securing the debate and I thank everyone for coming and showing support. It really is important that we have good representation in Parliament. We are absolutely committed to tackling violence against women and girls, as are this Government, and we are just at the start of it.
Question put and agreed to.
School Transport: Northumberland
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Hexham to move the motion, I inform Members that the parliamentary digital communications team will be conducting secondary filming during the debate.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered school transport in Northumberland.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.
In Westminster Hall today, I am delighted to see Members who share my concerns about school transport, not just in my constituency but across the county. I place on the record my thanks to organisations such as Contact, Adapt North East and local schools, in particular Queen Elizabeth high school, for their valuable contributions. The future of school transport is a pressing and increasingly concerning issue affecting my constituents —parents, students and teachers—in Hexham and in Northumberland more broadly.
I grew up in Hexham. I was fortunate enough to have been educated at Sele first school, Hexham middle school and Queen Elizabeth high school. I am, and always will be, incredibly grateful to my teachers for the valuable education that I received. In particular, I mention Tony Webster, my former headteacher at QE—he filmed a video supporting me during the general election campaign—for his constant support and mentorship.
Meeting students and teachers across my constituency—from Queen Elizabeth high school to Longhorsley St Helen’s Church of England first school and back to Sele first school, where I went a few weeks ago—has provided valuable insight into the issues affecting our local schools, and school transport in Northumberland is raised again and again.
During my maiden speech, I said:
“a great state education has the ability to change lives and to lift and change entire areas. I want every child in the constituency to have access to the kind of education that I was lucky enough to get.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 347.]
That is my motivation to secure this debate. Ensuring that every child in Northumberland gets the best education is a commitment that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), and with my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), who cannot join us today.
Home-to-school transport is an integral part of our education system in Britain. It ensures that no child of compulsory school age is prevented from accessing education by a lack of, or the cost of, transport.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to bring up the issue of school transport, especially in rural areas. We should never deplete services that children rely on to get to school; instead, we should increase their accessibility. I had a meeting with my Translink bus service and the education authority, and we were able to sort out some of the problems with rural transport. Does he agree that more needs to be done for bus services, especially in rural areas where transport is already limited, to ensure that kids’ education does not falter as a result of bus service issues? That is what could happen.
Joe Morris
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for his attendance. I think he has attended every Westminster Hall debate that I have spoken in. I completely share his assessment. The provision of appropriate bus routes is important, and it comes up in my casework. I have spoken to families in villages such as West Woodburn, where they allegedly have a choice of school, but the only available routes go to one single school.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I recently spoke to a constituent, Sara, who lives just outside Bruton in my constituency. She told me of her frustration that her daughter cannot catch the school bus that literally stops at the end of her farm track and goes to the local school. Instead, the council insists that she must drive her daughter or get a taxi to a different school, which is further away. Does he agree that our existing home-to-school transport legislation is too rigid? It is stifling local authorities’ ability to make common-sense judgments.
Joe Morris
As constituency MPs, we all hear the frustrations of parents, teachers and students, who, because of school transport provision, are often hit with lateness marks or are forced to attend schools that they would rather not attend, as the hon. Lady said. It is something that we need to address properly, considering all the solutions in the round to ensure that we can provide great education to every child. I know from looking at my inbox that the 685 bus in Hexham is regularly full and delayed by up to 40 minutes. When people rely on commercial bus routes to get to school, it becomes an additional barrier to attendance. That is damaging to children’s educational attainment and future prospects, simply because buses cannot always be relied on.
I spoke in the rural affairs debate in the main Chamber yesterday. Too often, people in rural communities pay more and get less. The previous Government, and other Governments before them, have allowed that to sail through without challenge. When we talk about rural-proofing our policies, it is essential that we look at things through the prism of how they affect some of our most isolated communities.
Fourteen years of Conservative austerity and neglect broke the very foundations of Britain and our education system, and took hope away from our young people, who have been let down and overlooked. I am extremely proud of our new Labour Government’s commitment to increasing funding for schools, to putting our younger people first and to ensuring that every child receives a world-class education. Parents want the best for their child’s education; they want their children to learn in a safe and secure environment where they feel part of the community and supported in their educational development. No child should be restricted from that because of inaccessibility.
I am proud to have secured this debate, and to be a voice for students and parents as we champion school transport in our local community. As Members— particularly the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—do not tire of hearing, I represent England’s largest constituency; I am delighted to see the silver and bronze medallists here today. The rural landscape has a considerable impact on school transport services. The reality of rural roads means that, despite having relatively short journeys, children are regularly late for the start of the school day. Children’s education is suffering, and more transport vehicles and a reassessment of transport routes could make considerable headway in reducing the number of pupils who are late for school.
I have had one constituent raise the fact that delays to school transport mean that her daughter regularly receives late marks at school. Despite the fact that her daughter is a 14-minute journey from school and is collected at 7.45 am, she does not get to school until after 9 am. That is a case of a student’s education suffering from a lack of adequate school transport services. As the early grid for learning report outlined, missing 15 minutes of school per day equates to 2 weeks’ absence a year, and that is equivalent to missing 55 lessons a year. Being late negatively impacts a child’s education and contributes to a loss of learning.
Home-to-school transport is often available only through the local authority, along with the additional support offered by parents and carers. Across the Hexham constituency and the Northumberland county council area in general, the provision of local bus and train services is unreliable—I have already mentioned the 685 bus—and not regular enough for young people to access when travelling to or from school.
I am pleased to see that North East Mayor Kim McGuiness has launched a consultation on the north-east local transport plan. That plan will cover five areas that are necessary for my constituents to be able to access a public transport system that is fit for all our communities, not just those in centralised areas. Those five areas are: journey planning and customer support; ticketing and fares; expanding infrastructure and making it more resilient; enhancing safety, especially for women and girls; and improving links between different modes of transport. There is a clear delivery plan that has outlined and established targets for 2040, setting the path for overcoming the current challenges and creating a more efficient and resilient transport network for the future of the north-east. That will make considerable headway in helping my constituents access education and training opportunities, as well as work and social opportunities more broadly.
The system on offer in Northumberland provides inconsistent results for families when they are allocated school transport places. One of my constituents, who is a resident in the far north of the constituency, contacted me to say that his daughter has obtained a free transport place but his son has not. As a result, he has to drive his son 170 miles a week, alongside the bus that takes his daughter to the same school. That is not just illogical, but vaguely Kafkaesque. It has environmental implications, in addition to educational ones, and it places a financial and administrative burden on a family who already qualify for free transport provision. I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to support the families in my Hexham constituency and families across Northumberland, ensuring that the provision of school transport is consistent for siblings within the same family. We cannot allow administration to provide inconsistent results for families.
In my constituency, I am often asked questions about school catchment areas. I was on a call with Northumberland county council on the train down here, and I was informed that one of the school catchment areas in my constituency is larger than the area contained by the M25. Unsurprisingly, I get quite a lot of incoming casework on this. Many students who are outside catchment areas and ineligible for school transport services require commercial public transport to get to school. That is particularly common in constituencies such as mine, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland or the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Villages and towns such as Haydon Bridge, Bardon Mill and Haltwhistle, as well as settlements such as Falstone, Greenhaugh and Kielder, have considerable numbers of students who travel to Hexham middle school and Queen Elizabeth high school, which sits in the Tyne valley at the centre of my constituency. Such places are deemed to be outside the catchment area for those schools, but the safety of students travelling to and from school in Northumberland should be a priority. Those children should feel safe travelling to school, and parents should be reassured about their safety.
A constituent has shared a deeply concerning story about the 685 bus breaking down on the side of the A69, with children being required to stand on the side of the A69—one of the busy roads running through the constituency—without any police presence or safety measures in place. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the growing concerns over that road. Since 2019, there have been 191 crashes on it between Hexham and Carlisle, with 44 of them being deemed serious by the police and six people losing their lives. When I heard about children standing on the side of the A69, I was deeply concerned. They should not be in that position.
Constituents frequently mention the delays to the 685 bus service, which affect children getting to and from school. Despite petitions by parents to change the service from a single-decker to a double-decker bus—that was raised with the previous Conservative MP—no action was taken to resolve the issue. Constituents have said that their children have had to wait for more than an hour for the next bus service to collect them, because of a lack of space in addition to delays to the service. We need to work collaboratively with local bus companies and local councils to ensure that the safety of our students is protected as they journey to and from school.
I will briefly mention transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I know that the Minister and the Government agree that SEND needs urgent attention, as has been demonstrated by the devastating consequences of the previous Government’s actions. In Northumberland at present, there are 407 routes transporting 1,738 pupils and their escorts. In six years, the number of children in Northumberland requiring an education, care and health plan has doubled, from 1,679 in 2017 to 3,369 in 2023. The figure is still rising, and the failure of the last Government to adequately provide for children with SEND is a damning indictment of that Government and indeed the Conservative party.
Children with educational needs and disabilities often have to travel further to schools, not through choice but just to get the education that meets their needs. My constituency surgeries are often attended by families who have to travel from the far west of my constituency to the coast of Northumberland—a journey that does not take a small amount of time. In large rural areas such as mine, the need for children to travel such extremely long distances isolates them from their local communities and friendships, and it ultimately undermines their potential to have a local support network.
I was contacted by a parent who travels from Prudhoe to Berwick every day, which is a three-hour round trip, to ensure that their child receives the support they need. We must ensure that parents feel supported as we look to reform the SEND framework. One of the things I am most proud of in the autumn Budget is the £1 billion uplift in SEND education and the prioritisation of improving SEND education nationally. I am hopeful for the future of SEND education and will always support the Minister and the Government in their commitment to it.
I want to acknowledge the work of Kim McGuinness on her Kids Go Free initiative, and her commitment to improving public transport services for young people across our region. That initiative offers free transport to children during school holidays, reducing travel costs for families, promoting sustainable public transport and encouraging families to explore the wonderful region that is the north-east—I draw attention to my Westminster Hall debate next week on improving tourism in Northumberland, at which I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is a positive step in the right direction in terms of improving transport services in the region. Through that collaboration and co-operation we will increase prosperity and make a real difference to the lives of young people.
I am sure Members present can agree that every child in Britain deserves an accessible and safe education. Moreover, every parent should feel safe and secure in the knowledge that their children are receiving support. Children deserve to have a safe and sustainable passage to school, to arrive on time and to access an education that is appropriate for their learning requirements. For my constituents in Hexham and for people across Northumberland, school transport is jeopardising that promise. With rural geography, inconsistency in allocating school transport places, problems with catchment areas, and journey delays, the very premise of that principle is being jeopardised.
I am proud that this Government are putting students and young people at the heart of the agenda, following the neglect of the previous Conservative Government. I am sure Members can agree that more can always be done to ensure that our young people access the educational support they need and deserve. Providing clearer guidance on transport provision for children will minimise confusion for local families. Giving more attention to the eligibility of SEND children will make a considerable difference to many of my constituents across Hexham.
I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State are committed to finding long-term solutions for education, school transport and SEND education. I hope the Minister will consider how, in the vast rural communities that make up my constituency, having greater provision for SEND students closer to their homes would minimise journeys and go a long way to dealing with the central issues we are debating. Everyone deserves the opportunity to access education, and we cannot allow a lack of access to appropriate school transport to jeopardise that.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted to speak in this debate alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), and I am delighted that he secured it. The lack of accessible transport options to Northumberland secondary schools, in particular, may not attract national attention, but it affects children, young people and parents in my constituency much more directly than almost anything else we discuss in Parliament. In North Northumberland, it is now common in villages such as Pegswood for an 11-year-old to spend up to two hours a day on four different buses making the round trip to school and back. When we factor that in for SEND students, as my hon. Friend said, parents face a collective nightmare.
One constituent recently wrote to me—I have changed the name of their daughter—to say:
“We are currently having issues with school transport for our daughter who is autistic. Northumberland County Council have rejected our appeal for alternative provision. Sarah is no longer attending school, due to a number of issues, the first being transport. We are now homeschooling Sarah.”
That issue is repeated over and over again in my mailbox.
There are two reasons why it matters so much. The first, which I have just highlighted, is the most obvious: the cost and strain on parents is totally antithetical to the ideal of the state school. Families are spending hundreds of pounds a year making sure that their child gets to school, worrying the whole time about their safety, as we heard. Our state school system should not rely on significant private expenditure to meet basic educational needs. In fact, it was designed to do the very opposite.
Secondly, school transport is a pinch point in terms of a wider range of northern rural inequalities in education and transport, and deservedly reinforces the idea that places such as Northumberland have been left behind and ignored over the years by the powers that be. There have been repeated failures across the county in the way that our schools, roads and rail are run, and school transport exposes them all, pointing to a much wider range of issues.
How did we get here? North Northumberland has too few schools, and in some areas that is leading to huge pressures. The nearest secondary school to Pegswood, the village I mentioned, is in Ashington—Ashington Academy—which is a 20-minute bus journey away. However, Ashington is oversubscribed, so students are often sent to Cramlington instead. If parents cannot drop them off, there is a range of ways to get there, of which the quickest takes 41 minutes and involves a train. The season ticket for that train costs £1,120 a year, so most take the cheaper option—a bus journey. Actually, it is two bus journeys, which take up to an hour and a quarter and will cost at least £960 a year, according to the very confusing and unhelpful Arriva website. This very afternoon, teenagers from Pegswood who finished school in Cramlington at 3 o’clock will only just be getting home, having taken four buses on a £1,000 ticket. Commutes like that are happening in towns all over North Northumberland, from towns and villages such as Belford, Wooler, Rothbury and Amble. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham about the state of some rural roads and about how that often makes journeys more challenging.
Nowhere is this issue more visible than with SEND schooling. Like my hon. Friend the Member, I welcome the Government’s commitment to spend £1 billion pounds more on SEND next year. North Northumberland has three SEND schools and they do a remarkable job supporting the flourishing of young people with more complex needs. However, the nearest school might not necessarily be the best option, which can require pupils to spend over an hour in a taxi or bus to get there—we heard about the hour-and-a-half journey in each direction that some have to make in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Parents are increasingly resigned to the notion that having a child with more complex needs will require spending large amounts of money and time travelling to school.
The Education Act 1944—I am sure hon. Members did not expect me to bring that up in this debate—established modern secondary schools and came into being because,
“when poorer children were offered free places”
—at grammar schools, as they then were—
“parents often had to turn them down owing to the extra costs involved.”
Free state schools were instead set up to cater to all needs and incomes, but my constituents seem to have ended up trapped in a new system that promises equal and free schooling, but includes submerged and unexpected costs that put family finances under strain.
On the wider issues, the school transport issue has not emerged in isolation but is evidence of a wider series of pressures on public services across the county. First, the education system is struggling in various guises in some parts of Northumberland. The town of Berwick, in my constituency, is extremely reliant on its one state secondary school to nurture the necessary skills and qualifications for the town’s economy, so when the school struggles, the town struggles. A 2017 report said:
“Berwick is one of Northumberland’s most deprived towns. It has a vulnerable economy characterised by poor quality job opportunities, part time working, low wages and very limited education facilities.”
North Northumberland’s further education is in a poor way too, and 16 to 18-year-olds who want to take up a vocational course have to travel miles out of the constituency and at great expense. Another constituent recently got in touch about this very issue, saying:
“I have been made aware of a colleague’s 16 year-old daughter who undertook an apprenticeship across the border in Scotland in July. She lives in Berwick and was catching a bus to and from work. However, after just a few weeks, Border Buses removed the morning bus. Emma”—
whose name I have changed—
“is now relying on taxis to get her to her apprenticeship in the morning. This is costing her family, who are not in a position to afford this, £150 a week. Emma is a vulnerable young woman who has endured a difficult time at school and yet is thriving in her apprenticeship, but this is now at risk.”
North Northumberland’s GCSE and apprenticeship levels keep pace with the rest of the country, but A-Levels and higher education qualifications are behind the England and Wales average, and that will be in part because of the inaccessibility of further and higher education. However, those pressures are also evidence of a public transport system that is not up to the job.
North Northumberland residents are right to be sceptical about local bus services, considering that Arriva, the largest provider, is owned by an American equity investment fund based in Miami, which is hardly ideal for a public service. In fact, from 2017 to 2022, the distance travelled by bus services in Northumberland fell by over a third—one of the highest reductions for any authority in the north-east.
It is for that reason that, like my hon. Friend, I am delighted that the Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, has started the process of bringing buses back under public control so that we know that they go where they are needed and not just on the routes that make the most money. Having spoken to the Mayor of the North East about that, I know that one reason she is keen to do that is the positive impact it would have on rural services.
Meanwhile, local train services are increasingly sidelined in favour of London to Edinburgh links on the east coast main line that squeeze stopping services from the timetable. Cost-benefit calculations designed to extract value do not favour rural areas, which need targeted public investment and intentional support. Poor transport is a contributing factor to low rural productivity.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham said, all of this is the natural end point of 14 years of a real-terms education spending freeze, with reduced school capital spending; of 14 years of neglect of public transport that let franchising diminish the value of rail travel and bus companies be driven by international investors; and of 14 years of letting economic liberalism expose rural communities to economies of scale that make post offices, banks and other essential services non-viable. It is not by accident that hundreds of schoolchildren cannot go to schools in their own communities—it is the consequence of the policies of the last Government.
However, the work of change has begun locally and nationally. I am working with Berwick stakeholders to rethink our vision of what an outstanding education system could look like, with a campus model and associated further education facilities having the potential to transform education in the town and even the town itself. I am fully supportive of the campaign by the South East Northumberland Rail User Group to introduce a regular stopping service up the east coast main line that serves local residents and opens up the region to inward investment. I welcome the £1 billion committed by the Government to local transport, with another £650 million towards transport and buses in towns, villages and rural areas.
The difference between a Labour and a Conservative Government is that when we see communities facing economic disadvantage and inequality, we have no issue putting our money where our mouth is and making sure that where someone starts in life or where they live does not determine the opportunities they can pursue.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an absolute joy to serve under your guidance, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is becoming almost as much of a regular in this place as our recently departed friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As he rightly set out, he, I and the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) are the big three—we represent the three largest constituencies in England. The hon. Members for Hexham and for North Northumberland made really great points, not just on behalf of their constituents in Northumberland, but on an issue that is of huge significance across the country, particularly in rural communities such as mine.
The hon. Member for Hexham talked about rural communities paying more and getting less. Sadly, that is absolutely how things are. About a year ago, the Rural Services Network calculated that if a single region was created from rural England and compared to the geographical regions of England, it would be comfortably the poorest. Although the depiction of rural life is often full of a bucolic, ideal, wonderful and high quality of life—of course rural places are beautiful, and we are proud to live in them—poverty is undoubtedly real, and the cost of transport and the distance people have to travel to get to the services they need are a major driver of that.
As the hon. Members for Hexham and for North Northumberland set out, one issue we face in rural communities is that, with huge catchment areas, the divide between two school catchments can be incredibly blurred. Someone may well be sending their child to the nearest school, but it may technically not be the one in catchment, so they are left having to pay a significant amount for their child to go to that school. As the hon. Member for Hexham rightly pointed out, people often find that one of their children can get a bus to school but that the other cannot. That is definitely the case in parts of my constituency.
This problem is exacerbated by the reduction in the number of small village schools over the last few decades. In my constituency I have at least three schools with fewer than 20 children and three schools that have closed in the last few years as well—in Ravenstonedale, Satterthwaite and Heversham. The communities around those schools are now, and have been for a generation in some cases, forced to make alternative arrangements. That has largely come about because of the growth in second home ownership, unchecked, in many communities in the lakes and dales, which has gobbled up the homes available for a full-time permanent population. Without that, where are the children coming from? Where are affordable houses being built to replace those second homes? There are some, but nowhere near enough. It is all part of the fabric of rural life, which comes under enormous pressure. The community’s school is at risk and may go, and bus services are lost, along with the post office, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North Northumberland.
The patchwork of rural life under such strain is often maintained by decent public transport links, if they exist, but they are often lacking in rural communities. I will come back to the debate about £2 and £3 bus fares. It is hugely regrettable that the Government have increased that cap on bus fares. As I often say, any bus fare cap is of no use if there is no bus to use it on.
It is important to look at this issue seriously, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hexham for bringing it forward. One reason a child might not be sent to the nearest school is that that child has special educational needs. That may be formalised, and I have some figures on that. We have seen a 24% increase in the number of children travelling to special schools in the past five years. We have seen the number of EHCPs increase from 105,000 in 2015 to 230,000 across the country in 2023.
The County Councils Network estimates that by 2027 spending on special needs transport will have trebled over a decade to a vast total of £1.1 billion. Many children do not have an EHCP because there is an incredible backlog, and there are people who have special needs who are not formally assessed. Nevertheless, parents will send those children to the schools more able to cope with them and provide the best quality of education. If that is not in catchment and the child does not have an EHCP, parents pay for that themselves. Many parents in my communities are struggling as a result. They cannot afford it but, for the sake of their children, they do it.
The use of taxis over the past five years to get children with special educational needs to school has gone up by 36%. The school and the local authority between them bear the cost of that. It is encouraging to hear the new Government talk about special educational needs and try to focus on this as a crisis to be fixed. The Liberal Democrats believe strongly that there should be a national body for special educational needs, with additional support for local authorities and schools to fund provision. We should not be in the situation where those schools that do the right thing by children with special educational needs are penalised for doing so, and end up losing staff as a consequence of paying the costs of those children they have rightly taken on and supported.
I will talk about the communities across the Pennines in Westmorland and Furness. We have historic spend factors that account for 28% of our high-needs allocation and which do not reflect the changes in demand and the costs incurred in the past six years. Historical spend factors mean that Westmorland and Furness is funded 45% less than other high-cost authorities, and the impact is felt by children across our communities.
It is worth bearing in mind that Northumberland and Cumbria have very high visitor numbers. Although we do not pay for the education of visitors, we do pay for lots of other services that visitors use when visiting Northumberland national park, the lakes and the Yorkshire dales. There are 20 million visitors to Cumbria in the average year. That costs the local authority, and there is nothing in the funding formula to recognise that, to ensure that we do not dip into money that might otherwise be spent on education, in order to prop up other services, because we have all those visitors and do not have the money to pay for and support them.
When talking about school transport, we should pay attention to the plight of young people over 16. I am deeply concerned, along with others who represent rural constituencies, that although we rightly have young people continuing their education beyond 16, as is mandatory, we do not support or fund them to get to those places of education. It is probably quite straightforward in an urban area, where people could just walk to their nearest sixth form, but students at Kendal college are coming from right across Westmorland and north Lancashire, travelling maybe 40 or 50 miles in one direction to get there each day.
The sixth forms at the Queen Katherine school and Kirkbie Kendal school also take young people from far outside Kendal. At the Lakes school in Troutbeck Bridge, people travel from Grasmere, Ambleside, Windermere and the likes to get there. Dallam school takes children from the rest of south Cumbria and north Lancashire. There is also Ullswater community college. Kirkby Stephen and Appleby sixth forms are really small and in wonderful schools, and young people travel there at great cost to themselves and their parents. A student might find their brother in year 9 has his place at school funded, but they may have to pay £700 or £800 a year for the privilege. As a result, young people are choosing not to go into further education and take A-levels; they are choosing other routes instead, because they simply cannot afford to do so. That is why this issue is so important. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hexham has managed to secure this debate, because it is of great significance to all of us who represent rural communities.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) on securing this hugely important debate. This is an important subject to talk about, and there have been really good contributions from multiple Members. I declare an interest in Northumberland, as it is where I got married, in Wooler near Rothbury, which has already been mentioned. I have a great appreciation for Northumberland as a county. If I am not in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Hexham or for North Northumberland (David Smith) in the summer, I am normally in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), so they are all places for which I have a lot of love.
I will recap the story a little. Last year, we announced an extra £500 million of funding for local government for adult and children’s social care, particularly to reduce the pressure on other areas of children’s services, such as home-to-school transport. It was part of our wider strategy for children’s social care reform and allocated to things such as expanding family help, targeted early intervention and all those things. It was part of a wider settlement for local government last year, which was another above-inflation settlement. Local government absolutely was squeezed in the coalition years, when we were clearing up the large deficit after the financial crisis, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, but funding per person in 2024-25 is set to be 10% higher in real terms per person than in 2019-20, with bigger increases for the most deprived councils. It is worth recognising that what happened over the last Parliament is not the same as what happened in the period 2010-2015, when there were real-terms increases per person for local government.
I mention that because the local government financial settlement for next year is now looming; I guess that we should expect it some time in the next month. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when it is coming. I have a couple of specific questions that I hope she will be able to answer, as they are relevant to this debate. What will the total cost to local government be of the national insurance increase announced in the Budget? What will the cost of the national insurance increase be specifically to home school transport? Will local authorities be compensated for those costs?
We know that one of the recurring issues with the national insurance increase is who will be compensated. Public services that are not part of the public sector are not included in the protection. For example, GPs are up in arms about the enormous bills that they all face, and there are similar issues for nurseries, which are extremely concerned. The university sector has already learned that the entirety of the increase paid for by the breaking of the tuition fees promise will pay for the breaking of the promise on national insurance, so one broken promise will pay for another. All the gains that it thought it was going to get from the tuition fees increase are being entirely wiped out and eaten up by the cost of the national insurance increase, so real-terms funding for universities will go down. Those issues very much apply to home-to-school transport, a public service provided by people outside the public sector. Will the Minister tell us whether they will be fully compensated for that? I hope she will be able to give us that assurance.
We have touched on some of the wider issues in which this issue is situated. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has mentioned this, but I was really sad to see the end of the “get around for £2” scheme, which we introduced and extended to the end of 2024. I know from my own community that it has particularly benefited people in rural areas, so I am sad to see that it has gone and there is effectively a 50% increase in the cost of a lot of journeys on buses. That is a real shame, because I felt we were making progress on buses. I was involved in the Bus Services Act 2017, which gave mayoral combined authorities the power to introduce into other areas of the country the kind of franchising that London has enjoyed for a long time.
It was sad to see the scrapping of the dualling of the A1 through Northumberland. Land and houses had been bought up to allow for the work, which makes it even worse. I was astonished to see that in the Budget, although there was lots of capital for other things, including the different things that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) wants to do on net zero, there was an overall reduction in capital transport spending. I was really surprised by that. I do not really understand what the logic was.
David Smith
I have a simple question: would the hon. Gentleman agree that the last Government had 14 years to dual the A1 and did not manage to do so?
Neil O'Brien
We had finally got there. We had bought the land and the houses, and the thing was about to happen. Somehow, the new Government snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, which is desperately sad. We will have to agree to disagree on that.
We have talked a bit about SEND funding in the round. The high needs block spending grew 70% between 2018-19 and 2024-25, so we put a lot more money into it. Hon. Members might say that is still not enough, and I would totally understand where they are coming from, but the demand is exploding upwards. I know that the Minister will be thinking equally about the causes of that and what she can do about it—not just meeting the need, but trying to understand the root causes and reduce the need for these services. There was a very large increase in that high needs block SEND spending.
A couple of hon. Members mentioned that one of the ways to solve the issue is not to look at the transport but to look at the schools. This is a long-term obsession of mine. I had a Westminster Hall debate not so long ago about this very issue. Since 1980, the number of small schools with fewer than 200 pupils had roughly halved, from 11,464 to 5,406, by 2018. That is a long-term trend. Since 2000, rural schools—those in villages and hamlets—have been twice as likely to shut. When they have shut, the typical walk time to the nearest school has been about 52 minutes. That long-term trend, which has occurred under Governments of all three of the main parties, has posed all sorts of challenges for rural areas.
To try to arrest that trend, we brought in the lump sum within the national funding formula, which is about 60% of the total funding. It is a hugely important part of the funding and I look forward to hon. Members championing it. We must think about how we keep village and rural schools, which are such an important part of rural communities, going. That is not just because they make life simpler and the whole transport issue simpler, but because they are at the heart of rural communities. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale talked about a 36% increase in taxis. We need to think about how we can attack the underlying causes of the need. I am sure that the Minister will be thinking about this.
I will end where I started by congratulating, in an honest way, the hon. Member for Hexham on securing this debate. It is hugely important. He made a super-important point about siblings being treated differently, which seems like absolute craziness. I am sure that we all agree that we ought to tackle that, but there are opportunities to address these issues, particularly through the local government funding formula. Government Ministers will stand up in a few weeks’ time and give us the numbers for how much local government is getting, but those in local government will want to know what is happening to their costs and for which of the services they provide, such as home-to-school transport, they will get compensation on the national insurance increase, because otherwise they will not know whether they are really ahead or behind.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
It is an honour to serve under you as Chair today, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) on securing the debate today on this very important subject. I know how hard he works to represent the constituents of Hexham and how passionate he is about access to the best education possible for the children in his rural constituency. I am very familiar with my hon. Friend’s constituency, having lived there, spent most of my holidays there, and represented parts of it for 14 years leading up to the last general election. It is a truly beautiful and blessed part of Britain, but I totally understand that it is not without its challenges. He is rightly here today raising them and ensuring that he can deliver change for his constituents.
The Department’s home-to-school travel policy aims to make sure that no child is prevented from accessing education by a lack of transport. As my hon. Friend will know, local authorities are required to arrange free travel for children of compulsory school age who attend their nearest school but cannot walk there because of the distance, because they have special educational needs, a disability or a mobility problem, or because the route is not safe.
There are additional rights to free travel for low-income households, so that they can exercise school choice, but local authorities are struggling to fulfil those duties for all eligible children and the costs of doing so have risen sharply in recent years. All local authorities are looking for ways to deliver that service efficiently and cost-effectively. In 2023, Northumberland county council conducted a comprehensive review of home-to-school travel, which made wide-ranging recommendations that are being implemented.
There are several reasons for the steep increase in the cost of home-to-school travel in recent years, such as fuel price inflation and a shortage of drivers, passenger assistants and transport operators. Those things have pushed up costs, but most of the increase can be attributed to challenges in the school system itself that have built up over many years, specifically the way the school system currently educates children with additional needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham raised that in his speech. More children have education, health and care plans and more of those children travel long distances to a school that can meet their needs. As well as their journeys being longer, which is more expensive in itself, that also reduces the opportunity for economies of scale. Fewer children are likely to take each route, so more vehicles are required.
We want more children and young people to receive the support they need to thrive in their local mainstream setting, which will reduce the need for them to travel a long way to access specialist placements. Many mainstream settings already deliver specialist provision locally, including through resource provision and special educational needs units, but there will always be a place in the system for special schools, which are required by children with the most complex needs.
The Department supports local authorities to provide suitable school places for children and young people with SEND through annual high needs capital funding. It can be used to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools as well as in specialist settings and to improve the accessibility and suitability of existing buildings. We will set out plans for future high needs capital funding in due course.
Making sure that more children can be educated in their local community will reduce pressure on home-to-school travel over time. We want to work with the sector to ensure our approach to SEND reform is planned and delivered with parents, schools, councils and expert staff, who we know go above and beyond to support children. There are no quick fixes. Fixing the SEND system is a key priority for this Department and a vital part of our opportunity mission, but it will take time. We will work with the sector as essential and valued partners to ensure our approach to SEND is fully planned and delivered with parents, schools and councils.
For many children with SEND, learning to travel independently is an important part of preparing to lead an independent and fulfilling adult life. Independent travel training is a tailored programme to help children with SEND to learn to travel independently, for example by public transport or walking. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) highlighted the length of the journeys that some children in Northumberland face. Local authorities should offer independent travel training to children with SEND who are eligible for free travel to school and who think they could successfully complete the programme. Many parents are anxious about their child’s ability to travel independently, and the child may also be worried about it, so it is important that local authorities support families to help them to understand the benefits of being able to travel independently, which will build their confidence.
We are also aware of significant concerns around home-to-school travel for children in temporary accommodation. We understand that when a child has to move to temporary accommodation—for example, as a result of homelessness or fleeing a difficult situation—they will benefit from the continuity of remaining at their current school, with familiar teachers and friends. However, they might not be eligible for free travel to school—for example, if there are other school places that are nearer, between their school and their temporary accommodation.
Local authorities have a discretionary power to arrange free home-to-school travel for children, even if they are not eligible. We know there is incredible pressure on local authority home-to-school travel budgets, but we encourage local authorities to exercise that discretion whenever they can for children who are vulnerable.
In the Budget, we announced an additional £233 million for tackling all forms of homelessness, taking the total spending on reducing homelessness to nearly £1 billion in 2025-26. That will be directed at supporting people into secure and stable housing, and at supporting children. We recognise that there are similar pressures on local authorities providing transport support to post-16 students, and the cost and availability of public transport can be a real issue, as my hon. Friend also pointed out.
Nevertheless, it is a responsibility of local authorities to put in place transport arrangements to help young people aged 16 to 19 to access education or training, as well as for people aged 19 to 24 who have special educational needs, using funds that they have available locally. Most local authorities do offer some form of subsidised transport, and it is combined with the 16 to 19 bursary. It is intended to provide financial support to students from the lowest-income households. For example, in the constituency of Hexham, Northumberland county council offers free transport to young people from low-income backgrounds and those on EHCPs. However, I appreciate the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has outlined today.
The vast majority of central Government funding for home-to-school transport and post-16 transport goes through the local government finance settlement, administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We recognise the challenges local authorities face as the demand for their critical services continues to rise. We have listened to voices across the sector, and we prioritise local government funding. In the Budget, we announced £1.3 billion of new grant funding in 2025-26 for local government to deliver core services, which, together with the local income from council tax and business rates, will provide a real-terms increase in core spending power of around 3.2%. I appreciate the concerns the shadow Minister raised, but the amounts and the way they will be administered will be announced in due course—the announcement is due this month.
Neil O’Brien
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I am keen to understand whether local authorities will be compensated, not just for the direct costs to their own staff of the increased national insurance payments, but for the costs of services that they buy in, such as home-to-school transport. Will that also be fully compensated?
Catherine McKinnell
All those details are being worked through and will be announced in due course. I appreciate the hon. Member’s keenness to have advance sight of the statement—it is coming, and it will set out all of the detail.
In addition, local government in England is expected to receive about £1.1 billion of new funding in 2025-26 through the implementation of the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme. Hon. Members might wonder what that has to do with transport, but it will shift the burden for managing household packaging waste from local authorities to the producers who supply and import the packaging. That will create additional revenue for local authorities to channel towards vital services such as public transport.
The Government are committed to reforming public services and the local government funding system, while providing as much certainty as possible. It is important that we deliver that reform in partnership with local government, and my ministerial colleagues will be setting out more detail shortly.
The Department routinely collects data on local authorities’ expenditure on home-to-school travel, and we understand the increasing financial pressures that they face. However, as things stand, the Government have not collected data on the actual travel being arranged, even fundamental information such as the number of pupils receiving free home-to-school travel, the transporting of siblings—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham highlighted—and information on catchment areas. I am determined, given the concerns that he and other hon. Members have raised, that we improve our data on the subject so that local authorities can benchmark themselves against similar authorities and learn from one another, and so that central and local government have the robust evidence to inform decision making on those issues. We will be writing to local authorities in the coming days, setting out our plans to ask them to provide data on travel that they arrange for children and young people to get to school and post-16 providers. It will be voluntary at first, but I hope local authorities will see the benefit of the data collection and share the requested data that they hold.
Another big issue that we know we must tackle is school absence. If children are not in school, they cannot benefit from their education. Thanks to the efforts of the sector, more children are in school in 2023-24 compared with the previous year, but 1.6 million children are still persistently absent, and that is a major challenge. We know that some children, particularly those with additional needs, face additional barriers to attendance, so we have to work to tackle those issues. We know that schools need to take a support-first approach and ensure that they have an attendance champion and policy and that they work with local authorities. Clearly, transport to school is a big part of that jigsaw.
Public transport clearly has an important role to play. Good local bus services are an essential part of thriving communities, providing access to education and other services. Outside of London, buses were deregulated in 1985. They now largely run on a commercial basis, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland pointed out some of the challenges that that can present. The Government have pledged to fix that, and the Bus Services Bill announced in the King’s Speech will put the power of local buses into the hands of local leaders. I know the North East Mayor Kim McGuinness is working to improve bus routes and has committed to repairing our broken bus system in the north-east.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham again for bringing the matter forward and all those who have made contributions to the debate. It is an issue that many people rightly feel passionately about. I acknowledge the challenges that far too many families face when seeking to get the right support for their children. By fixing our broken SEND system, by transforming our education system so that more children can access an inclusive, high-quality education locally and by fixing our broken transport system, we can truly make this change.
Joe Morris
I thank the Minister for her response and thank her ministerial team, the other Ministers in her Department and the Secretary of State for their continued proactive engagement with me and other rural MPs. For the first time we have a Government that truly get the challenges of rural Britain, aided in no small part by the new Labour intake.
I do not want to finish the debate with a political point; I want to finish with the words of some of my constituents. One of my constituents wrote to me saying that she has a daughter who travels from Stocksfield to Prudhoe community high school, which is a wonderful school that I look forward to visiting. The only way to get there is to walk 2.9 miles along a busy road, and that would be unsafe. That was one of the many emails that led to me requesting this debate. The son of a constituent had to move school due to bullying and sadly does not qualify for school transport. That is the reason why I brought the debate: those stories that make up portions of my constituency surgeries that bring me here every day to fight the corner of my constituents.
I hope people across my constituency feel that we have given voice to their concerns. I hope those at County Hall who have the power to intervene or look again at certain cases are watching and take notice. It is a privilege to represent the people of the Hexham constituency, whether that is Throckley and Callerton, ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for many years, or the Northumberland part.
I thank all Members from across the House for their contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who sent me a wonderful note, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who paid me a wonderful compliment by comparing me to the hon. Member for Strangford.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered school transport in Northumberland.
Written Statements
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Notification of Contingent Liability
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the asset purchase facility by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and commenced sales of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022, and sales of gilts acquired for monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022. The sales of corporate bonds ceased on 6 June 2023, with a small number of outstanding corporate bonds reaching maturity on 5 April 2024. Therefore, the APF is now comprised solely of gilts.
The Chancellor at the time agreed a joint approach with the Governor of the Bank of England in an exchange of letters on 3 February 2022 to reduce the maximum authorised size of the APF for asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces.
Since 30 April 2024 when the maximum authorised size of the APF was last reduced, the total stock of assets held by the APF for monetary policy purposes has fallen further from £704.2 billion to £654.5 billion. In line with the approach agreed with the Governor, the authorised maximum total size of the APF has therefore been reduced to £654.5 billion, comprising entirely of gilts.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. Provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in Parliament providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS208]
Launch of Youth Strategy
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Government are today announcing the development and co-production of the national youth strategy. Young people’s needs have never been more complex. Through this strategy, we will improve our understanding of young people’s priorities as well as run an ambitious and wide consultation.
In the coming months this consultation will feed into a report—“Today’s Youth, Tomorrow’s Nation”—detailing young people’s priorities to inform our new approach. The national youth strategy will be published next year.
Through this strategy we will better co-ordinate youth services, as well as move away from one-size-fits-all approaches from Government, bringing power back to young people and their communities and rebuilding a thriving and sustainable sector.
Given our ambition, we will be winding down the National Citizen Service programme from the end of the financial year and the National Citizen Service Trust when parliamentary time allows. All necessary processes will be followed including engagement with Parliament and His Majesty the King.
The Government are grateful for the valuable contribution of every member of NCS staff and board members, past and present, as well as for the contributions of young people who have engaged with the NCS programme and with the trust all those years. We will work closely with the NCS Trust to ensure there is an orderly transition from the end of the NCS programme to what comes next.
The Government have announced that, in 2025-26, we will increase the total funding for other Department for Culture, Media and Sport youth programmes to ensure young people can continue to access opportunities, no matter where they are from. This includes funding for the local youth transformation pilot to support local authorities to build back lost capability and improve youth offers. We will also allocate over £85 million of capital funding in 2025-26, including launching the £26 million better youth spaces fund and completing the youth investment fund projects.
In addition to this Government funding, £100 million of dormant assets funding will be dedicated to youth outcomes over 2024 to 2028.
This will drive the transition to a future in which young people have choices and chances and local communities are empowered to support a generation to succeed.
[HCWS210]
Contingent Liability: Local Government Pension Scheme Guarantee
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I am today laying before both Houses a departmental minute on the use of a contingent liability by the Department for Education to provide a local government pension scheme guarantee to further education providers operating in the statutory sector.
The Department for Education further education local government pension scheme guarantee is a Government commitment to fund pension deficits in the event of a closure and where the provider’s reserves are insufficient to fund their own LGPS deficit upon closure.
We expect LGPS administering authorities to recognise the Crown guarantee provided by the further education guarantee in their funding strategies, setting employer contribution rates and deficit recovery periods.
A full departmental minute has been laid in both Houses providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS202]
Paris Emissions Reduction Target: UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
On Tuesday 12 November at the 29th UNFCCC conference of the parties (COP29) in Baku, the Prime Minister will announce the UK’s 2035 nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris agreement. This will commit the UK to reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels, excluding emissions from international aviation and shipping.
The 2035 NDC is based on advice from the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC). It is a clear progression on the UK’s previous NDC pledging to reduce emissions by at least 68% by 2030. It was informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake from COP28 and is aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. It is aligned with the level of ambition in carbon budget 6 (2033-37) on the pathway to net zero by 2050.
The headline target will be followed by submission of the detail underpinning the NDC—known as information to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding (ICTU)—to the United Nations framework convention on climate change ahead of the February 2025 deadline. A copy of the ICTU will be laid in the Houses of Parliament.
The UK’s early and ambitious NDC will help restore our global climate leadership and encourage greater ambition from other countries. It is one important part of the UK’s overall contribution to global emissions reductions, alongside our international climate finance and other support.
Globally, the world is way off track from meeting the Paris agreement temperature goal. Climate action must be accelerated drastically to reduce emissions and keep the annual average global temperature rise below 1.5°C. The ambition and delivery of the next round of NDCs, due to be submitted to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) by February 2025 and implemented in the 2030s, will be critical in enabling this.
The UK’s domestic action is the first crucial step to restoring UK international leadership on climate change. The clean energy transition is also the economic opportunity of the 21st century and will support the creation of hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the UK and protect our economy from future price shocks while delivering a range of social and health benefits.
That is why making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government—delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy.
[HCWS206]
Bathing Water Regulations 2013
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Our water system urgently needs fixing. There have been repeated failures for the public and record levels of sewage polluting our rivers, lakes and seas. This must be stopped. Fundamental reform of the water sector is under way but will not happen overnight. This Government are committed to reforming the system so that it works for the public, and are taking further steps to restore our rivers, lakes and seas to good health.
Bathing waters, as set out in the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, are designated coastal or inland waters that are used by large numbers of people for bathing. Bathing waters are one of the most visible ways in which the public interacts with the water environment. They are local assets that bring social and health benefits to communities, and it is critical that the regulations around bathing waters meet the fundamental needs of the public, and those managing bathing water sites.
We recognise that the way the public interacts with bathing waters has changed, driven by the increasing popularity of wild swimming and other water-based activities.
That is why today, DEFRA, jointly with the Welsh Government, is launching a consultation on a package of reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013. These proposed changes to bathing water rules will prioritise public safety and water quality so that more people can enjoy our rivers, lakes and seas throughout the seasons. The proposed reforms will modernise the system to meet the needs of the public, including removing strict automatic de-designation, taking water quality and public safety into account when applications for new bathing waters are assessed, and removing the fixed dates of the bathing season from the regulations to allow for a more flexible approach to monitoring, extending the dates of the bathing season where necessary to better reflect when people use bathing waters. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure the protection of public health through the use of monitoring and classifications. It is the Government’s intention to pursue an increase in the designation of safe bathing water sites.
DEFRA is also seeking both public and stakeholder views on expanding the definition of bathers to include participants in water sports other than swimming, to encompass all who use bathing sites, as well as views on the introduction of multiple testing points at each bathing water. This is to gather initial views for potential longer-term considerations.
Proposed technical amendments will also bring legislation in line with modern best practice, allowing the Environment Agency to improve ways of working and improve delivery for the public.
The consultation will run this winter with a Government response to be published in the new year.
Alongside these reforms, the Government are working on other major changes to the water system. The Water (Special Measures) Bill will deliver on the Government’s commitment to put water companies under special measures, strengthening the powers of the regulators to ensure that water companies—and their executives—are firmly held to account for wrongdoing. The regulators will also be able to recover costs for a much greater range of enforcement activities.
An independent commission into the water sector and its regulation was also launched on 23 October—the largest review of the industry since privatisation. This commission forms the next stage in the Government’s long-term approach to ensuring we have a sufficiently robust and stable regulatory framework to attract the investment needed to clean up our waterways, speed up infrastructure delivery and restore public confidence in the sector. The commission will provide overarching recommendations on transforming how our water system works and cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. The bathing water reforms will tackle a discrete and technical part of the current framework.
It is through these reforms that we can begin to regain public trust, fix the system, and restore our rivers, lakes and seas for current and future generations to enjoy.
[HCWS207]
Contingent Liability: TPIMS Accommodation Provision
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I have today laid before the House of Commons a departmental minute concerning a new uncapped contingent liability for the Home Office. The liability relates to Home Office approved accommodation for use by individuals subject to terrorism prevention investigation measures orders. This contingent liability will enable the Home Office to secure appropriate accommodation for such cases. Failure to secure accommodation for TPIMs subjects may result in unacceptable risks to national security. These are risks I am not willing to take.
The need for the liability arises due to the limited information that the Government can share with housing suppliers when securing properties for individuals subject to TPIMs and the potential implications for the validity of insurance covering the relevant properties.
Treasury guidance on managing public money requires that Parliament be notified of any novel contingent liabilities. In normal circumstances, notification would be made when Parliament is in Session, however due to the urgency in this case, the liability was made during the period when Parliament was in recess. I am satisfied that this course of action was necessary in the circumstances.
HM Treasury has approved this liability. In the unlikely event the liability was to be called, provision for payment would be sought through the contract with the supplier.
A full departmental minute has been laid before the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS203]
Housing Design and Quality
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are committed to building 1.5 million new homes over the next five years, but we have also been clear that increasing house building rates cannot mean units at any cost. We want exemplary development to be the norm not the exception so that more communities feel the benefits of new development and welcome it. As we act to boost housing supply, we are therefore determined to take steps to improve the design and quality of the homes and neighbourhoods being built.
These guiding principles are woven into the fabric of the reforms we have initiated over recent months. The new towns taskforce, for example, has been asked to ensure that quality and design are integral to its agenda, and it has been explicitly tasked with setting out clear principles and standards for new large-scale communities to ensure they are well-connected, sustainable, well-designed, and attractive. Our proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework also highlighted the Government’s ongoing commitment to well-designed homes and places, and retaining the objective of creating high-quality, beautiful, and sustainable buildings and places.
My Department intends to update the national design guide and national model design code in spring next year, and we will continue to bolster design skills and capacity through the £46 million package of capacity and capability support provided to local planning authorities. This will be used to fund the recruitment and training of 300 graduate and apprentice planners, along with the £1 million funding to public practice for the recruitment of planners, architects and urban designers.
Together, this framework provides a clear basis for the delivery of more high-quality, well-designed homes. To help support this delivery, in particular as we progress our consideration of large-scale sites and large-scale new communities, I intend to establish quarterly steering boards on design and placemaking, ensuring that our work is guided by those with relevant professional and practical expertise.
It was announced in July 2023 that the Office for Place, previously a small team in the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, would become an arm’s length body to be based in Stoke-on-Trent. Work to establish the Office has continued since then. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the interim board, led by Nicholas Boys Smith as chair, and the Office for Place team for their exemplary work on this important issue. In putting design and quality at the heart of the housing supply agenda and establishing the principles of design coding and embedding them in practice across the planning and development sectors, Nicholas and the team have made a significant contribution.
Alongside spending decisions taken at the Budget and the re-setting of departmental budgets, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have, however, concluded that support to improve the quality and design of new homes and places can be more efficiently and effectively delivered by the Department itself. The Office for Place will therefore be closed down and the expertise of its staff redeployed within the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, across the country. I would like to reassure the House that this will not impact on wider Government commitments to Stoke-on-Trent, including the award of £19.8 million for their levelling up partnerships programme.
In taking the decision to wind up the Office for Place, the Government are not downgrading the importance of good design and placemaking, or the role of design coding in improving the quality of development. Rather, by drawing expertise and responsibility back into MHCLG, I want the pursuit of good design and placemaking to be a fully integrated consideration as the Government reform the planning system, roll out digital local plans and provide support to local authorities and strategic planning authorities. I also believe that embedding this work within MHCLG will allow experience to be better reflected in decision-making, as well as integrated within an existing delivery team in Homes England already focused on design and placemaking.
It will also ensure continuity of current Office for Place key activities, including support for pathfinder authorities who received a share of £1 million to produce exemplar design codes, alongside work on digital design codes and funding to support local and regional urban design best practice and skills.
The Government regard improving the design and quality of the homes and neighbourhoods we will build over the coming years as conducive to, rather than in tension with, our ambition to significantly increase housing supply, and we have put in place the necessary policy and delivery framework to ensure we deliver on both objectives.
[HCWS209]
Local Government Best Value: London Borough of Tower Hamlets
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I have previously updated this House that this Government are committed to resetting the relationship between local and regional government, and to establish partnerships built on mutual respect, genuine collaboration and meaningful engagement. Never is this more important than when individual councils face governance challenges. We are keen to work with local authorities to support focus on recovery and reform. It is imperative that all councils are fit, legal and decent. There must be a clear and deliverable plan in place to address problems where these have been identified to protect the interests of local taxpayers. In that context, I would like to update the House on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
It is a matter of public record that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was subject to statutory intervention under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 between December 2014 and September 2018. This followed an inspection by PwC which identified best value failure, particularly in relation to grant making, property disposal and publicity spending. Commissioners were withdrawn and functions returned to the council in March 2017 on the condition that it continued to achieve against its best value plans and report regularly to the Secretary of State on its ongoing compliance with the best value duty. In response to a corporate peer review by the Local Government Association in June 2018, which concluded the council was now “on a positive trajectory”, Ministers took the decision to end the intervention in September 2018.
Following evidence that suggested recent changes to the council’s governance arrangements may have the potential to undermine past improvements that had allowed the intervention to end, on 22 February 2024 the then Secretary of State (the right hon. Michael Gove), commissioned an inspection of the council’s compliance with its best value duty. He appointed Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL as lead inspector, along with Suki Binjal, Sir John Jenkins and Philip Simpkins as assistant inspectors, and asked them to report their findings to him by 31 May 2024. On 24 May, following the announcement of the general election, this deadline was extended to 31 July. The inspectors completed their inspection and submitted their report to the Secretary of State and, as statute requires, provided a copy to the council.
The report identifies several positive features at the council, such as the finance service and the enthusiasm shown by officers and members for serving the borough. It also notes that the council has already taken steps to make improvements, including in response to the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge report of September 2023. However, the report documents serious concerns across a number of areas which I considered against its best value duty under part 1 of the 1999 Act:
On Leadership: The report concludes that a lack of respect and co-operation between political parties prevents councillors from engaging in a culture of genuine improvement. A lack of trust has contributed to officer churn at the top few levels of the organisation. Inspectors also found insufficient challenge of the executive and a perception among many staff that “many good managers had left the organisation as a result of ‘speaking truth to power’”.
On Governance: The report paints a picture of an organisation with a clear drive and mandate to deliver the mayor’s priorities, but for whom due process is often treated as an obstacle to priorities rather than as a necessary check and balance. The inspectors consider the council’s scrutiny culture to be “weak and confused”, and the level of challenge “inadequate”.
On Culture: The report concludes that the entire organisation is impacted by a lack of trust, with the administration “suspicious and defensive in its behaviour”. The culture appears to be one where decisions are taken based on advice from a small number of people who are trusted by the mayor and has been described by many staff and partners as “toxic”. A culture of patronage, even if not at play in every appointment, is perceived as pervasive enough to undermine trust between members, staff and leadership, as well as with external stakeholders.
On Partnerships and Community Engagement: While the report notes the strong community focus of the mayor, councillors and wider council, it concludes how the “significant time and energy” spent in local communities “seems to distract from their critical and statutory strategic relationships”. Inspectors found a lack of co-production and joint planning undertaken by the council and saw insufficient evidence that the council undertook meaningful and comprehensive consultation with key partners, staff, and service users before decisions were taken in some key areas.
On Continuous Improvement: While the council has made targeted and concerted improvements over the last two years, this has lacked a strategic focus or a cultural prioritisation of continuous improvement. The culture set and exemplified by the leadership is to reactively respond and counter criticism rather than honestly appraise and self-improve. On some issues, the inspectors are sceptical of the council’s capability to self-improve.
I have carefully considered the report and other relevant material and am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with the requirements of part 1 of the 1999 Act, namely that it is failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture and partnerships. I am therefore minded to exercise powers of direction under section 15(5) of the 1999 Act in relation to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to secure its compliance with the best value duty. I believe, given the evidence of serious concerns in the report, a broad and supportive intervention package, with robust external assurance, is necessary and expedient for the council to secure compliance with this duty. To that end, and in line with procedures laid down in the 1999 Act, I have today, 12 November 2024, written to the council asking them to make representations —if they wish—both on the inspection report and on the statutory support package that I am now proposing.
This proposed statutory support package, to be in place for an initial period of three years, is designed to strengthen and expand the improvement work that the council has already begun. It acknowledges the political mandate the mayor holds, while recognising the need to tackle deeply rooted and persistent issues. It recognises the constructive engagement I have had with the council and acknowledges that they stand ready to work in partnership with Government to deliver the change needed for local people. It also recognises that the council has some corporate capacity to address the challenges identified in the report and has already put in place some of the building blocks for continuous improvement and will help to ensure that the council remains in a stable financial position.
This approach balances the evidenced need for Government support, with the desire to work constructively so that we see sustained improvement. A core element of the proposed support package will be the reconfiguration and strengthening of the council’s transformation advisory board to provide external expertise, challenge and advice to the council. I am proposing directing the council to work with ministerial envoys to reconfigure its existing board into a transformation and assurance board, and to draw on existing and additional members to appoint independent and external leads for leadership, governance and culture and partnerships—all areas where the council is currently failing. I am also proposing directing the council to appoint at least two opposition councillors to the board and for the mayor to continue his role as chair. The council will be required to report to this board on the delivery of its continuous improvement plan every three months or at such intervals as the board may require. The council will also be required to have regard to and respond promptly in public to any recommendations from the board with respect to the council’s improvement work.
In order to assist the council to achieve the necessary improvements, I am minded to appoint a ministerial envoy and assistant envoy to act as adviser, mentor and monitor to the council, and to oversee its improvement work. The ministerial envoys will work comprehensively within the council to oversee the proposed changes to the board, including agreeing its scheme of work and meeting agendas, preparation of the council’s continuous improvement plan and an open recruitment exercise to appoint a permanent lead for the council’s improvement work. They will attend meetings, provide ad hoc advice and challenge, and be available to senior leadership for support. They will also work closely with the board leads for governance, leadership and culture and partnerships to ensure the realisation of comprehensive programmes of cultural change and political mentoring. I am proposing directing the council to co-operate with the ministerial envoys, and to allow them all reasonable access to their premises, documents, employees or members in support of their work.
I would like the ministerial envoys to report on the council’s progress against its improvement agenda after the first four months, and then regularly as we agree is appropriate. Their assessment will provide the assurance local residents, strategic partners and I need to ensure the council’s compliance with its best value duty.
I will carefully consider any representations the council and other interested parties make and decide how to proceed. If I decide to intervene in the manner described here, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint the ministerial envoys. Any directions that I make will be without prejudice to making further directions, should this prove necessary.
This action is not undertaken lightly, and I am committed to working in partnership with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to provide whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance local residents and service users expect. I hope with focus and oversight that improvement will come at pace, but I will not hesitate to consider further action and escalation if necessary, in the interests of Tower Hamlets residents. I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the report and letter I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS204]
Completing the Implementation of Universal Credit
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
This Government are committed to getting Britain working. Completing the implementation of universal credit will support this mission. Universal credit provides greater support and incentives to get people into work and increase the hours they work than the benefits it replaces.
Move to UC statistics published today show that, by the end of September, the Department had, since 2022, notified 943,343 households of the need to make the transition to UC. The latest published complaints data show that as of March 2024 with over 500,000 households asked to move to UC, DWP had only 35 complaints about the process, with 10 upheld. Plans have now been agreed to notify the remaining households receiving income-related employment and support allowance (ESA), building on the insight that DWP has gathered through the summer. This insight, and the learnings from scaling the move to universal credit for all legacy benefit customers, will be published by the end of 2024.
DWP is investing up to a further £15 million in Help to Claim to support employment and support allowance customers moving to universal credit. This means that free confidential and impartial support will continue to be available to help people make a new universal credit claim and manage their claim, up to receiving their first correct payment.
DWP will steadily increase the number of migration notices being sent to people receiving ESA over the next months and are aiming to issue 63,000 migration notices each month from February, sending the final notices in early December 2025 and fully moving people to universal credit and closing legacy benefits by the end of March 2026.
As DWP moves into this final phase for Move to UC, it will make the transition from delivering “Move to UC” in a programme-led approach to a “business as usual” operation. I am therefore announcing today the intention to formally close the Move to UC programme by the end of March 2025, as the work of the programme will be complete by then.
My Department will continue to work closely with stakeholders throughout this transition and under the new operating model. It will also publish all the remaining UC programme board papers in April 2025 when the programme closes. This has been a major undertaking for DWP. As the Department heads towards such a significant milestone, I would like to thank officials who have delivered this transformational reform, and I would also like to thank all MPs and external stakeholders who have shared their insight and expertise to make this process work for those we are supporting and realise this transformation fully.
[HCWS205]
House of Lords
Shadow Great British Railways: Chair Appointment
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the appointment of a chair of Shadow Great British Railways was subject to a competitive process.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, passengers and the taxpayer cannot afford to wait until we have established Great British Railways. Therefore, we have taken the immediate steps of establishing shadow Great British Railways and appointing Laura Shoaf, by a direct ministerial appointment in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance, as its chair. She brings immense hands-on experience of delivering change and a shared desire to move fast to fix things. The future chair of Great British Railways will be appointed through open competition in due course.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this Question is not about any individual. Will the Minister say how many businesses of the scale of Great British Railways would appoint a chairman without any sort of competition or any opportunity for other people to put themselves forward? Is this a reasonable thing to do?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Yes, it is a reasonable thing to do. This is not the chair of Great British Railways, which will be established after the substantive railway Bill in due course; this is an arrangement to bring some benefits to the railway to counter the now 31 years of fragmentation and balkanisation, and, in particular, to bring together the three parts of the already publicly owned railway: the rail services division of the Department for Transport, Network Rail and directly operated holdings. It is a very reasonable thing to do and it will deliver results.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, Laura Shoaf has been chief executive of West Midlands Combined Authority, and we on these Benches are pleased that she brings deep experience of devolution, which we hold dear as one of the solutions for the future of our railways. Passengers are impatient to see signs of improvement, so can the Minister assure us that the promise to establish a passenger standards authority will be kept? Will the Government also consider establishing that in shadow form, so that it can get on with the job of improving standards for passengers as soon as possible?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her endorsement of the qualifications of Laura Shoaf, who is indeed well acquainted with both the operation and development of urban transport systems and devolution. The passenger standards authority will be put together in the substantive railway Bill. In the meantime, there is Transport Focus, and we have had recent discussions in Committee about what can be done in the lead-up to the substantive Bill.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister find time to turn his attention to the HS2 timetable? In particular, can he tell the House now, in the light of the Budget announcements, when the major capital work at Euston station will be completed?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Chancellor announced in the Autumn Budget that the tunnels from Old Oak Common to Euston will be built. It is, of course, necessary to have built the tunnels in order to develop the station. The Government are now turning their attention to how the station should be developed in a cost-effective manner and how it will be funded, and there will be more on that in due course.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, may I, as a regular rail user, say how grateful we are to the Government for sorting out the chaos of the last 30-plus years? The track, the rail infrastructure, the engines and the operators are all in separate companies, and it has been total chaos. Is it not about time that the man principally responsible, the noble Lord, Lord Young, gets up and apologises for the mess that he has provided us with over the last 30-plus years?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I should concentrate on my noble friend’s right description of the chaos of the last 30 years. The railway is not functioning properly; far too much of the time of everybody concerned with managing the railway is spent on blame attribution and contractual negotiation, and far too little is spent on delivering a decent service for passengers and freight and making the railway do what it should do for the economy. That is what the Government’s policy is designed to change.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, following the privatisation of the railways, in which I played a modest part, decades of decline in passenger traffic was reversed. Once the dead hand of the Treasury was removed from investment, there was fresh investment in new rolling stock and modernising the stations, passenger fares were pegged at RPI minus one—a policy reversed by the Government adorned by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—passenger safety improved, and we developed a market in train operating companies to replace the monopoly of British Rail. What was not to like about that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Since Covid, the railway has got only four-fifths of its previous income. The train operating companies are now, in effect, flat contractors to government and their owners are unable to take much, if any, financial risk. The service to passengers is not as good as it should be, and the Government’s policy is designed to make that significant change.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, under the last Government, it was cheaper to fly to New York than it was to travel from Manchester to Euston by train. Will the Minister do something about the overpricing of trains to make them more competitive?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Fares on the railway are so complicated that even the people who sell them do not understand them. Some of them look absurdly expensive; some are very cheap. It is very possible to sit in a carriage where nearly everybody has paid a different fare for the same journey. The passengers wholeheartedly dislike it. One of the reasons for public ownership of the railways is to get commercial sense back into a sensible fares and ticketing system, which will attract passengers to the network.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
But, my Lords, does the Minister accept that, on some occasions, it is necessary for the Government to appoint people without a competitive process—as I did in the Minister’s case when I appointed him as the chairman of Network Rail? I expected him to be solely the success that he was and to bring a political neutrality, which we see today and which he carries well in his present role.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Of course, I congratulate the noble Lord on his previous appointment, which seemed to last nine years, so you might judge it successful. I think that the present appointment will be equally successful—somebody with an excellent transport background who understands the politics and economics of large conurbations and will make a real difference, improving the railway in the short term before we get the substantive Bill in the longer term.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have a vivid recollection of how inefficient British Rail was because, when I was at the Bar, I appeared against British Rail people on a regular basis. Can the Minister and his department check what British Rail got up to, and do something completely different?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The British Railways Board was abolished in 1993. The way in which the railway needs to work in future has to reflect the significant devolution in the country since then. It is our intention that the railway is run by people who are in control of a significant part of it—what I would describe as the Network Rail route, and a train company —including the track, the trains and the staff, and that they deliver a decent service. That is the intention in future.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, may I appeal to the softer, gentler, more apolitical side of the Minister? Does he accept that it would be churlish not to congratulate the previous Government on paying £9 billion during Covid to keep all the trains running? Not one railway worker lost their job.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think everybody on the railway was extremely grateful for the support the Government showed for the railway service at that time. Nevertheless, the consequences of Covid have been that the cost of the railway is almost the same but its revenue is four-fifths of what it was. One of the objectives now is to deliver better value and a better service, and the method of management I have described will achieve that.
Istanbul Convention: Article 59
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to remove the reservation on Article 59 of the Istanbul Convention relating to the residence status of victims of domestic abuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for the Government. Our mission is to halve levels of violence against women and girls within a decade. We are reviewing all the issues impacting migrant victims of domestic abuse in the round, including a review on whether it is appropriate to maintain our reservation on Article 59 of the convention.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer but I am a little disappointed. If he is saying that there will be a review, can he say how long it will take and what its consequences will be? He cannot answer those questions yet, obviously, but I hope that it will recommend that Article 59 be removed because, in the meantime, migrant women are in a very difficult position if they are in an abusive relationship. They are afraid to leave the relationship in case they lose their migrant status or their children. No woman should have to put up with that. I hope that he will take this into account and get the review done as soon as possible.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments and hate to disappoint her. I hope that I can reassure her that when the previous Government made the original reservation against Article 59, they did commit to evaluate findings of the support for migrant victims scheme pilot, to inform future decisions. That pilot was completed in August 2023. Funding for the scheme has been extended to 2025. We want migrant victims to be treated as victims first and foremost so we are reviewing this. However, the reservation will be maintained until that review is complete, which I hope will be very shortly.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, while welcoming the Minister saying that there will be a review, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, who has raised this on many occasions. It is surely right to allow victims of domestic violence, often when the perpetrator has control of their documents, to leave the relationship without losing their residential status. Surely there is plenty of well-documented evidence. He needs only to read Hansard on all the debates that we have had here in your Lordships’ House to inform his review. Will he do that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Of course. My ministerial colleague Jess Phillips in the House of Commons is undertaking this review as we speak in relation to the services and support. I remind noble Lords across the House that we are four months into the Government. The previous Government committed themselves to a formal review. The evaluation of that review is taking place. We are examining that now in view of the representations not just in this House but in a wider context, against the derogation of Article 59. We will review that in due course.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that the previous Government finally ratified the convention in 2022, albeit with some reservations. The convention highlights the importance of prevention through education and awareness. What steps are the Government taking to incorporate education on gender-based violence and healthy relationships in schools and public campaigns, and how will they measure the impacts of those initiatives?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have a very strong strategy for a mission against violence against women and girls. There are a number of points in that plan but one of its key elements is how we can raise education in schools, particularly for young males and against some role models that now appear on social media and elsewhere. It is an extremely important question that we are trying to evaluate and take forward shortly as part of the plan to halve violence against women and girls. I hope that the noble Baroness can then comment on it and help to support the Government in implementing it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend take steps to talk to the Ministers for Justice in the devolved nations and regions—particularly Northern Ireland, where there have been growing levels of femicide? These have been particularly marked in the last few weeks, when a number of young ladies have been murdered and other women are now afraid to walk the streets. In that regard, will my noble friend talk to the appropriate Ministers in the devolved nations and regions about mitigation measures to safeguard women in the home and the wider environment?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It should be a fundamental right of women to walk the streets free of fear and free of potential abuse or violence of the seriousness of murder, which my noble friend mentioned. We are discussing very closely with the devolved Administrations how we can resolve the problem and meet the challenge that the Government have set of halving violence against women and girls. The Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, Jess Phillips, will meet the Northern Ireland Ministers and, while respecting their devolved role, will encourage them to ensure that we tackle this issue on a joint basis.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, under the previous Conservative Government, we passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021. If I may, I suggest that the Government should now build on our work to tackle this issue. In that context, can the Minister tell us what is being done by the Government on the wider issue of combating domestic abuse, both here in the UK and abroad?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord to his post as a shadow Home Affairs Minister. I have been here for only four months, but I already feel like a veteran. It is a pleasure to see him on the Front Bench. He will know that the Labour manifesto, which is now the Government’s manifesto for change, included a number of key points on tackling violence against women and girls. We have set an ambitious target to halve that violence against women and girls over the course of this Parliament. That includes help and support for police officers and for individuals who are victims of violence, and the issues to do with education mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, a moment ago. We will be judged on that target in the course of the programme the Government have set.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, data obtained by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in 2023 revealed that all 43 police forces across England and Wales had shared information about victims and survivors of domestic abuse with immigration enforcement. Do the Government intend to tackle this practice by introducing a firewall?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think this is important. On the firewall between police and immigration not being implemented, I put it to the right reverend Prelate that an external firewall would not necessarily prevent the perpetrator or any anonymous third party informing immigration enforcement about the victim’s immigration status. However, it would impact law enforcement agencies’ ability to investigate crimes. I hear what she says, and that issue will be reviewed by my honourable friend in the House of Commons as part of this general review.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, was about our reservation on the Istanbul convention, and the Minister’s answer was that the reservation still stands. As long as it stands, we are telling the world that women fleeing domestic abuse have to be turned away at refuges unless they can prove that they have a right of access to public funds. That is shocking. I am glad to hear that the Minister is conducting a review or evaluating the review set up at the urging of the International Agreements Committee of this House under the previous Government. Will he bring that review to a speedy conclusion so that we can remove this slur of our reservation on the Istanbul convention?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord has powerfully mentioned. As I have indicated, a review is being undertaken by my honourable friend the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, Jess Phillips, in the House of Commons. That review will be completed in short order, I hope, and I will be able to report its outcome back to this House in due course. I fully understand the passion with which the noble Lord speaks.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, it is well known that uncertainty about immigration status can be exploited by those wanting to continue to restrict and control a partner or former partner, so it is welcome that we now have some clarification about our compliance with the obligations under Article 59. The article is not open to abuse or misuse: it is confined by its terms to those in particularly difficult circumstances. In view of what the Minister has said, can he also confirm what will happen when the reservation, which was originally time limited, and I think remains so, expires?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The question of the expiry of Article 59 is part of the review. I find myself in the difficult position of repeating myself: a review is being undertaken and its outcome will be reported back to this House in due course, and a decision will be taken by the Government to maintain the previous Government’s reservation or change it. I am not in a position today to inform the House of the outcome of that review.
Carbon Emissions: Bus Fleets
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what investment they are planning to reduce carbon emissions from bus fleets.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The full transition to zero-emission buses is a vital part of the Government’s plan to make buses better for passengers and to realise the benefits of lower running costs, cleaner air and smoother, quieter journeys. The department’s spending envelope for the financial year 2025-26 was announced at the Budget. Careful consideration is being given to how to maximise the benefits of zero-emission buses funding against our departmental objectives.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, many large bus companies have invested significant capital in new electric and hydrogen buses alongside government zero-emission bus funding, but there are currently no dedicated government funding streams post 2025. When can we expect a new detailed funding round to help transform bus fleets across the country?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that bus operations across England are generally managed by operators, and they ensure that depots are configured to accommodate their fleet. It is they who must apply to distribution network operators for grid connections. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero announced that the newly formed National Energy System Operator has been asked to produce the first strategic spatial plan for energy, and it is also looking at reforming the connection process. Both those actions will help bus operators—it is their investment in their depots that enables electric buses to run.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Harrogate Bus Company, which is electrifying its fleet at the moment? It is not only electrifying its buses but bringing in innovative arrangements for charging en route—a very noble effort.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that actions such as those taken in Harrogate to electrify bus fleets have real benefits. The innovative technology example, which allows charging in the course of a journey, is also to be lauded.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me, and with Green Party policy, that improving our bus services is a crucial part of fighting climate change? It enables people to get out of their cars, and many people do not want to carry on driving as they get older.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not think that is just Green Party policy, but I agree with the noble Baroness that that principle of encouraging public transport and bus use is absolutely what we need.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, as the number of electric buses purchased by operators increases, the cost of producing those buses is falling. When does the Department for Transport expect the total cost of ownership of an electric bus, including its reduced operation costs, to be the same as that of a traditional vehicle?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a good point. The whole purpose of encouraging the production of electric buses is to ensure that the market develops and the costs fall. I do not currently have an estimate of whether the cost of those vehicles will ever equal the cost of traditional diesel buses, but I can say that it is absolutely the right move, and the support given by successive zero-emission bus schemes is contributing to the manufacturing industry keeping abreast of technology and to the general reduction in cost. I will see whether we can find any figures; if we can, I shall write to the noble Baroness with them.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, in 2021, the previous Government consulted on ending the sale of diesel buses, but never made a decision. Will the new Government provide clarity over the date for the end of the sale of diesel buses to provide confidence for the bus industry and franchising authorities and certainty for the supply chain?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My understanding is that, progressively, the production of zero-emission buses has resulted in vehicles that have more capability of working a full day. The experiment in Harrogate referred to earlier, which is about charging vehicles during the day, is one way of ensuring that the bus industry will have the opportunity in due course of replacing all diesel buses with electric buses. I cannot currently answer the question about when that will be, but I know that that experiment is one of a number of things that need to happen in order that vehicles can be purchased with confidence to do all the jobs that buses do in England, Wales and Scotland.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I applaud the Minister for retrofitting one of his Routemasters with a more environmentally friendly engine. Given that, is he aware of any schemes to encourage bus companies to retrofit their existing stock of buses rather than scrapping them and having to buy new ones, given the environmental life cycle costs?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord refers to a vehicle built in 1962 that has Euro 6 emission standards. I have not yet quite got to the stage of fitting one of those vehicles with batteries, but you never know. The serious point here is that these vehicles last an average of 15 years, so taking steps for most or all new vehicles in the fleet to be zero emission is obviously the way of converting the entire fleet within a reasonable time.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, as the diesel bus fleet gets older, the risk of leakage from the exhaust into the cabins of those buses goes up. Are the Government giving any guidance to bus companies that have old buses on carbon monoxide monitoring to protect their drivers and passengers from low-level carbon monoxide exposure, given the evidence of harm from that over time?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency inspects annually and on a random basis all types of bus and coach to make sure they comply with the correct standards. One of those standards is no leakage from the exhaust. I will take away the point that the noble Baroness raises about carbon monoxide monitoring to check that it is being considered across the country and write to her on it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, on hydrogen-powered buses, when TfL put the hydrogen fuelling infrastructure into a single depot to run hydrogen buses in London, it turned out to be a very expensive undertaking. The Government have offered no estimate of what it will cost to achieve such a conversion, particularly in relation to hydrogen. Does the Minister ever reflect that persons on modest incomes might have preferred this money to have been spent on maintaining the bus fare cap at £2 rather than increasing it by 50%?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is as knowledgeable about the original hydrogen fuel cell installation in London as I am, because it was under my control that it was put in. Of course, the truth is that an installation for three vehicles out of a fleet of 8,000 would proportionately be enormously expensive, but it was there for a reason: to experiment with hydrogen fuel cells. The result has been generational change in fuel cells for vehicles. The Government believe that, in appropriate circumstances, hydrogen is one way of getting zero emissions. We do not get technical progress without experimentation; we expect the cost to decline. That, together with electricity, will be the way of producing zero-emission buses and bus fares at reasonable prices.
Transport Infrastructure: North of England
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the announcement that Doncaster Sheffield Airport may reopen in 2026, what steps they are taking to support transport infrastructure across cities in the north of England.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
We are absolutely committed to improving transport infrastructure across the north of England. The Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement on 30 October a range of funding to support transport, including funding for the development of the West Yorkshire mass transit, renewal of the Supertram in Sheffield and the trans-Pennine route upgrade. This includes an uplift to national city region sustainable transport settlement funding in 2025-26 of £200 million for mayoral combined authorities.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I applaud the progress that City of Doncaster Council and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority have made to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport after its closure in 2022 and I was encouraged by the Chancellor’s reference to Sheffield’s excellent Supertram in her recent Budget Statement, but what steps will the Government take to promote the fuller, greener integration of regional aviation, tram, bus and rail networks?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Primarily, that sort of integration at a mayoral combined authority level is the job of the mayoral combined authority. The Government supporting those mayoral combined authorities to have the right transport plans, which include integration across the various modes, is absolutely the right thing to do. That is the reason for the funding and the uplift in the funding.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield in his Question. I ask the Department for Transport to give every support to ensure that the city region, which is the only metropolitan urban area in the country not to have an airport, has the benefits of the productivity and growth that flow from it. Perhaps the Minister could also encourage the developers not to call it “Robin Hood Airport”, which it was previously, on the grounds that when people got off, the arrows that they saw seemed to lead them to the Friar Tuck cafeteria and the Maid Marian facilities.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am amazed to think that the name of a cafeteria in a regional airport might be something to do with the department. More seriously, the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority Board, which is chaired by the mayor, will make a decision later this month on providing City of Doncaster Council with £3 million as part of Doncaster’s existing £138 million gain share from the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority allocation. That is the Government supporting the reinstatement of this airport. We will do everything possible to help the airport get back into business and contribute to the economic growth of the region.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, TransPennine Express is owned by the Government, and Network Rail is owned by the Government. After three years, businesses and individuals are fed up with excuses and meaningless explanations, so when will the direct train service between Sheffield and its major international airport, Manchester, be reinstated?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The direct service was curtailed as part of a very complex and necessary scheme to restore railway reliability in Manchester. The department and I know that there is huge aspiration for a direct connection between Sheffield and Manchester Airport, but the configuration of the railway in Manchester means it is very difficult to deliver it. One of the reasons for the region being keen on Doncaster Airport is to see flights from the region without necessarily going to Manchester.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, as president of the British Chambers of Commerce, I have spent many happy days in Doncaster and can attest to how delighted local businesses are at the reopening of the airport. How are the Government thinking of addressing the very substantial digital infrastructure gaps across the north of England? Cumbria and Northumberland face some of the most terrifying black not-spots, which is something we hear from businesses increasingly. If we are to grow the economy, we need to grow the digital infrastructure as well.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have no doubt that digital infrastructure across the whole of England is very necessary. I do not have any information on that to hand, but I will write to the noble Baroness with as much information as I can muster about it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, everyone acknowledges that regional airports throughout the country are struggling. How do the Government think that putting up air passenger duty is going to help them?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Air passenger duty has not changed for a considerable length of time, and my recollection is that the increase is no more than inflation would have been. In the total cost of air fares, it is a relatively small amount.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, following the excellent questions from the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Blunkett, will the Minister join me in congratulating Mayor Ros Jones on the part that she has played in the reopening of the airport? Will he support her request to the department and the Civil Aviation Authority to allow the necessary airspace once an operator for Doncaster Sheffield Airport is announced?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will of course join in the congratulations to the mayor, Ros Jones. The reopening of the airport is clearly important, locally and regionally. I am able to say that the department will support, as much as it can, the reinstatement of the airspace and the air traffic control needed to make the airport operational.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, why do the Government not recognise that the links between the cities of Newcastle upon Tyne and Edinburgh require an upgraded and safe A1, and that effective rail transport to northern cities from Newcastle depends on investment in the capacity of the east coast main line?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
When the Government were elected, they were faced with an unachievable list of infrastructure promises from the previous Government. Various schemes have not been able to be taken forward simply because there is not the money to achieve them—of which the A1 is one.
The east coast main line has had a considerable amount of investment. The struggle recently, because of the fragmentation of the railway, has been to achieve a railway timetable to take advantage of the £4 billion that has been spent on it. I hope that we have got there, but of course that is one of the reasons for rail reform: we should not be investing £4 billion in a railway only to find that we cannot construct a timetable to take advantage of the investment.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is not the runway at Sheffield Airport rather short and suitable for only the smallest aeroplanes?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid I do not have information about the length of the runway. I am sure that the proposition to reopen the airport takes into account its existing configuration, and I am sure that the public bodies concerned with it are confident that the airport, whatever length of runway it has, can support the local economy with the appropriate air services.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Manchester Airport is planning for an expansion of 150% in passenger numbers. Stansted wants to increase from 28 million passengers to 43 million. Leeds Bradford Airport has been looking for a 75% increase in passenger numbers. Yet, in July, the Committee on Climate Change told the Government that they must:
“Stop airport expansion without a UK-wide capacity-management framework”.
Is this not just more public money going into what have to be white elephants in terms of both demand and, crucially, our need to cut our climate emissions, particularly in terms of the promise that Sir Keir Starmer just made at COP 29?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
In relation to regional airports, there is a pressing demand from business to improve economic growth in those cities and regions by better and more convenient connectivity. The extent to which that means more flights is a separate question, but the support given to an airport such as Doncaster in order to make business better and create economic growth in that region is entirely consistent with the Government’s objectives.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I see that plans for a third runway at Heathrow have come to the surface again. Does the Minister accept that allowing that plan to develop and to catch the headlines again will inevitably undermine the viability and investment opportunities for airports in the north of England in general?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My understanding of the recent suggestions about growth at Heathrow is that they are currently focused not on a third runway but on an expansion of the airport in order to cope with more passengers on the existing runways. There is a debate about the extent to which flights from Heathrow compete with regional airports, but Heathrow is of course an international hub, so many of the flights that it might aspire to handle will never go to regional airports. There are criteria that will have to be fulfilled for an expansion of Heathrow, but we do not necessarily see that that will compete with the regional airports such as Doncaster that we have been discussing today.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 12 September and 16 October be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the first instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 11 November.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 12th November 2024
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (31 Oct 2024)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill will enhance the UK’s resolution regime, providing the Bank of England with a more flexible toolkit to respond to the failure of banks. The recapitalisation mechanism introduced by this Bill will strengthen protections for public funds and promote financial stability, while promoting economic growth and the competitiveness of the UK financial sector by avoiding new upfront costs on the banking sector.
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable scrutiny and engagement which has genuinely led to some important improvements to this Bill. I would like to formally thank the Opposition Front Benches, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, for her valuable input and overall support for the Bill and its intentions. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Noakes and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for the invaluable expertise they have brought throughout the passage of this Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell for his support for the Government’s position and my noble friend Lord Sikka for his contributions to the debate. The Government will, of course, continue to reflect carefully on all the points raised and debated as the Bill moves to be debated in the other place.
I also extend my gratitude to my officials in the Treasury for their hard work in developing this highly technical Bill. Specifically, I thank Henry Grigg, Prakash Parameshwar, Katie Evans, Helen Lowcock, Ted Hu, Ed Henley, Chris Goodspeed, Rosie Capell, Andrew Clark, Minesh Gadhvi, Kate Lowden, George Barnes and Will Smith for providing me with their support as the Bill passed through this House. I also thank the House staff, parliamentary counsel and all other officials involved in the passage of this Bill to this point.
I am grateful for the engagement with this Bill and its broad support across all Benches, which will ensure that the bank resolution regime is as effective as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the officials and other noble Lords, the Minister and, notable among those who did most of the heavy lifting, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere and Lady Noakes. This Bill contains useful measures improved by amendments but is notable for diverting private bank money to addressing a matter of public interest in place of public funds. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reflect on the wisdom of keeping the amendment limiting the mechanism to small banks.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that this Bill leaves your Lordships’ House to wend its way to the House of Commons for further consideration. The Bill has widespread support and has been somewhat improved by the deliberations in your Lordships’ House over the last few months.
I am extremely grateful to the core crack team pulled together specifically for this Bill: my noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, whose expertise—far greater than mine—ensured that the roughest edges were smoothed away. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Penn, who so skilfully stepped up for Second Reading, and to the new opposition research team for their support.
Last but certainly not least, I am enormously grateful to the Minister and his officials, who were as accommodating as they felt able to be in improving the Bill. All noble Lords will share my hope that this mechanism is never, ever used but if it is, the statutory framework is now there to support one or more small banks through the resolution process and ensure that the first port of call is not taxpayers’ funds.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank again all noble Lords who have participated in debates on the Bill. I look forward to working together in the future on similar issues.
House of Lords Reform
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House takes note of House of Lords reform.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to open today’s debate on Lords reform. It is an issue that is often discussed and debated by noble Lords across the House, because we take great pride in our responsibilities as a scrutiny and advisory Chamber. Through tabling this important debate, I welcome the opportunity to listen to the considered views of your Lordships. That follows the engagement I have undertaken since I became the Leader of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, previously as Leader of the Opposition.
Like other noble Lords, I value the work that we do, and it is of great pride to me to have been appointed as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of your Lordships’ House. It is not a role I ever anticipated holding when I was introduced to this place 14 years ago. I also recognise that this position is different from others in Cabinet because, as the Leader of the House of Lords, I am the Government’s representative in this Chamber but, just as importantly, it is my responsibility to ensure that our voice is heard in government. We—that is, your Lordships’ House—are all custodians of the principles and customs that make this House unique. I take the responsibility of representing the interests of the Lords seriously. I also consider that, at its best, this House is not just complementary to the other place but an asset. It is because of my respect for the work we do that I share the view that this House should continue to evolve and is not merely preserved in aspic. I want to ensure that we are seen as a part of our Parliament that is both highly relevant and highly regarded.
We offered this debate today not just because of the legislation in the other place but because the Government’s manifesto commitments in this area have brought about a renewed focus, inside and outside the House, on Lords reform more generally. There is growing consensus on the need for a smaller Chamber, with a greater focus on active contribution and which is more representative of the country we serve. My sense is that many share that vision. Of course, there are a range of views on how those objectives might be achieved. That is why I have facilitated today’s debate: to provide an opportunity to discuss these issues and to listen to the views of this House. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have already shared their thoughts and ideas with me.
We are more than aware that, when it comes to meaningful reform of this place, there is a track record of stagnation and stalled attempts. There are those who argue that we should not do anything until we do everything but, with no common consensus or agreement on what “everything” means, we have ended up doing nothing. That is why a more incremental approach is an appropriate way forward.
It is why the Government introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, delivering on the first of our manifesto commitments, to remove the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and to vote. This ends the transitional arrangements and completes part of the reform that we started a quarter of a century ago. I want to be very clear that this in no way diminishes the respect for individual colleagues or the recognition of the valuable contributions that many hereditary Peers and their predecessors have made.
I admit that I am slightly uncomfortable about singling out individuals, but I am sure we can all agree that, in particular, the noble Earl, Lord Howe—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will finish the sentence. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has been a distinguished servant of this House, serving on the Front Benches in government and in opposition since 1991. I also pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who has diligently served as Convenor of the Cross Benches and as chair of various committees of this House. These noble Lords are just two of the many hereditary Peers who have served the House so well.
The Bill that is due to complete its passage through the other place later today is very specific and focused. It will come before this House to be scrutinised in due course. The Government set out plans for further reforms to the House of Lords in their election manifesto. As I have said, there is an acknowledgement across the Chamber that the House has become too large. At almost every meeting I have had with noble Lords, this has been raised. I have had very thoughtful conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and with a number of other colleagues, on this matter quite recently. That is partly why our election manifesto referenced a retirement age.
That manifesto included a commitment to strengthen the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed and to introduce a new participation requirement, to encourage active participation among Members to support our scrutiny and revising functions. There was also a long-term commitment for an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions.
Given the nature and potential scale of these reforms, the Government will consult further. We will continue to listen to and engage with the views of the House on these proposals; that is why we are having this debate today. I appreciate that there is a range of views, as the manifesto has focused minds on this issue. I think I am right in saying that our manifesto may have been the first to recognise the importance of the work of your Lordships’ House. How we deliver these commitments is important. Some have preferred to express their views to me privately, while others did so during the debate on the King’s Speech. Today’s debate is a further opportunity to hear those views.
In addition to points that noble Lords wish to raise, I would welcome comments on a number of other issues, including how we ensure that all those who sit in this place participate sufficiently in our proceedings. We all have an instinctive view of what participation should involve—and a number of suggestions have been made to me of what that should be—but these views can quite reasonably differ from one noble Lord to another. Obviously, not everybody has to be here all day every day, but we all recognise and expect a commitment to the work of this House. Leave of absence is another area where we can consider whether the rules are currently fit for purpose or there is a case for change.
I would appreciate views on how the House welcomes incoming Members and treats departing Members following retirement. For example, we should consider how we can best introduce new colleagues to our work. We may also wish to consider how best to recognise the contributions of outgoing Members and how to ensure that former Members who wish to do so remain connected to each other and to the House more generally. I have already sought opinions from a number of colleagues as to whether we should set up an association of former Members, as they have in the other place.
I have always felt that this House is at its best when noble Lords, using their experience and professional expertise, often of national or international standing, work together to scrutinise and improve legislation for the betterment of the country and the people we seek to serve. This House has deep historical roots. Our role of scrutinising and revising legislation, holding the Executive to account, has developed over centuries. Change has not always been legislative. This is a House that is also built on norms and conventions, such as the Salisbury/Addison convention and the convention not to veto secondary legislation. There is widespread agreement on the ongoing importance of these conventions, which are recognised and respected by all Members.
It is important that this House continues to reflect on our role as the second Chamber in a legislature that continues to evolve and adapt to reflect the country we serve. It is a collective endeavour to ensure that Members enter this House with the desire to make a valuable contribution and that they are supported to play an active role. We need to ensure that the House is able to replenish the breadth and depth of skills and expertise, and, crucially, that newer Members are given the opportunity to develop their skills and experience as legislators. There will be further discussion about these issues, but the central question is about purpose. How do we ensure that this House can do its best work in complementing the role of the elected Chamber?
Although we should always avoid the temptation of change just for the sake of it, that does not justify endless stagnation or drift. There are careful balances on all these issues. I look forward to hearing what will probably be a range of views and suggestions. I am confident that some will be very ambitious and that others will perhaps be more cautious, but I am sure that this will be a spirited and interesting debate. I hope it will also be useful. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords—or perhaps in this new era I should say, “Fellow working people”, because we are fellow hard-working Peers—I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for the opportunity of this debate. It was the right thing to do, and I am grateful for the way she opened it. Like her, I will listen carefully to everything people say. However, it is regrettable that the business managers in another place have chosen to schedule the passage of a Bill to expel 92 of our fellow Peers on this very same day. How much better, I submit, would we be governed—even, candidly, under Governments in which I served—if those in another place sometimes listened to the advice and opinions of those in this one before they rushed into action.
In my response to the gracious Speech, I spoke about the plans that the Labour Party sprang—that is probably the word—on your Lordships in its manifesto. I need not repeat all I said then, but I stand by it. The plans have three broad characteristics. First, they are sweeping. Overall, between the excepted Peers and those over 80 in 2029, they would remove 375 Members of your Lordships’ House and 60% of the independent Cross-Benchers, and they would increase the weight of prime ministerial patronage.
Secondly, the plans are ill-thought-through. There is no clear statement about what the Government want this House to be or to do, although there is a declaration that the replacement of the whole House is the intended destination, with broad hints that the new House should be an elected one.
Finally, frankly, they are partisan in intent. That is quite legitimate, whether we like it or not. The aim of the Bill now in another place is partisan—it is to remove 88 Peers who do not align themselves with Labour and four who do. We should at least be honest about that. Declared principle cannot mask deep political purpose.
Aside from the partisan, another aspect is notable. It will be unpleasant and some may not like to hear it, but there is no evading it: the execution will have to be done at close quarters, brushing shoulders in the Lobbies as we go to vote for the removal of much-respected colleagues. You can just imagine it—seeing the Long Table and sidling down the other side to avoid sitting next to a colleague we have just voted to expel. That is not who we have ever been. It is not who we are.
There can be no doubt that the Bill being discussed in another place will cause some great hurt, and it will almost inevitably issue in conflict—conflict that may well spill out in quite unpredictable directions. All that is avoidable; there must be a better way. If the pretext for throwing out colleagues who are here under the 1999 Act or those born in the 1940s is not, in fact, partisan, it is often said to be—and has been said again today to be—related to numbers. As noble Lords know, I am not a believer in the numbers crisis; in the quarter century since 1999, there have been only 40 Divisions in the House where more than 500 Peers were here to vote. The average vote in whipped Divisions so far this Session has been 283, with a maximum of 419. Average daily attendance has never surpassed 500 in any Session in the post-1999 House—so call me a sceptic on overcrowding as a pretext for expulsion.
Even supposing that I am wrong and that we should aim for the number of 600, which many have advocated, would any sensible institution wanting that do it by expelling some of the most hard-working and effective Members in its ranks? How will that improve our effectiveness? Out among the 1999 Act Peers are the Strathclydes, the Kinnoulls, the Addingtons, the Howes, the Vauxes—I do not know how you say the plural of Vaux—the Courtowns and the Grantchesters, and out among those born in the 1940s are the Jays, the Blunketts, the Howards of Lympne, the Reids and the Winstons. These are all Peers with a proven capacity for hard work over many years, and there are dozens more on all sides.
If numbers are the issue, there must be a more discerning way than this. Of course, as I have said before, I believe that the fundamental answer is convention—the route that enabled Clem Attlee, outnumbered 10 to one here, to transform Britain for Labour in the 1940s. Perhaps participation is another route, as some have argued—although I would hate to see a House where worth was measured in quantity rather than quality of speeches. My problem is that Labour has never explained how its participation requirement would work and who would measure it—and the noble Baroness did not do that today. When she sums up, will she say what measure of participation was planned when Labour wrote this into its manifesto? She must at least know that. I can see that, if one wanted to reduce numbers, participation would potentially be a more fruitful basis for consideration than removing the best and most active. But both on exclusion—all exclusion—and on participation, it is clear that we would benefit from further reflection and discussion.
This great House is no longer the deposit of ages in which hereditary Peers once inherited a right to sit; it is a House that we created, with massive majorities in both Houses, by an Act of Parliament in 1999. It was created then with an understanding that it should subsist until agreement on reform of the House should be reached. No such reform proposal is on the table. Of course, the Labour Party has a political right to remove former hereditary Peers and people born in the 1940s, but I believe it has a constitutional responsibility to say what follows. It did not do so in 1999 and still has not done so today. All we have is an indeterminate commitment to replace all your Lordships with an alternative House. The implication, clearly stated by the Prime Minister in December 2022, was that this should be “democratically elected”. Sir Keir then said that it should be done quickly. There has been some back-pedalling since, with the Leader of the House back-pedalling particularly furiously—particularly, I understand, in private conversations. But that is still the proposition before us in Labour’s manifesto.
As it happens, having fought seven elections as a candidate in my life and, I regret to say to my Liberal colleagues, having won them all, I have no particular issue with the election principle, and nor does it trouble most other advanced democracies. But there are many, perhaps a majority in this House, who do not want to see that and who believe that nominating Peers under the 1958 Act is the most effective way to constitute a revising Chamber. I think everyone, including me, who knows and loves this great House thinks that, curious though it may seem to others, this House of experience complements the House of Commons and does the vital job that the other place has relinquished over time of scrutinising and revising legislation. Would the exclusion of these Members in the two proposals put forward by the party opposite improve our ability to perform that role? I doubt it.
Whatever one’s view, we can surely agree on one thing: this House is part of our sovereign Parliament and a vital, indeed profound, part of our ancient parliamentary constitution. It has protected many liberties and safeguarded countless citizens from hasty and ill thought-out law. Do we alone not deserve to be safeguarded from hasty and ill thought-out law? Should we not know the details of the fate the Government intend for our House and our Parliament before we begin to vote parts of it through? Should constitutional reform on the scale involved in Labour’s proposals—the progressive purging of this House and its planned replacement by we do not know what—not be the subject of cross-party consideration, whether in a Joint Committee or another consultative process? I submit that it should.
Labour says, “Trust us. Once you agree, albeit with kind words, to remove the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Howe, and 90 others like them, then we will discuss with you. We will discuss with you abandoning our manifesto promise to throw out everyone born in the 1940s at the end of this Parliament. Trust us. If you behave and ease the passing of the 92, then we will consult you on whether we will really implement our manifesto commitment to replace everyone in this House with an alternative Chamber”. What kind of constitutional principle or good practice is that? I am not the totally trusting kind as were, perhaps, the farmers, small businesses, savers, charities, nurseries, shopkeepers and care homes. They were the trusting kind and, in a matter of months, they found their trust broken by the Labour Government. I think we should see the colour of all Labour’s constitutional money before we accept some of its silver.
There must be a better way, a way that satisfies the wish of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches to prevent anyone coming here in future under the 1999 Act. This has always been a House of consensus, compromise and convention. When the Irish peerage was removed from your Lordships’ House in 1922, those who were already Members were allowed to stay. When the appellate jurisdiction legislation was passed in 2009, existing Peers under the 1876 Act were allowed to stay. That is why we continued to have among us the late lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood or the continuing presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and others. The House denied a category of Peer future entry but retained its valued Members, valued their experience and continued to benefit from it. That gradualism, I submit, and not the guillotine, is the House of Lords way. It has served us before and it could serve us again.
After the election, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I made an offer, in the spirit of compromise, that the process of by-elections under the 1999 Act should be suspended for this Session, given the Labour Party’s mandate. We have both been criticised for that by some in our groups, but it was intended to recognise the mandate of the new Government to close the gate to new entry under the 1999 Act, but also to create space for constructive discussion about a consensual way forward in which the Government could be assured that their programme would not be disrupted and in which the House would retain the benefit of its best.
The response so far from the party opposite on the 92 has been to offer no compromise and to stampede to build a guillotine. They are at it down the Corridor as we speak. We can surely do better. What guarantees that a Government’s programme passes is not numbers but convention. As I said on the gracious Speech, I thought it wrong that this House defeated the last Government on record numbers of occasions and with record rounds of ping-pong. Equally, I would think it wrong that the Labour Government should suffer in such a way. In normal circumstances, it would be wrong under this Government.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He has gone on for a long time about consensus. I agree with him on that. Will he therefore explain why he did not support the very good 2016-17 report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would have reduced numbers on a two-out, one-in basis and was approved by the House in a debate? That was consensus. Why did he not support it?
Lord True (Con)
I am speaking of numbers at present. I have addressed that question. The noble Lord understands the principles of collective responsibility; I was a member of the Government and successive Prime Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady May, and her successors—all made it clear that the Government could not assent to those proposals. Our urgent need is to address the future of this House and potential threats to it. There is shared ground across the House to find the best way out of this impasse which will secure the continuation of service to it of the best people here.
I have been slightly distracted. I will reach a conclusion. When I was Leader, I reached out, as did the Convenor of the Cross Benches, in a valuable series of papers on conventions, to suggest discussions to refresh the conventions that guide this House—as the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, did in 2006—to preserve your Lordships’ freedoms and give security to all Governments. I believe that to be the best course. Once again, I ask the Leader, who has intimated that this might be possible, and perhaps those in Whitehall behind her, to move off the narrow ground of composition and on to a broader discussion about how we keep the best of this House and how the conduct of His Majesty’s Government will be guaranteed by convention, as it properly should.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, politicians and political parties are often accused of being inconsistent and opportunistic. It is sometimes difficult to rebut such charges, but on House of Lords reform these Benches have been steadfastly consistent for over a century. I cite as supporting evidence the preamble of the Parliament Act 1911, passed under a Liberal Government, which states:
“And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.
That stated policy of having an elected second Chamber has been Liberal, and now Liberal Democrat, policy for the intervening 113 years. It is arguably the longest-lasting piece of party policy that has never been implemented, and it is still a live issue. Sadly, the assertion that such substitution cannot immediately be brought into operation remains as true now as it was in 1911.
I reassert the Liberal Democrat position that the House of Lords should be elected. It should be elected on the basis that, in a democracy, laws should be passed by people chosen by the people to act on their behalf. It should be elected because the unelected House leads to a geographical imbalance of membership, in which London and the south-east are greatly over- represented, and the north, Scotland and Wales are underrepresented. It should be elected because it would then almost certainly be more representative of the ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom. It should be elected because it would then be more politically representative. It would contain members of the SNP and almost certainly more members of the smaller parties.
Lord Newby (LD)
Even Reform—what arrogance that we think that, because we dislike a party, it does not deserve to be in your Lordships’ House. I would welcome the opportunity to have Reform in your Lordships’ House and to debate with its members, rather than them sniping from the sidelines.
This House should be elected because it would then be more effective in holding the Government to account and strengthening Parliament in relation to an overpowerful Executive. There was a chance during the coalition to achieve an elected House of Lords—probably the best chance since 1911—but that was cynically scuppered by the Labour Party, which refused to back a guillotine Motion on the Bill, and many Conservatives, who were genuinely hostile to the principle of an elected second Chamber, whatever their manifesto said. The chances of moving to an elected Lords in this Parliament are nil. There was a point when, with the appointment of the Brown commission, it looked as though Labour might move towards a firm plan for such a fundamental reform. But the Brown proposals were so half-baked that no one in the Labour Party supported them, and no other elected alternative was then even contemplated by the party.
For the remainder of this Parliament, we are faced with the imminent Bill to remove the remaining hereditaries, and a consultation, to be followed by legislation on a retirement age. We unambiguously support the proposals to remove the remaining hereditaries. We have huge respect for the part that individual hereditaries continue to play in our proceedings, and we hope that the Government will find a way to enable some of those who do so to return as life Peers. However, in our view, the hereditary principle itself can no longer be justified. Of course, it was not justified by the Blair Government, but the compromise deal negotiated by the wily Viscount Cranborne leaves us with the current unsatisfactory situation.
I was a new Member of your Lordships’ House in 1999 and served as the Liberal Democrat Whip on the then House of Lords reform Bill. A lot has been made of the commitments at that time about the future of the remaining hereditaries. One thing that was made crystal clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, whom I am pleased to see in her place, as the then Leader of the House, was that the Government saw no long-term role for the remaining hereditaries and envisaged that they would be removed at the next stage of reform. We are now at that next stage of reform, and although it does not introduce an elected house, it ends an anomaly shared only, among all the parliaments of the world, with the constitution of Lesotho, in having a hereditary element in the second Chamber. In the case of Lesotho, the hereditary element is drawn from the tribal chiefs, and while many of our remaining hereditaries would make splendid tribal chiefs—although I am not sure there is a Strathclyde tribe—this is not the basis on which we organise society.
The other principal measure of reform we are promised in this Parliament is a retirement age. Again, we support this principle. Other professionals in the UK have a retirement age, including lawyers and bishops, and there are good reasons for it. That is not to say that many extremely elderly Peers do not make a valuable contribution to proceedings in your Lordships’ House; they obviously do, but many more do not, and the lack of a retirement age inevitably means that the House is denied much relevant contemporary experience which a younger House would bring.
These two reforms in themselves, of course, do not address the issue of the eventual size of the House and the balance of parties across it. What is the Government’s view on this? Do they, for example, still support the principle that we should move towards equality of representation between Labour and the Conservatives, despite the Conservatives’ current shrunken Commons representation, and if so, over what time period? Do they think that the Burns principle of two out, one in should be pursued, or that a combination of the abolition of the hereditaries and a retirement age will, by themselves, get the House down to a satisfactory size? Do they have any plans to reduce the number of Bishops in your Lordships’ House? However much one might value the contribution of the Bishops’ Benches—I certainly do—it surely would be perverse in our increasingly secular age if the only group whose proportionate size increased as a result of the proposed reforms was the Lords spiritual.
When the relevant reform legislation comes before your Lordships’ House, we on these Benches will not seek to delay it or to bog the debates down with unnecessary amendments. There is one area, however, where the system could be strengthened within the spirit of the upcoming legislation. This relates to the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. At the moment, the commission can recommend against the appointment of an individual, but this objection can be overridden by the Prime Minister, as it has been in recent years. That seems to us unacceptable and could easily be rectified.
There are times when I think that it could be another 113 years before the Lords is truly reformed in the spirit of the 1911 Act. We on these Benches, however, remain optimists and will continue to push for this. In the meantime, the measures the Government propose to bring forward in this Parliament will go some way to improving the composition of your Lordships’ House, and on that basis, they deserve our support.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for bringing this important debate to the House today, and for her warm words personally to me just now.
As I have remarked before, the British constitution is a three-legged stool, one each for the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. Major change by the Executive to the legs of the stool needs to be undertaken with great care, especially if the net effect of those changes is that more power is accrued to one or other of the legs. I underline also the importance of ensuring that, following any major change, the Salisbury convention runs smoothly. I will come to that in greater detail shortly.
The constitutional reform section of the Government’s manifesto contains six separate propositions that involve this House. The first two are in the same paragraph, and are the proposals to remove the hereditaries and restrict the age of Members of the House. This second proposition says:
“Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords”.
I remind people that, if enacted, these two propositions would see the departure by the end of this Parliament of about half the Peers present at the start of it—by any measure, a major change. The number for the Cross Benches, given our slightly older average age, is closer to 60%.
In giving evidence to the PACAC committee in the Commons in May, I commented that there were three unfairnesses in the current make-up of the membership of this House: the hereditaries, the Bishops, and the unlimited and unfettered power the Prime Minister has to make appointments to this House. The greatest unfairness, I continue to feel, is this last one, which is both very powerful and vested in one person. The changes proposed in the Government’s manifesto would add power to the Prime Minister, so that what is already a very large power without precedent in any other liberal democracy is increased. Indeed, the vesting of great power in one person is at the core of the problems we face with authoritarian regimes around the world. However comfortable we might feel with our freshly elected Government today, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs going forward for a major liberal democracy.
In 2017, the noble Lord, Lord Burns—he says, looking for the noble Lord—and his committee produced their seminal report about the size of the House and, by implication, some sort of conventional cap on the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. We unanimously endorsed it. Many of those who were part of that endorsement are on the Front Benches of the major groupings present today. In any event, we all remember our agreed target of 600. We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, shortly.
The third Labour proposition concerns addressing participation. My office estimates that changing the requirement for Members to attend from at least one day per Session, which is pursuant to Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, to 10% of the days sat in a Session would affect around 20% of the House. Some Peers would choose to sit a few extra days, clearly, but I still believe that such a new required level would reduce our numbers—and quickly—by at least 12.5%, or 100 Peers. I am in favour of this.
I feel that the introduction of an age limit for newly created Peers would be a good idea. It would mean amending Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958. As my figures on the percentage of the existing membership of the House who would be affected show, introducing age limits on the existing membership would be a large organisational shock that is not necessary and should be avoided. A transitional arrangement is clearly called for.
For similar reasons, this route of implementing a new retirement age on newcomers only was chosen by the England and Wales judiciary 40 years or so ago. In that case, only newly promoted senior judges had the new retirement age; existing judges were unaffected. The exercise was deemed a success. It turned out that some of those who could have continued retired at the new limit in any event, and I would expect that to happen here. If only one in five of those protected stood back, I estimate that an additional 50 colleagues might retire in this Parliament. The three changes—participation, age limits and the hereditaries Bill—could thus represent 240 or so Members leaving this Parliament. We would have a House at or below our target of 600.
I turn to conventions. Last year, my office produced a series of papers on the Salisbury/Addison convention, which is at the core of a successful relationship between the Lords and the Executive. The modern version of this convention came into being post war to assist a Labour Administration facing a non-Labour House of Lords. It has served us well, but it will need to be renewed as part of our reform process, in particular to address the upwards trend in ping-pong. We have been playing ping-pong on more Bills, with more balls and longer rallies. It is a trend, and the trend is still rising. We must tackle it.
For Parliament to come willingly into this programme of reform, the Prime Minister’s power of appointment must also be addressed. The proportionate thing would be for the Prime Minister to enter into a new convention whereby 600 Members was our conventional limit and the Prime Minister agreed to take advice on propriety and suitability from HOLAC. I know that others will develop the theme of HOLAC, and I will listen with great interest; but I believe that there is an appetite here in the House today for an ambitious programme of reform along my four lines—hereditaries, participation, age limits and conventions—and we should grasp the opportunity. However, as we seek to navigate these difficult waters, we must at all times balance constitutional security, the proper relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and the words of the Government’s manifesto.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for a meaningful debate on this matter. The Lords spiritual have a long history of constructive engagement on the question of reform. I pay tribute especially to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who served on the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, which produced the Wakeham report in 2000. That commission encouraged
“a broadening and deepening of religious representation in the second chamber”
to reflect the diversity of our multifaith society, a principle that these Benches have supported before and since. We stand ready to assist any future appointments commission in that task.
The Lords spiritual see our role in your Lordships’ House as bringing an independent and non-partisan presence, and a voice for faith and for our local communities. It is an expression of our vocation to service in all communities that is core to our constitutional status as an established Church. Our presence in this House is only one component of the wider Church-state relationship. Service in Parliament on the one side is matched by our accountability to Parliament on the other, epitomised by the weekly opportunity for Questions specifically about the Church of England to the Second Church Estates Commissioner in the other place.
I suggest that this House makes three specific contributions to our parliamentary democracy: independence, expertise and a voice from civil society. First, as perhaps the most significant performer of checks and balances on Government, it must not become merely a mirror to reflect the all too familiar landscape of political parties. Secondly, this House must continue to provide a forum for measured, evidence-driven legislative scrutiny. As Wakeham put it:
“The second chamber should engender second thoughts”.
For that purpose, it must maintain the high calibre of professional expertise across all sectors for which its Members are renowned. That is a core strength. Thirdly, your Lordships’ House is composed of voices from across the breadth of civil society which might otherwise not be easily heard. We especially celebrate the opportunity to learn from our colleagues whose distinguished careers and excellence in their respective fields have earned them a place in this Chamber. This House achieves its work not least because it is not composed exclusively of the partisan.
These Benches have no single view on reform except to agree that some reform is overdue, not least to deal with the increasing size of the House and the exercise of patronage. I welcome this debate and the opportunity to hear a diversity of views.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I speak partly as co-chair, with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. That should be our starting point. What is our function and how can we best fulfil that?
I regret that the Leader of the Opposition failed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who sought to bring the House together. Instead, we had a catalogue of words such as “sweeping”, “purging”, “hasty”, “expulsion”, “guillotine”, “stampede” and “great hurt”. I do not think that that is the way to approach a serious discussion on constitutional change. He says that cross-party talks or even a convention might have been better, yet he did no such thing as bringing that together when he was Leader of the House, and he failed to ensure that the Burns report was implemented, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.
The noble Lord, Lord True, does not think that size is a problem, but look at the membership of second Chambers around the world. The House of Lords has 827 Members, which is higher than every other second Chamber, and it is the only one with more Members than the first House. We are not the same as those. We do a different job, we are not paid and we are part-time Members of a full-time House. However, it might be worth listening to what seems fit for another country.
Looking at political imbalance, the noble Lord says that what we are doing is for partisan reasons. I put it to him that he ought to take a look at what this House is at the moment: the main opposition parties have 350 Members, to just 186 for the party of government. Indeed, the government side has 86 fewer than the Conservatives—a position never met in the Conservatives’ term of office and an imbalance that will not disappear completely even with the loss of the hereditary Members. Unless we continue to grow, the party of government will remain much smaller than the main party of opposition.
Talking about the hereditaries, I have to say that all of us in this House, particularly my noble friend Lord Grocott, warned time and again that if the Grocott Bill were not accepted then this would be the only way forward. Had we moved at the pace that my noble friend would have suggested, there would be very few noble Lords who are hereditaries on the Benches at the moment. Indeed, the majority of today’s hereditaries were not here in 1999, when the temporary by-election deal was agreed. Everyone accepts that it was pro tem, although we may have had some difficulties about exactly when pro tem would be ended. The principle of ending the hereditary membership was accepted in 1999, and only its full implementation awaited.
I find the ad hominem excuses not valid, despite the great names that have been mentioned. This is partly because I think it is slightly distasteful for those not mentioned, but also because basing constitutional changes on how we value particular numbers of our colleagues is not a good way of making changes. Importantly, even with the changes for hereditary Peers that we will see, any hereditary is eligible—just like the rest of the population—to then be appointed a life Peer. But like the rest of us, they should be here on their own merit. I am certain that a number of them would return, albeit with perhaps a different title.
It is quite hard to know what the noble Lord, Lord True, wants from the change. Does he want to keep a large number of elderly people here to reduce the chance of refreshing our membership, something which in the past he has often discussed on a positive note? Despite complaining how many would leave under the age criteria, it is really only a symptom of the fact that we have too few people here now in their 50s and 60s. I am feeling old at 75 and am contemplating retirement—why should the rest of us stand in the way of the coming generation?
It is hard to know the Conservatives’ view of the role of this House. Perhaps it is that of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who, responding to his very first Prime Minister’s Question in the other place, said that he had always supported a predominantly elected House of Lords. Is that the position now?
Today, I believe that we as a House should recommit ourselves to the function we currently perform and then support moves to a composition that makes that function easier to fulfil and enables our membership to better reflect the range of interests, experience, age, diversity and commitment to the work of this House. I hope membership will be seen as a working role, not just an honour.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, whom I respect very much. I thought my noble friend the shadow Leader of the House made a very restrained speech and that his language was very moderate. I have to tell her that, if the party opposite continues with this act of constitutional vandalism, it ain’t seen nothing yet.
The Labour manifesto promised both to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords and to introduce a mandatory retirement age. The first proposal has proved popular with Labour Peers in the Lords, but the forced retirement at the end of a Parliament in which Peers reach the age of 80 has, surprisingly, encountered strong opposition on the Benches opposite.
The recent welcome nomination for peerages by Sir Keir Starmer for the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodge of Barking and Lady Beckett, both of whom have a great contribution to make to this House but are aged over 80, suggests that the Prime Minister has had second thoughts on that proposition. Perhaps he realised, on my reckoning, that his proposals would result in 369 Peers —of whom 70 are women—being kicked out of the Lords. This would reduce the size of the House to 435, decimate the Cross Benches, as the Convenor pointed out in his excellent speech, and remove many of the hardest-working and experienced Peers, such as our former distinguished Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the former Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Convenor of the Cross Benches himself.
As to the noble Baroness’s suggestion that this is ad hominem, it is not ad hominem; we are concerned about maintaining the talent and expertise that lies in these and other hereditary Peers’ contributions. The Leader of the House of Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, pays tribute to them. Well, fine words, but it is somewhat late, if I may so, to invite our thoughts on how this problem could be resolved despite it being a manifesto promise.
The expulsion of the exempted hereditary Peers will weaken the ability of the Opposition and the Cross Benches to hold the Government to account and create a second Chamber of Parliament where every single Member owes their position to the patronage of one person—one Prime Minister. The Bishops also require the nomination to be put forward by the Prime Minister. Removing the exempted hereditaries will focus attention on the position of the remaining life Peers and set in train a process for an elected House, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that will challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons itself.
History tells us that, once the penny drops, MPs will lose their enthusiasm for House of Lords reform. Those Peers tempted to go along with accepting so-called incremental or piecemeal reform should look at the documents on display just down the Corridor in the Royal Gallery and note that many of those who thought that they were signing the death warrant of Charles I were actually signing their own.
The House of Lords Act 1999 removed 666 hereditary Peers. The Act allowed 92 to remain as exempted hereditaries following a “solemn and binding” promise by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, that they would remain as Members until a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords had taken place. By bringing forward legislation now to expel just the exempted hereditaries, Sir Keir Starmer has broken that promise in a disgraceful piece of political gerrymandering aimed at weakening scrutiny of his Government by the House of Lords.
The convention is that constitutional reform is done on an all-party basis after consultation, and by consensus and agreement. It seems the recklessness of this Government knows no bounds, with the legislation to expel some of our brightest, dedicated and non-party political Peers being rushed through the Commons, as my noble friend pointed out, this very day, and completed before we have even finished debating this matter in this House. That hardly chimes in with the honeyed words of the Leader of the House of Lords.
The Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has said:
“The hereditary principle in law-making has lasted for too long and is out of step with modern Britain … people should not be voting on our laws in parliament by an accident of birth”.
Someone might tell him that no laws are made without Royal Assent.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The speaking time is advisory. The noble Lord should know that.
Mr Thomas-Symonds has as his ministerial colleague in the Cabinet Office, Georgia Anne Rebuck Gould, the daughter of the late Lord Gould and the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck. The son of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, Hamish, is a Minister in the Foreign Office. Both were elected to the Commons for the first time in July and immediately made Ministers. I bet that went down well on the Labour Benches.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I will not give way to the noble Baroness. I am out of time.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Well, if the House will allow me, I will give way to her.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The noble Lord just referred to someone who has been leader of Camden Council. I find the idea that that person is here because of her mother or father rather than for her own abilities deeply distasteful.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I was not questioning her abilities; I was simply pointing out that support for patronage and the hereditary principle is alive and well in the other place.
Poorly thought-out policy and hypocrisy have proved to be the hallmarks of this Government; “party before country and constitutional convention” turned out to be their mantra. We need a comprehensive approach to reform of Parliament. The truth is that the House of Lords is working well and doing an essential duty scrutinising legislation which is not even debated in the House of Commons, as every Bill is timetabled there. The other place needs to put its own House in order. This House has a constitutional duty which we cannot shirk. Labour needs to think again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the advisory speaking time is five minutes. There is an advisory speaking time out of courtesy to other Members. I urge all noble Lords to keep remarks within this time so that the debate may finish at a reasonable time.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, reflecting my role with the Lord Speaker’s committee, I will speak about controlling the size of the House. The Lord Speaker’s committee started by trying to understand why the size of the House had risen in the way that it has and the pressures that have emerged on membership to bring about this increase over time. It has sometimes been a quite rapid increase. The committee concluded that there are several features of our existing arrangements that generate this problem, leading, of course, to the adverse publicity the House often receives. To solve the problem, we need to identify the outcome we seek and implement a package of measures that addresses these features.
The first feature is the absence of a limit on the size of the House, which makes the House of Lords almost unique among legislative Chambers. The second, which has already been mentioned, is that Prime Ministers can make any number of appointments and to whichever party they choose. It is a quite astonishing situation. It is not surprising that appointments during a Parliament have tended to be predominantly to the Prime Minister’s own party, and that decisions on appointments are not always based on the likely contribution a Member will make to the business of the House. Thirdly, there is no retirement age or term limit. The number of leavers is not predictable and generally it is less than the number of appointments Prime Ministers wish to make.
The consequence of these three features is constant “leap-frogging” when there is a change of Government, as successive Governments seek to change the balance of the House in their favour. Over time, as this is repeated, we see an inevitable increase in overall numbers. Putting this right is likely to require changing each of these features. I do not believe that there is any single measure that would in isolation sustainably solve the problem we have identified. Simply getting the number down today is not enough; it is also about keeping them down.
For me, the most important change remains that there should be a limit on the size of the House. It should probably be no larger than the House of Commons. When the Lord Speaker’s committee undertook its work, it was proposed that the House of Commons would come down to 600 Members. Of course, it has remained at 650, so we have more generalised this to say that we are looking for a House that has a membership no larger than the House of Commons.
On that basis, and if we had a limit, appointments would be made only when there are vacancies. This would go a long way to providing incentives for sensible appointments and departures. To avoid leap-frogging, there needs to be a fair balance of appointments between the parties so that, when there is a change of government, the new Government do not need to make a rush of appointments to catch up. The committee recommended that this should be based on an average of the percentage of votes and seats at the most recent general election.
Finally, there should be a term limit, an age limit or some combination of the two. This would ensure a steady flow of leavers to make way for refreshment and adjustment to the composition when it is needed.
What does this mean in practice for our present situation? First we need an agreement on these principles, and then we need agreement on a transition from where we are today.
For the purposes of my remarks and thinking about this, I assume that the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill becomes law, although I recognise from listening to the debate that this remains a very contentious issue. Today, including those on leave of absence or disqualified, there are 716 life Peers. Getting the numbers down to 650 during this Parliament probably requires introducing an age limit. Again, rather like the leader of the Liberal Democrats, I am not averse to age or retirement limits. They apply in almost every other activity that I have been associated with and are an essential part of the refreshment of organisations.
However, the Government’s manifesto proposal is to introduce a retirement age of 80, which would mean some 300 of the present life Peers retiring by 2029, if the Parliament runs its full course. This goes further than needed to have a House smaller than the House of Commons or to create space for rebalancing the numbers between the parties. On its own, my fear is that without a cap on the size at the same time, we will be back in the same place before long, despite having gone through this process. A higher retirement age of, say, 84 or 85 coming in following any legislation and then every year afterwards would be a more gradual process and could get us close to 650 Members by the end of the Parliament.
At some point there will have to be legislation, or agreement between the parties, on a fair allocation of future appointments between them along with a continuing proportion to the Cross Benches. I hope that within these principles, identifying what the problem has been about size, the Government are able to come forward with the kind of co-ordinated action I have described today rather than this emphasis upon one or two measures.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the subject of this debate is very wide—reform of the House of Lords—but the reason we are having it is extremely narrow. It is, of course, focused specifically on the Bill currently going through the other House about the removal of hereditary Peers. I am a strong supporter of the Bill, but I shall reserve my main arguments in favour of it until Second Reading. I intend to use my time today to make a couple of observations about the Bill that I think are relevant to any future plans for reform of this House.
The current Bill is unfinished business; it is business that should have been completed 25 years ago. At that time, a Labour Government with a huge majority of 179 in the Commons had a clear election mandate to remove all the hereditary Peers. When it came to the House of Lords, the Government found it impossible to fulfil the promise they had made to the electorate. It is a long and strong convention that it is this House’s responsibility to allow the passage, within a reasonable time, of manifesto commitments, but it was not possible back in 1999 for reasons that I will describe at Second Reading. So here we are again, with another Labour Government with another huge majority—this time of 174—and the clearest possible general election mandate to remove the remaining 92 hereditaries from the House.
It is a simple five-clause Bill with the simplest of objectives. It has been carried in the Commons by huge majorities. It is a clear manifesto commitment from a general election held just four months ago. What I conclude from this is that by all precedent and convention—and we have heard a lot about that, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord True—the Bill should have a simple, safe passage through this House. To put it more negatively, it would be very bad indeed for this House and we would make ourselves look ridiculous in the eyes of the public if any behaviour took place that was in any way comparable to that which happened 25 years ago.
I remind the House that the fundamental principle of the 1999 Act is clearly stated in law. Clause 1 of that Act says:
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”,
or, to put it more colloquially, you cannot inherit the right to legislate. In all my years in this House and in the Commons, I cannot remember many people publicly challenging that principle—although I have to say I recall one Conservative saying to me, I hope in jest, that he did not like constitutional change and in fact was not too keen on the Reform Act 1832—so, for me, unfinished business is a powerful reason for being enthusiastic about the Bill.
The other reason is that it means the end, never to return, of those risible, farcical, indefensible hereditary Peer by-elections. The zenith of absurdity was reached in 2016 when, for a new Liberal Democrat Peer, there were seven candidates and an electorate of three—more than twice as many candidates as electors. The winning candidate got all three votes and the remaining six got none. As they say, you could not make it up. Of all the proposals for Lords reform, I thought that scrapping these by-elections would surely be easy, but I did not at all allow for the determined filibustering of a tiny minority of hereditary Peers—although I believe the majority of hereditary Peers supported the Bill.
I also have to mention the determination of the Conservative Government of the time to block the Bill. During the passage of the current Bill, those who blocked the previous ones can perhaps tell us why they thought it was a good idea to do that and whether they are still of the same opinion.
I take two lessons from my attempts and those of others who have tried to initiate Lords reform since the 1999 Act. First, if we in this House do not deal with the reforms that are clearly necessary then someone else will do the job for us. Secondly, the way to Lords reform is not one that tries to change powers, composition, electoral systems and the relationship with the Commons all in one grandiose scheme. The overwhelming evidence of the last 100 years is that attempts at wholesale reform all in one go will, slowly and inexorably, grind into the sand. The reforms that will succeed are those which are short, simple and focused.
I have one final reminder. We are entertained and fascinated by these issues and happy to spend hours discussing them, as today’s debate with 80 speakers clearly demonstrates. However, it is an enthusiasm that is not shared by the British public. While reform is important—I do not doubt that—other issues are far more important to most people, and far more deserving of debate and parliamentary time. When we debate the hereditary Peers Bill, and indeed any future reforms to the Lords, we need to keep that perspective firmly in mind.
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, it is well over 50 years since I first got into the House of Commons, but I do not think I have ever sat in a debate and heard reports that I had written 25 years ago quoted as freely as some have quoted them this afternoon. The first thing I ought to do is declare an interest as a former chairman of the royal commission that was set up after the last reform of the House of Lords, to think about the future. We spent a long time discussing it, and some of the things that have been said reflect well on that and some do not. I do not intend to go any further than that, except to say that—sorry, I have not made a speech for a long time, and there is a new factor in my life that I have not noticed before: I cannot even read my own writing.
Nevertheless, the royal commission that I chaired is a very old feature of Parliament but a dying one. Mine, nearly 30 years ago, was the last one to be set up. I hope that was not a reflection on me, but I think it is a reflection of the view of the Civil Service and the Government that royal commissions cause more trouble to the Government than they like, so they are disappearing from the scene. They have been going a long time. As a matter of fact, I suspect no one here will know that King William I had a royal commission that set up the Domesday Book.
The second interest I declare is that I have been a member of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House, chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He has already expressed a lot of the views of our committee, so I do not have to. What I want to say, in the few words I have, is that, in spite of all the faults that everybody likes to talk about, the House of Lords does an extremely good job of work and none of us should ever feel ashamed of the work that we do. We look at Bills in detail, which the House of Commons gave up doing a long time ago, as far as I can make out. We are proud of what we do; the problem is what the future composition of the House should be.
I know what I would do. If I was the Leader of the House, I would set up a committee and say to the House, “You tell me what you think it ought to be”. You would almost certainly get a surprisingly good report as each party recognises that it has a responsibility but not overall command of the situation. I would certainly continue the reduction of the size of the House of Lords to 600. The size is not absolutely important; the important thing is that it will stop any future Prime Minister pushing in a lot of people without the agreement of the House. It is not the actual number, but that it is a limited number, that is important.
I believe the Lords ought to have a big say in the way the House of Lords conducts its business, because I think we are the ones who know best. A number of the things that have been said by others are right. I would find agreement within the House on how it should be divided up by party and how many places each party should have. That should be fixed and take account of, probably, the total vote of the electorate at the last general election. In my view, new Members should have 15 years. I argued for 20 years in the committee but I had to agree with the rest that 15 years was probably about long enough to keep the right flow in the new Chamber.
Those are the main changes that I would want to see. There are a whole range of changes that I would like to see in the way the House of Lords conducts its work, in spite of the fact that it does a good job. For example, quite a lot of time is spent passing resolutions when there is not the slightest chance of them ever going through the House of Commons. We are all here for hours when there are much more constructive things to do.
I welcome where we have got to. The Government are right to try to do something about these things, and I think they should take a great deal of notice of what the House of Lords says.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the Government’s plan to remove hereditaries, finally, from this House. My preference—I would certainly have thought this a few years ago—would have been for a wide-ranging programme of constitutional reform in the first Parliament of a Labour Government. But I came to accept the argument, made strongly, that when faith in our democracy and politics has reached such a low point, it is right for us to prioritise the domestic agenda relevant to ordinary people’s lives—doing something about living standards, about the health service and about immigration, rather than spending lots of time on constitutional reform.
My reaction to the hereditary Peers Bill is that it is long overdue. I was in No. 10 in 1998-99 and I still remember the sense of shock when we learned that the compromise deal had been done, because we thought it was obvious that the hereditaries should go as part of a wider reform of the House.
Historically, when I think of a hereditary House, I think of the House that tried to block the reform Act in the 1830s or the House that voted against Irish home rule in the 1880s, leading to a century of trouble. I think of the House that defeated the Lloyd George Budget in 1910. Lloyd George actually made the best case against the hereditary principle that there has ever been, when he talked about this random group of a thousand people drawn
“from the ranks of the unemployed”
in one of his great attacks. He also went on to undermine the legitimacy of the hereditary House of Lords, of course, by selling lots of peerages to augment his political fund.
It was the Life Peerages Act that restored the reputation of this House by bringing in Cross-Benchers and people from a wide variety of backgrounds. That helped the Lords to become the Chamber that it is today, one that is very good at reviewing legislation and doing a job that the House of Commons no longer does properly, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said.
Of course it is sad; I have got to know many hereditary Peers well, and for some of them I have the greatest respect. The speech by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was a wonderful example from someone who has given very distinguished public service in this House. I hope that his points will be taken on board by our further consideration of what may follow the hereditary Peers Act.
We should still think in terms of a wider reform of this place, but there is a lot happening. There is going to be a much broader devolution of power in England and, once that process of establishing devolved power in England is complete, it will become possible to think of the second Chamber as a body representative of the regions and nations. However, when this wider reform takes place, I hope it also does something that I feel strongly about: people who sit in the second Chamber should no longer have a title. That gives completely the wrong incentive for people to want to be in this Chamber. I would like to think that, before I die, people might perhaps refer to “that Roger Liddle who was once a Member of the upper House”, and not to Lord Liddle.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, any debate about Lords reform should start with identifying the problem that we are trying to fix, and there is none more serious than the rapid decline of public trust in the political class, in Parliament and in our democratic system. That signals the democratic deficit that this House has a duty to address. Keir Starmer promised to restore public trust during the general election campaign. I am not going to rehearse all that he has presided over since July to make matters worse, but I do want to highlight the Prime Minister’s misplaced belief that the Conservatives alone caused this widespread public disaffection.
We Conservatives certainly deserve our fair share of the blame but, if we are to address the cause of public distrust, the Labour Party must also acknowledge its role in creating this sorry state, as should all sides of this House. Trust nosedived in the years after 2016 because of our collective reaction to the public’s verdict on our collective failures as a political class. If campaigning for a second referendum and frustrating Brexit legislation was not bad enough, Labour, the Lib Dems, many Cross-Benchers, the Bishops and even some of my noble friends sought to frustrate and dilute legislation designed to control immigration and strengthen our borders, which flew in the face of what the majority had voted for.
In every one of the five Sessions of Parliament after the 2017 general election, this House defeated the Conservative Government in more than 60% of Divisions. In four out of five of those Sessions, the rate of government defeats almost topped 70%. That was unprecedented. I know that there were some improvements to Bills because of this House’s scrutiny and that it is not the role of the House of Lords to make life easier for the Government of the day, whichever party is in power. But it is the role of this House of Lords not to add to the public’s impression that they are being condescended to and looked down on by a bunch of unelected elites. As much as it pains me to say so, that is how we appeared to many of the people we exist to serve.
What is ironic, bearing in mind what we are discussing, is that in the Division Lobbies, the majority of hereditary Peers voted in step with the public on Brexit and immigration. Contrary to Labour’s description of them as indefensible, based on their actions—which is how I was brought up to judge people who were born different from me—the viscounts, earls and hereditary barons of this House were the only category of Peers that the majority of the British people could rely on for their support.
This brings me to the Government’s proposed interim reforms of this House while an elected second Chamber remains a promise on the never-never. I personally have little objection to a retirement age, and I am all for us doing more to remove any Peer who does not pull their weight. However, I have concerns about a participation requirement because it risks either being meaningless or creating perverse incentives. Giving the House of Lords Appointments Commission more powers over prime ministerial nominations worries me because anything in that direction would dilute yet further democratic accountability.
As to removing the remaining hereditary Peers, as a democrat I accept that the Government have a mandate to do that and, if they succeed, no future Government will reverse their removal. But not only will their departure not improve our democratic deficit, none of the Government’s proposed measures to reform the House of Lords will make any difference to what really matters in the eyes of the public. Indeed, they add up to displacement activity without meaningful change to how we go about some of our business.
The electorate deserve respect and for their legitimate demands to be taken seriously, especially when the majority of Peers disagree. They need to know that we will apply our best efforts to meeting their objectives, not our own. That is the real democratic deficit that exists between Parliament and the public we serve, and it is the problem they need us to fix. Addressing it is how this House can contribute to democracy and secure its own future for the long term.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure and something of a challenge to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.
I think we will all be conscious of the gap between the perception—often, alas, negative—of the House of Lords, focused on its size and the methods of its appointments, and the reality of an effective hard-working second Chamber which complements and challenges, but does not compete with, the House of Commons.
I think the Government are right to seek to close that gap but that will inevitably require change, and change is seldom easy. I agree with the Government that the time has come to complete the 1999 reforms and to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I expect to vote for the Bill when it comes to us. However, I hope that a way can be found to enable at least some hereditary Peers, many of whom have played and are playing an important role in the work of the House, to be appointed life Peers.
I also welcome the Government’s aim to reduce the size of the House. I have always thought that the Lords could carry out its constitutional duties with, say, 450 Members, but the proposals in the Burns report of an upper limit of 600 now have a certain status. A reduction to that number would be achieved by the Government’s proposal for retirement at 80—but this is a blunt instrument. There should be proper consultation on other ways to achieve the same end, and I hope that those consultations can begin on an all-party basis soon and will include participation. I hope they succeed, so that a reduced and more focused House of Lords can come into effect quickly—ideally, after the next election. If they do not succeed, I imagine that the Government will push ahead with retirement at 80 anyway—in which case, I, along with many others, will trip lightly away from your Lordships’ House. But let us hope that we can together find another way forward.
The aim, of course, is not just to reduce the House of Lords to, say, 600, but to ensure that it stays at that size. In my view, that will require a reinforced House of Lords Appointments Commission, which I used to chair, with more powers and with the emphasis on the suitability, not just the propriety, of those nominated by the political parties. It will also require an effective self-denying ordinance on the part of the present Prime Minister and future Prime Ministers.
I have in the past voted in your Lordships’ House for an at least partially elected House. It did not find favour with your Lordships. I do not now believe that a wholly or partially elected Chamber would be acceptable to the Commons, so I understand but do not support the views of the Liberal Democrats.
In conclusion, the Government’s approach is on the right lines. We have waited long enough, and we now need to move forward—not in due course, or even at pace, but immediately.
Lord Saatchi (Con)
My Lords, I take your Lordships back to the occasion in the White House when President Nixon was discussing a particularly troublesome affair of state with Henry Kissinger. Mr Nixon made a proposal to solve the problem and Dr Kissinger disapproved, saying, “Mr President, I must remind you of the famous saying, ‘You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time’”. President Nixon leaned back in his chair, thought carefully for a few moments and then said, “Henry, those sound like pretty good odds to me”. But they are not good odds, are they? On the contrary, as we have just seen in Britain and America, when a Government take people for granted, catastrophic election defeat follows.
In Britain, certainly, has there not been a growing acknowledgement of a disconnect between people and Parliament—a sense of disappointment and disillusionment with what the democratic system has provided? Apparently, British people of all ages and demographics feel underrepresented by an elite political class that sometimes seems neither to hear them or to care what they say—exactly as my noble friend Lady Stowell said when she described the “democratic deficit”. Therefore, I put the case to the House that something needs to be done to bridge this social divide, and that it could be us. Yes, surprisingly, our House of Lords, the pinnacle of the elite establishment, can play a significant role to achieve that.
I propose that we lead the way to reconnect people with Parliament, to offer them more participation and consultation—new ways, granted to us by AI technology, to allow people to express their thoughts and see a connection between their views and what is happening here. I put the case that, if we led in that, it would greatly enhance our public reputation. Your Lordships may ask what technology has to do with our time-honoured practices, but please consider this: any one of the seven top American technology companies is now worth more than the entire UK stock market.
At the moment, the phrase “listening to the people” has achieved the status of meaningless waffle. The closest we get is when the House of Commons receives 100,000 petitions, and a little-known body called the Petitions Committee will “consider scheduling this petition for debate in Parliament at a future date”. That is not democracy—it is bureaucracy, and it is patronising. Times change, and this is not the era of Cardinal Wolsey or Henry VIII, and the people are not petitioners. Do we need to be reminded—of course, we do not—that the Government do not actually have any money? It is all the people’s money; they pay for everything—the heating, the lighting, the staff, the cleaning, the Library and the security. They pay the bills, and they are the owners, and to ignore the owners is not only rude but illogical.
In the 1960s, 4% of the people went to university; now it is 50%. They do not have to rely on the BBC to tell them what is going on—they know it all in seconds. Call me sad, but I have probably seen more British public opinion research than any living person, and there is only one conclusion: the British people are the most intelligent, aware and sophisticated electorate in the world. With apologies to the Leader of the House, the people have more knowledge with ChatGPT and their phone than the entire Government Front Bench put together. Nobody understands this better than the team in No. 10, which is why it asks people’s opinion on everything every minute of every day—they just do it in private, so let us try doing it in public so everyone can see what people are saying.
Noble Lords will hear many objections, which I shall recite very quickly. People will say, “People aren’t ready; people don’t have the skills to be involved—they’re not informed”. Well, somehow, they manage to do perfectly well. You may hear it said that the people lack the interest, time or motivation to be involved in lawmaking and that they will be influenced by lobbyists and special interests—but is not that what happens in Parliament now? Or it may be said that the people’s modesty means that they are willing to rely on officials who are better qualified, and willing to doff their cap to the passing horsedrawn carriage. If there are such people, I have never met them.
I shall finish with this—let us consider our House. I put it to noble Lords that, if this House of Lords had a logo, it would be a light under a bushel. It is time to awaken our sleeping beauty. These days, the House of Lords is a body that receives very little praise; there is usually offhand criticism of our motives or behaviour. But for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the Hansards of the well-mannered and illuminating debates in the Lords bear witness that this place is overwhelmingly occupied by intelligent, reasonable and responsible people, honestly striving by their own best lights to prospect for real ideas with the unremitting zeal of a prospector hunting gold.
I have to summarise now to stay in time—
Lord Saatchi (Con)
Yes, I am going to end. With regard to the participative democracy that I describe, the Government, while they are attempting what they call immediate modernisation of the Lords, might consider modernising the Lords in a true sense, in terms of our relationship with the people and the people’s ability to influence what we do.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, as previously said, the advisory speaking time is five minutes. For every 30 seconds that people go over, we add on half an hour to the debate—so I draw your Lordships’ attention to that matter.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, that advice was certainly relevant yesterday, when 80 people spoke in the debate and I was 71st. But it gave me time to reflect on the nature of yesterday’s debate on the Budget. It was weighty, informed, very impressive and very civilised. In the 40 years that I have been in Parliament, 10 of them here, I have been deeply impressed by the level of debate and of course by the level of revision and scrutiny of legislation that comes before us, but we do need reform. It seems to me that the House is too big. Perhaps the ideas of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, today could be looked at by my noble friend the Leader of the House as to how we could do that. Naturally, as someone who was born in 1948, I prefer the idea of participation rather than of age, but I say to the party opposite that there were two occasions during the last Parliament when we could have partly resolved that. One was through what my noble friend Lord Grocott was doing in terms of by-elections for hereditary peerages and the second was what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did with his report. Had we adopted both those suggestions, perhaps it would not be quite so difficult today.
I was privileged to be a member of Gordon Brown’s Labour Party commission on the constitution. He came up with some excellent recommendations on how to tackle the overcentralised state that we are in at the moment and to deal with devolution. I have to agree with my noble friend Mr Roger Liddle about where we go in the political landscape we currently have, which is different from what it was when I entered Parliament a long time ago. We now have devolved Parliaments in Wales and Scotland, and happily now too in Northern Ireland. Great areas of England are governed by mayors, and there is a very strong case for this House to be able to reflect and represent the nations and regions of our United Kingdom—partly, incidentally, to ensure that it remains a United Kingdom by having such representation here. I will give my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal an idea: in the meantime, while we discuss these things in the months and years ahead, is it possible, for example, that former First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could be offered peerages in order to come here and give their experience? A lot might not want to do that, but the offer should nevertheless be made.
One of the recommendations of Gordon Brown’s commission regarded the House of Lords. Ultimately, after a lot of deliberation, he came to the conclusion, which I did not share, that the House of Lords should be completely directly elected. I gave a dissenting opinion, which was that, in my view—and only mine—the House could be partly elected but that an overwhelmingly elected House would be wrong. I believe that it would be wrong because it would be a rival to the House of Commons. I say that not as a Member of the House of Lords but as someone who was in the House of Commons for 30 years. If we elect a House of Lords, particularly if it is elected by a method of proportional representation, inevitably those who are elected to this place in those circumstances will argue that their mandate is greater and more democratic than that of Members of the House of Commons.
Power in this country must reside in the elected House of Commons entirely. We of course should complement that, in the way we do now and in different, reformed ways to come. That, in my view, is the bottom line. However, I see that there are many cases for reform. It has taken 113 years to get to where we are, and I hope it will not take 113 years to reform. Many ideas will flow from this debate today but ultimately, our position as a revising Chamber, a Chamber for scrutiny and debate, remains unparalleled.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I feel a sense of déjà vu enveloping me as I listen to this debate. I well remember an almost identical debate that I took part in once before. A Labour Government had been elected by a landslide, led by a pale, male, north London lawyer. His party had a manifesto commitment to reform the House of Lords, but apparently any reform was impossible while there were hereditary Peers in it. The Government did a deal with those hereditary Peers whereby they agreed to leave the House on the understanding that full reform would be enacted as soon as possible and, in the meantime, they would leave 92 of their number to ensure that it took place.
The hereditary Peers agreed to leave the House but, astonishingly, that manifesto commitment evaporated without any hint of reform and the Government forgot about it for the remainder of their 10 years in office, so it cannot have been that important after all. Thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who is sadly not in his place today, now we know that no such reform was ever planned or intended. We had been played for fools.
Twenty-five years later, we are back where we started. Now we have another Labour Government, also led by a pale, male, north London lawyer—although not such a popular one—with a manifesto commitment to reform this House. Apparently, the handful of hereditary Peers who it was agreed would remain in this House until reform took place and have dutifully fulfilled their side of the bargain are now themselves the block to any substantive reform and must be cast into outer darkness to enable it to take place. What a load of rubbish. This Labour Government stand by their promises to their union paymasters but conveniently forget their promises to those hereditary Peers, to this House and to the House of Commons, which voted for that deal as set out in Section 2 of the 1999 Act.
There is a strong case for a fully elected House, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and Second Reading on the Government’s Bill in the House of Commons in October clearly shows, rather extraordinarily, that this now appears to be the model favoured by the present House of Commons. As we have heard, an elected House presents significant problems. It seems inevitable that an elected second Chamber would, rather as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was talking about, press for the repeal of the Parliament Acts. A new distribution of powers between the two Houses would be needed, along with a new set of conventions to resolve disputes between them, unless we are to see the sort of deadlock that happens in the United States Congress, which would inevitably occur more with an invigorated second Chamber.
Our difficulty is that we have no real idea what the Government are planning, no White Paper and nothing from the Prime Minister—understandably, as he spends so little time here and is so busy abroad—but we know that Gordon Brown’s commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was such a distinguished member, favoured an elected House representative of the nations and regions, even if he did not. I am not sure how much more representative we could be, although I accept that north London is somewhat overrepresented on the Benches opposite. We know that the Prime Minister favours an elected House, which makes it all the more bizarre that we are shortly to consider a Bill that establishes a fully appointed one.
While there would be less risk of conflict with the other House, an appointed House does not come without problems. As we have heard, the Salisbury/Addison convention has enabled this House to operate efficiently since 1945, but if the remaining hereditary Peers go it will become obsolete. Nor is it within the Government’s power to enforce it, and they can therefore expect Divisions on their Bills at Second Reading and Third Reading. It is even less likely that the convention on secondary legislation will hold for long, as it has been increasingly challenged in recent years.
There is one problem that this Bill creates above all others, and not one speaker in the House of Commons addressed it. While there are arguments in favour of an elected House and an appointed House, there is no credible case for an appointed House where the Executive, in the form of the Prime Minister, who controls the majority in the first Chamber, has sole power of appointment to and thus ultimate control of the second Chamber.
We frequently have to listen to rather silly, childish comparisons between the size of this House and the Chinese National People’s Congress. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge cannot compare a chamber of placemen set up 42 years ago in a communist dictatorship with one political party and a population of 1.4 billion to an 800-year old second Chamber of a highly developed legislature in a multiparty democracy of 68 million. Or can they? While many countries around the world now have bicameral legislatures, many of which are based on the Westminster model, there is only one in which the head of the Executive has complete control. Not even the most powerful Executive in Europe—the President of France—nor President-elect Trump, with his party’s control of the Senate, will have the power that Sir Keir Starmer is giving himself under this Bill. The Government are proposing to give the Prime Minister the same powers of appointment that President Xi has. That silly joke is about to become reality. With the Bill the Government now propose, this House and Parliament will become like the toothless farce that is the Chinese National People’s Congress.
Whatever the Government say, we all know from bitter experience that the Bill that will shortly come before this House is very unlikely to be followed by any further reform. Our constitution is the bedrock of our nation’s freedoms and success. It is like a beautiful, priceless piece of porcelain, but it is very fragile. The previous Labour Government treated it thoughtlessly and cracked it. We cannot allow this Government to break it, because it will be almost impossible to glue it back together again.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, recently, the invariably interesting if not controversial noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, moved an amendment on fisheries regulations. I supported the amendment in Committee and was about to sign up on Report, but then stopped to reflect that my name in support was irrelevant. House approval for his amendment was likely to be decided on a three-line Conservative Whip. Conservatives can win almost any amendment they choose—they have the numbers. Indeed, I suspect that the Conservative leaders, having loaded the House with their Peers, while being reduced to a rump in the Commons, are now having to manage their majorities to avoid a constitutional backlash. With a growing number of former Conservative MPs who have sought and pleaded for peerages, while starving Labour of peerages—a third of our Members are over 80, with many too frail to attend, while only one in nearly six Conservatives is over 80—the Conservatives have created a disproportionate House of 829. Even with the exclusion of every hereditary, 740 would remain. The truth is that they have completely undermined the reforms proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Fowler. With just over 120 Labour Peers regularly in our Lobbies, we simply do not stand a chance.
House votes are no longer credible as, more often than not, they are managed by a Conservative Front Bench who have honourably forsaken earnings in favour of public service. That does not mean that our debates lack value: on the contrary, our debates are the envy of a worldwide audience; it is our votes that now lack all credibility. What worries me is wider obstruction over reform. It is with that in mind that I offer an option—an interim arrangement on which we could build. Why not move to a second Chamber with a two-tier membership? It would feature Peers with votes and Peers without votes. All would be entitled to attend and speak. Political-party Peers reflecting the general election percentage turnout results would be the voting Peers, alongside the Cross-Benchers, comprising 20% to 25% of a total House of 500. That is a departure from the 600 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, but it would then be staged. Peers would be remunerated under a two-tier allowance regime. Under such arrangements, voting and non-voting Peers could be nominated pending longer-term reform. These are the reforms proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, revisited and tweaked, with perhaps even a salaried voting membership.
What are the problems? I am told that there are constitutional difficulties over a two-tier membership, but Parliament can decide that. I understand that there are no special procedures required for changing the UK constitution. There is no clear concept of higher law. One advantage of a two-tier membership is that, with a residual managed decline to a non-voting House, we could have movement between voting and non-voting Members. We could also, in the Fowler House of 600, maintain a declining membership of 100 non-voting Peers available for ministerial appointments. That would see us through a difficult period of reform to an ultimate, indirectly elected House. I hesitate suggesting arrangements for designating the voting Peers; I leave that to the usual channels. When designing the supplementary vote in the 1990s, I kept it simple, leaving it open for being built on in future. It worked well for 20 years, until Johnson abolished it for perceived political advantage. The irony is that, if we had maintained the original idea and extended it to general elections, the Conservatives would not have lost so many seats at the previous election. It was designed to avoid violent swings—but, more importantly, it would have avoided exposing the gross anomaly now of a totally disproportionate House of Lords.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for ingenuity—very few of us can.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord True, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—if he would care to listen—I was struck by the thought that it might be quite difficult to persuade the public outside that, because of something said in this Chamber 25 years ago, the mandate of the Labour Party set out in its manifesto should be put to one side, and nothing more can be done to reform the House of Lords because some commitment was given by somebody 25 years ago in this House. I think that would sell with some difficulty in the Dog and Duck.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My concern is that the Bill has to pass. Obstructing it would be to obstruct the result of the general election. I am convinced that it will pass. It is a pity that we will lose so many of our friends, although I have a hunch that some of them will be miraculously reincarnated as life Peers on New Year’s Day—I certainly hope so.
I have three points to make. First, the Government are right to want to pause and draw breath after this first Bill. It seems sensible because the country needs a national debate.
The role of the Lords is not clearly understood. China and North Korea get by without a second Chamber but I think that most of us, and certainly most democracies, seem to think that there is an advantage in having an institution to keep a check on what a majoritarian Government can do in the primary assembly, to improve their legislation and to look out for regional concerns. I agree, but that case has to be made to the country because right now, it is not widely understood.
If we are honest, we also have to admit that we as a House could do our job better. These debates tend to be full of self-congratulation. Of course, it is a tremendous privilege to be here, and we do work hard—on primary legislation we do a much more thorough job than does the other place. But our scrutiny of secondary legislation is, like the other place’s, superficial and spasmodic, and we are too London-centric to cover the regional dimension optimally. To me, that points to wanting a House with more expertise relevant to legislation and drawn from a wider pool.
What does that mean for composition? Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I am wary of direct elections. I lived in the United States and saw how having two Chambers which see themselves as equally legitimate all too often results in deadlock. That would be a more serious problem in a parliamentary than a presidential system. It is also the case that politicisation tends to squeeze out expertise, and we need expertise.
Indirect elections could be an answer. As a Scottish unionist, I like the Bundesrat model, at least for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; how best to provide for English regional representation is not for a Scot to tackle. But seats are allocated in the Bundesrat on the basis of degressive proportionality, favouring the smaller and more distant states, and copying that would reinforce our role as the cement of the union. But our legislative performance would not necessarily be improved at all.
So, are we stuck with an all-appointed House, as in Canada? Not necessarily: hybridity could be a good thing. Certainly, if our main task is to write good law, it will be a pity for us if we lose the expertise and experience of those who have had to apply the bad laws we have written.
My last point is this: let us at least correct the most glaring anomaly in the appointments system, as highlighted by Mr Johnson’s insouciant exuberance about convention. Most countries have honours systems but very few conflate recognition of past service with qualification for future work on legislation. Some of us are unqualified, frankly, and the House is mocked for its excessive notional size. The answer is simple, surely: follow precedent. Most Peers already have no right to sit here. If there are to be more life Peers, let us have two categories: those simply honoured with a title; and those who are willing to do, and well-suited to doing, a legislative job—and found to be such by the appointments commission, with a wider remit. Category 2 could be drawn from all parts of the kingdom. Degressive proportionality applies. There could —indeed, there should—be a ceiling on their number with a retirement age or term limits, after which they would transfer to category 1, but let us not drain away the current expertise until we have found a way of ensuring that we tap into more, and do so more systematically.
So, here are my four points.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am concluding. First, we need an informed debate led by a government Green Paper. Secondly, the House should be more fit for purpose, perform better and better reflect national and regional disparities—that should be our aim. Thirdly, it is high time that we distinguish between recognising past service and conferring a future right to legislate. Fourthly, this issue should not be rushed; it is dangerous nonsense to suggest that, until it is settled, the Government cannot do what their manifesto promised.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, on the basis of how quickly we are currently getting through Members’ contributions, we are likely to sit until 11.30 pm. If that is what Members wish, so be it, but I note the advisory speaking time of five minutes.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, is it possible for the Government Whip to stand up and stop people sooner?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Given that it is an advisory time, I am choosing to stand up between speeches, but I can do that if the House so wishes.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, we are hearing in this Chamber from some Members—often hereditary Members—who are unhappy that we are considering ending completely the principle of hereditary membership of this House. Other members, such as those on these Benches, are unhappy that we have made such little progress on reforming the House. All of us should reflect on the failure by previous Conservative Prime Ministers—I exempt the noble Baroness, Lady May, from this criticism—to stick to the one-in, two-out principle, which has caused the embarrassing expansion in the size of the House. We should also reflect on the failure to bring an end to the process of holding by-elections to replace hereditary Peers—despite the wishes of the House and the great efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—caused by filibustering by a handful of hereditary Peers, who have now forced a more radical proposal on themselves.
Then there is the failure of the Labour Party—for purely tactical reasons, based on opposition to the form of parliamentary boundary reorganisation that was then being proposed—to agree any form of timetable Motion for the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. That Bill received overwhelming support in the House of Commons: it passed by 462 votes to 124, with 90% of Labour MPs supporting it—including every single member of the current Cabinet who was an MP in 2012. It was based on promises made in all three main parties’ manifestos in the 2010 general election.
As my noble friend Lord Newby said, we will always point out that the aim of replacing membership based on the hereditary principle with membership based on the popular principle was included in the preamble to the Liberal Government’s 1911 House of Lords reform Act. Only in this place could 113 years be considered too short a time to agree the details.
In a recent article in the Times, Melanie Phillips said:
“Hereditary peers are essential: don’t ditch them”.
But this is not about all the people; it is about the principle of hereditary membership, which we should ditch. An arrangement for some hereditary Members to be re-appointed based on merit could again be made.
The 92 hereditary Peers are not an essential safeguard against an appointed House because hereditary peers are now effectively appointed when they are chosen by a very small number of their fellow Peers in the extraordinary process that we call hereditary by-elections. This is not, as is sometimes suggested, a superior way of becoming a Member of this House to that of being appointed by a party leader. Party leaders have at least been elected as an MP by their constituents and as a leader by their party members.
We should remember in our debate that we are the only legislature in the world to reserve seats for a particular religious group, apart from Iran. We are the only legislature in the world to reserve seats for people on a hereditary basis, apart from Lesotho. But we are probably not the only legislature in the world in which principles of patronage can sometimes have a corrupting influence on its composition. UK Prime Ministers can, in the present arrangements, dangle nominations in front of people, some of whom may suddenly change their principles and become compliant with that Prime Minister’s wishes, while others who may hold worthy but more critical views are blocked by them or by their own party leaders.
In the present arrangements, therefore, the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be able to vet suitability and propriety, without any prime ministerial veto of their decisions. The commission should be able to make nominations according to a quota determined by the number of Peers appointed by other routes. We must move on from 1911.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords—and “Rog”, if I may —I offer a different view of the House. If it were a classic car, we would be in awe of its extraordinary lines and enduring value; it would be a thing of elegance, and remarkably cheap to run. It would not be the fastest in the world, but a point of our House is to go through the gears a little more slowly than the other place, sometimes even to disengage the clutch—and very occasionally to overheat and blow a gasket.
As a child of north London, it has been the greatest privilege of my life to be a Member of this place. I have a very clear view of this House and our own individual participation. We are here to serve it—not the other way round. This House does not exist for our individual convenience. However, neither is the House of Lords simply here to serve the convenience of the Government of the day.
We should be discussing how to close the door on those who rarely attend and doing away with hereditary by-elections, asking whether the Bishops’ presence is still appropriate, and other matters that the Leader of the House so elegantly outlined earlier in the debate. Instead, we have a rushed, stand-alone Bill about hereditaries—a bit of constitutional clickbait.
To mangle the words of Stanley Baldwin, being a hereditary Peer right now is rather like standing between a dog and a lamppost—an uncomfortable place to be. We all know how hard so many hereditaries have worked and how much they have contributed, yet the Government propose to cut off their noble bells and balls and cast their bodies into the ditch, as if they were guilty of some great personal wickedness. It is not so much the Salisbury convention as the Cromwell convention—I beg the forgiveness of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who will have his moment in a few minutes. Surely we can do things differently. How much better would it be for the proper order of things, for the smell of the matter, to make any changes to the status of hereditary Peers part of a wider settlement, as we were promised?
I cannot help but notice that the idea to force Peers to retire at the age of 80 seems to have gone rather quiet. Is that because Labour Party colleagues belatedly realised that they have just as many old lags as we have? I see the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, nodding his head vigorously.
Let us try to do the Burns, Kinnoull, Hayman and Norton thing—try consensus before confrontation and, as a package, get the balance right. At the very least we should allow hereditary Peers to continue sitting and contributing to this House until the end of this Parliament, rather than the end of a Session. That would make little practical difficulty to the work of the Government, but it would be a mark of respect. Our hereditary colleagues should be allowed to leave with their heads held high, not stuck on the end of a pike. Let them go with grace.
The Government have an opportunity to show themselves as stronger or to come across as narrow-minded and vindictive. I know that the Labour Party, in this House at least, is better than that. When Brutus discussed doing away with Julius Caesar, he knew that it had to be done with a sense of justice:
“Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods,
Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds”.
Our hereditary colleagues have done nothing but their duty, and the rest of us, I suggest, have a duty to remember that.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the hyperbole of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, but I would like to bring us back down to practical things.
The information in the very helpful Library briefing for this debate includes a list of Peers and their group affiliations. I think the contents would probably shock many electors. Most people would want to know why the Conservative Party has so many Peers, how the Lib Dems have so many in proportion to their numbers in the Commons, why Bishops of the Church of England are represented in our Parliament, and who chooses the Cross-Bench Peers. If we added to that the age, geographical spread and class background of Peers, they would be positively amazed if not downright angry. And that is before even mentioning that there are still Members of the House who are here on a hereditary basis.
There is a danger that, as Members of this Chamber, we suffer a type of institutionalisation where we cease to see ourselves as others see us, admiring the positive elements and overlooking the negatives. Most rational people will accept the removal of hereditary Peers. It is so obvious that it is unbelievable that it did not happen more than a century ago. What is less clear from this and other discussions is what to do with the remaining Members of the House and the Chamber itself. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, it should not be set in aspic.
A second Chamber is usually one of checks and balances on central government, normally charged with one or both of two tasks: to protect the constitution and, as was described earlier, to represent nations and regions. To carry out these functions effectively, it needs political legitimacy. Without that, its powers will and should be limited, and with limited powers it can be reduced to a talking shop.
I am sure that many Peers became increasingly concerned at the last Government’s introduction of legislation that called into question the rule of law and the place of long-standing international treaties and removed powers from the devolved Administrations without their consent. Those last few years should have convinced Members of this Chamber that we desperately need a constitutional review. I appreciate the difficulties, and I do not think there is any easy, off-the-peg solution, but we need to make a start. Constant prevarication will eventually incur the wrath of voters.
The Labour Party manifesto stated that, in government, we
“will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them”.
Gordon Brown’s most recent contribution to the debate on the constitution was not his first. As student rector of Edinburgh University 50 years ago, he edited the Red Paper on Scotland and wrote:
“The question is not how men and women can be fitted to the needs of the system—but how the system can be fitted to the needs of men and women”.
He warned against
“resisting change until it becomes inevitable—but by deploying every available level of government to increase the control working people have over their lives”.
I hope that, 50 years later, we can dispatch the forthcoming Bill as quickly as possible and begin the job of discussing more fundamental change.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, we are promised a substantial reform of the House of Lords. It is most certainly needed, but I wonder whether we will get it. The age cap may end up in the long grass but, as a mere youth compared with the average age of the House, much less the possible cap at 80 years old, I leave it to others to suggest solutions—indeed, a number already have.
The participation basis may suffer the same fate, which I think would be very regrettable. It is easy to complicate this discussion—choosing what metric, triggering overparticipation for the sake of it and so on—but it is too easy to say that it is too difficult. This is a place of work, and I can think of no other line of work where it would be considered acceptable not to turn up or to turn up occasionally—in some cases just once per parliamentary Session, for lunch, and going away again, or turning up but not participating in the work of the Chamber, in committees or in other ways. Such Peers boost the apparent size of the House to levels that give a wholly false impression of the numbers engaged in the work here.
We claim to be a House of experts, yet we balk at the idea of developing a system that uses the data already collected on participation and following through by, courteously but firmly, saying goodbye to non-contributors. Removing Members across the House of any type who turn up and participate no more than 10% of the time—which I believe the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to earlier—would reduce our numbers by more than 100. I hope that this Government will tackle the participation issue rather than it languishing in the “too difficult” box. If it does, we will drift into a membership of more than 1,000.
The way people get to this House is crying out for reform, as many have already expressed and as has been expressed on all sides of the House at one time or another. A great amount of the good work that this House delivers is getting lost in the drift to an ever-larger House packed by party leaders who appoint their mates. This has brought the House into disrepute and makes the often-mocked hereditary by-elections look like models of transparency. If the time has come to end the hereditary by-elections—and it has—it most certainly has also come to end the ability of leaders, like feudal kings, simply to appoint a list of their pals, donors and loyalists.
An elected House has its supporters but, on balance, I support an appointed House for all the usual reasons. But that brings the challenge of who does the appointing and the danger of the establishment simply appointing itself from among its own social and professional circles, and mainly in London. As a first step towards a thought-out appointments process, HOLAC should go on to a statutory footing and play a role beyond that of its currently advisory status, including nurturing a House that is socially and geographically inclusive, clear in its demands and made up of committed participants.
I also support the idea of 15-year terms and the two-out, one-in principle suggested in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This would enable better forward planning for representation, numbers and specialist knowledge. I would be very interested to hear from the Leader of the House whether and when any of this is anticipated from the Government.
Finally, we know—and seem to have spent a lot of time today discussing—that the hereditary elections, which are already suspended, are over, and that the remaining so-called hereditary Members are on the cusp of being ejected. I have spoken on this before and will not tire the House with a detailed repetition. In short, it is a matter of babies and bath-water. Simply throwing the supposed toffs to the populist lions would ignore, at least on the Cross Benches, the fact that the so-called hereditaries are some of the most active and diligent Members giving service to the House. There are, of course, Peers of all types who are diligent and hard-working but, on the Cross Benches in particular, there is a strong service ethos, as we do not have any party position to advance, nor any prospect of, for example, ministerial positions.
While I believe most Members, and probably most people, agree that the hereditary tag, which is often forgotten in our day-to-day work, is well past its use- by date, I have been struck by the number of life Peers I speak to who think that the so-called hereditaries will simply be converted into life Peers. I have not seen any indication of that from the Government. My view —and I declare my obvious interest here—is that Peers who have a track record of contribution, have experience, expertise and energy to offer, and are committed to further public service in this House should be converted. That would end the hereditary issue once and for all, meeting the Government’s manifesto commitment—job done. Then we can get on to fuller reform and the other pressing matters before us.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I wonder how many times over the last century a noble Lord has started a speech by saying, “Reform of this Chamber is long overdue”, and how many times the Government Minister of the day has positively responded but the Government have then done little to implement any serious changes.
We will hear this evening from the Leader of the House about the proposed demise of the last remaining hereditary Peers. To be fair to the Labour Government, the Blair Government enacted a major change with the cull of hereditary Peers in 1999, leading to what was described as a transition period. Well, transition has lasted rather longer than intended, and that is the fault of not the hereditary Peers but the Labour and Conservative Governments.
Sadly, rather than serious reform, we will be offered a House that will be dependent on the whim and patronage of the Prime Minister. We all agree that there are too many Peers, but the Government have not come up with a solution. Has a retirement age of 80 been ditched, or a length of service of, say, 35 years? We do not know: the Government have not told us.
What is really important is that the Government had the opportunity to endorse the proposals put forward by Gordon Brown but quickly backed off, preferring to use this House as a repository for former Members of another place and those to whom it owes favours, following, I am afraid, the example of the last two Conservative Prime Ministers—I hope noble Lords remember that I said two, because I absolve my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton of any such behaviour.
The Brown plans offered a real reform. Following devolution, it is not sustainable to have a second Chamber that does not relate to and properly reflect the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We cannot have a second Chamber that relates largely to England—it should bring together the regions and nations of this country. We cannot have a second Chamber that does not include representatives of other faiths. Prayers should be said not just by the Bishops but by those representing other faiths.
A second Chamber could be constituted by election or, indeed, appointment. We need to look at what size any new Chamber should be, but that is a subsidiary question to what its role and powers should be. I follow my noble friend Lord Wakeham in saying that a constitutional convention should be put in place to look at all these issues, including how a reformed second Chamber relates in its powers to the primacy of the House of Commons. It is important to remember that without a second Chamber a Government can keep voting themselves into office.
It is often said that this House works in spite of its composition rather than because of it—that is true. I believe that the House of Lords is well regarded in this country as an important revising Chamber holding the Government to account. Any reform must ensure that that remains a core part of the House’s duty.
My time may be up in a year, so I want to address just a couple of points that have been made by noble Lords opposite. One of the main arguments against hereditary Peers is that no women are represented among our number. The fault for that lies just as much with the Government as it does with our side. The Labour Party, while in opposition or in government, has never supported any Bill that would give the right to the firstborn to succeed to a title. If it had, there would be many more mixed Members of the hereditary peerage.
The Government owe a duty to this House and to the country to announce what reforms they are considering, what reforms they now wish to impose, and what the timetable will be.
In the 50 years that I have sat in this House, it has changed. All ethnic communities are represented; nearly all religious denominations are represented, and noble Lords come from different parts of this country and from many different backgrounds. We have had in our ranks those who have been to jail, and perhaps a few who should have gone to jail. We are perhaps more representative of the nation than we ever realise.
Over the years, I have heard many good speeches from those who attend frequently and those who attend infrequently, and, occasionally, very bad speeches from those who attend all the time and never stop speaking. This House has a tendency to be pompous and often self-congratulatory. We often hear long speeches on foreign policy or important issues of the day, but I am afraid that our debates work only when they are narrowly focused. Too often, wide-ranging debates are for the benefit of the speaker and not the audience. I hope I have not fallen into that trap today.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it has been a very revealing debate. The speeches by the noble Lord, Lord True, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, remind me that the Tories fight like tigers to protect their privileges. My noble friend the Leader of the House rightly said in her excellent speech when she started the debate that we are talking principally about the purpose of the second Chamber and not the composition—although, following the seventh Lord Cromwell and the fourth Viscount Astor, it is tempting for me to go into the composition.
We are talking about the purpose, and the purpose is as the second Chamber of a legislature, and we do not have any legitimacy. Some countries are unicameral and have only one Chamber, but having seen the experience in Scotland, where some of the legislation is really awful, I think a second Chamber is important. That second Chamber, however, must have democratic legitimacy, and this one does not—manifestly so.
We need to find some way of achieving that democratic legitimacy. The Liberal Democrats, as we heard earlier, are in favour of direct elections. I agree with those who have criticised that—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others—and who have said that it would result in some kind of confrontation between the two Houses, with the primacy of the Commons no longer guaranteed. In fact, if this Chamber was elected by proportional representation, it might challenge that primacy by claiming greater legitimacy. So I am against direct elections.
I am in favour of a senate of the nations and regions. I like the French system, where the members of the Senate are elected by grands électeurs in every region of France. But there are others—some noble Lords mentioned the Bundesrat—and we should look at other senates and second Chambers around the world and take some examples.
Meanwhile, we have to proceed bit by bit. The most egregious example of why we are unrepresentative is the hereditary Peers, some of them the descendants of robber barons and people who killed and worse—is there any worse?—to get the titles they got from the kings.
Some noble Lords have suggested that we should get rid of the Bishops—I see they have gone already. I agree. They represent just one religion in one part of the United Kingdom and that is indefensible, but that should be dealt with separately. The Bill, when we get to it, deals with the worst part of the way in which we are unrepresentative.
I agree with some other noble Lords that there is a difference—a confusion—in the concept of a peerage. Some people think of it just as an honour and we end up with people like the noble Lord, Lord Botham, who never turn up and are in Australia all the time making money from foot massages and things like that. They are not here. As other noble Lords have said, we need to separate the idea of the honour—one above a knighthood—and the working Peer. We should be working Peers. I have said privately, and I have said it before to my noble friend, that this is something we might be able to do without legislation—by a decision of this House or an agreement of the monarchy. I hope we will look into that.
Finally, if noble Lords look back at this debate so far in Hansard, they will find that the best speeches—the ones that are to be paid more attention to—are those made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, which was a brilliant speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, although he did go over his time. That is something I am not going to do, because the one thing I have learned in my time here is to keep on the right side of your own Whips.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, ever since my early days, I have thought it anomalous to have hereditary legislators. But here I am, in the Chamber of the House of Lords, an excepted hereditary Peer. I suppose, ignobly, I have to say that in this life you have to play the cards you are dealt, and it was clear early on that I would not be a good professional footballer.
Obviously, as an individual, I am disappointed by the prospect of ejection, but that is the way of the wicked world in which we live, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is quite right that it is indifferent to my private grief.
For me, the real issue is not what happens to me but the process, and the consequences of those processes for the world more widely. In reading and thinking about these issues and their history, I was initially surprised that the Parliament Acts appeared to pay so little attention to the question of the transition from the old House to the new one. Then I realised that it is almost certainly because the Life Peerages Act 1958 had not been passed, so at that point the whole thing was not really an issue.
We now appear to be in a constitutional world where so long as the Executive control the House of Commons, which they invariably do, they have the capacity to abolish the second Chamber, and, if they wish, to fill it with creatures and lackeys, for which there will be clear precedent that they can be removed at will. We risk seeing a second Chamber that becomes entirely impotent and, indeed, Parliament as a whole will have no direct say in all this. So much for bicameralism, of which I am a strong supporter—and checks and balances equally so.
The fact that nothing like this has happened has to do as much as anything else with what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has called the “good chaps” theory of government. It has generally, though unfortunately, become accepted that this is becoming discredited. I was recently ticked off by a fellow Peer outside the Chamber for making this point. I can see the point she was making. She said, “Don’t be silly; it couldn’t happen here”. Couldn’t it?
When I was elected a Member of the European Parliament in 1989, just before I came here, I had many colleagues who had themselves, or their colleagues, family or friends had, been locked up and tortured by authoritarian regimes. The father of the then chair of the legal affairs committee, Ludwig von Stauffenberg, was one of the heroes of the July plot and had been shot by firing squad on Hitler’s orders. One of my British colleagues told me of a Member whom he got to know who never wore a tie because he had been condemned to death and taken to the gallows, and reprieved only after the noose had been placed round his neck.
For five years, I sat on the European Parliament’s constitutional affairs committee and I was struck by how many other countries had approaches to constitutional law and the courts that were quite different from ours. No doubt that is because they had been under authoritarian rule quite recently. In this country, there was no German officer on a white horse riding down Whitehall, as happened on the Champs-Élysées. That is not that far away, in either time or space.
In those days, bliss it was to be alive in the political world; now, there is volatility and even darkness in the wider political atmosphere. There are international conflicts of a kind we have not seen since the Second World War. Only a few months ago, in this very Chamber, we debated whether the Government of the day should remove the scrutiny of the courts from some of their activities. Since then, we have seen a number of extremist riots in our streets. I believe that “It couldn’t happen here” are some of the most dangerous words in politics. We should remember that we take out fire insurance not because our house will burn down but because it might.
At the conclusion of the consideration of the forthcoming Bill, I believe we will need to have a definitive restatement of how the Parliament Acts, the Life Peerages Act, the Bill itself and the sovereignty of Parliament all fit together in the interests of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and what if any safe- guards might be needed to underpin them. For all of us here, I believe this is a case of ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I really should say that it was the father of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who congratulated me when I made my maiden speech 40 years ago. In approaching this debate, I declare my bias in favour of history, tradition and something that works.
In the House of Lords, we have a unique institution that I believe creates a sense of continuity and stability because it has evolved over hundreds of years and, apart from the brief Oliver Cromwell period, has contributed conscientiously and seriously to the well-being of our people and the reputation of our Parliament. The role has evolved, and the work done by our unsalaried second Chamber, giving detailed scrutiny to legislation, holding the Government to account and not having the last word, is, I find, envied in many other countries. I am not happy, therefore, with the proposals contemplated by the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.
The obsession with numbers is something I do not understand. We all know that attendance on a daily basis rarely exceeds 500, and that the norm is between 300 and 400. If we did not, my noble friend Lord True reminded us of that earlier. That is in part because we are not paid a salary, so it does not cost anything if somebody does not turn up. The important thing to realise and to explain is that, apart from a small hard core of regular Members, it is not always the same people who constitute those 300 to 400 people a day. If there is a debate on education, health, energy or any other subject, it is the people who know about that topic who attend. That is what gives the House of Lords a reputation for expertise.
Of course, if you want to scrap the present system entirely and start again from scratch, you would not start from here. I sometimes wonder whether in the future, and with the increasing trend to devolved government, both the present House of Commons and the House of Lords should go and the Palace of Westminster could serve as the seat of a federal Parliament. Of course, we would need a separate English Parliament before that.
I am not happy with the Government’s proposals as outlined by the noble Baroness the Leader, in spite of the very reasonable way she put them across. First, I have yet to meet anybody in any political party or on the doorstep who lists the abolition of the rights of the few remaining hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships’ House as one of their top 10 policy priorities—with, of course, the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Secondly, if a manifesto commitment is so sacrosanct, how and why has it become possible for the Government to drop or at least delay, as has been widely rumoured, the inclusion of the over-80s in the expulsion? Of course, I must admit to a particular personal interest in that. Thirdly, if the argument is that it is undemocratic to have hereditary Peers as Members, how can it possibly be democratic to have a wholly appointed House, which is what we would be left with?
I am probably one of the few people still here who voted against the so-called reform Bill in 1999. We were also assured then that this was just the first step. Subsequently, I had the opportunity to vote in favour of a fully elected House of Lords, as did a number of hereditary Peers—but that, of course, was much too democratic.
Since I became a Member of your Lordships’ House in 1985, I was able to enjoy 14 years in a mixed House of hereditaries and life Peers. I can honestly say that the present House of Lords performs its role well, but no better than the previously mixed House and at a far greater cost—daily allowances zoomed up after 1999.
If it were not for the ancestors of hereditary Peers, we would not have the Magna Carta or a House of Lords. So, in my final few seconds and as a final plea, please will the Government think again?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, to seriously take note of Lords reform, we really need to be aware of our role and function. It is not to be the Executive’s little helpers but to hold them to account. As such, it is Commons reform that we need to look at. Having been there for 27 years, I am entitled to be a critical supporter. I was sent here not to undermine the elected House but to help with scrutiny and revision.
Our big mistake in 1997 was effectively to guillotine every Bill in the Commons. Okay, we called it timetabling, but it has exactly the same effect. Bills arrive here in the Lords not properly scrutinised by the elected House. I once suggested that all the Bills that arrive here should come with a Speaker’s certificate, pointing out what parts of the Bill had not been scrutinised, but I was told this was not practical when it was looked at. But it remains the case that we have to clean up the Commons’ failure to do its job properly, and it annoys those down there, who are ignorant about our function.
I always start sessions of the Peers in Schools programme—now Learn with the Lords—as I will do again in a couple of weeks, by saying that the Lords is, in effect, a large sub-committee of the Commons, with the role of asking it to think again. The elected House always has the last word, but we are the thinking Chamber, which thinks for itself rather than being told by the business managers what to think. We ask the Commons to think again and maybe again.
I think the Learn with the Lords programme needs to be extended from schools and colleges to Whitehall and the Commons. We need to confront the sheer ignorance—which I shared until I came here—in Whitehall and the Commons about our role and function. The obsession is always with composition and numbers. They are important but not the key event. I will never forget the day when, as a Minister, I went with my noble friend Lord Grocott, who was then the Government Chief Whip, to a senior Cabinet committee in charge of legislation. We were there merely to explain the rules and conventions here in the Lords. The chair of the committee wagged his finger at us and said, “You’ve gone native, you two”, based on his ignorance of what we were trying to explain. So far, that ex-Cabinet Minister has not arrived in your Lordships’ House. Ministers need the odd session, particularly if they have been only a Minister on the bridge, rather than, as I was, a Minister of State, always in the engine room. Those Cabinet Ministers who have never done any other jobs have not got a clue, and need to be better informed.
I am coming to the end now. We are not a threat, but we are here to stop the executive takeover of Parliament. Having served for nearly three years on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I know that the move continues bit by bit as the Executive take more power from Parliament for Ministers at the expense of scrutiny. There is no question but that—people on all sides have seen it—and it continues today. It has continued since the general election; that committee broke a precedent recently and summoned Ministers about an appalling Bill taking powers from Parliament. In my three years it never felt the need to summon Ministers, but it has since the last election.
Yes, we need to reduce our numbers, but kicking out the superactive noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and keeping the once-a-year Russian is not the sensible way to do it. I wait for a big defence of that from the Prime Minister. We should revisit the Commons and Lords Joint Committee on conventions of the UK Parliament. It was chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham, and its report was published in November 2006. After it was published, it was agreed by both Houses. If you are going to argue about changes in the conventions, both Houses have ownership. There should be a specific form of agreement. What better time to revisit it?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow such a feisty and articulate octogenarian as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. May he continue to entertain us for many years to come. I shall try to reduce this contribution to simple components: purpose, presence, pragmatism.
The purpose of this House is to scrutinise legislation from the other place, improve it—sadly, a frequent requirement—and, by our Chamber and committee activity, better inform public debate. By any assessment, we discharge that responsibility very well. The presence within this House of political parties, Cross-Benchers, Bishops and a number of non-affiliated Peers reflects an impressive array of experience, talent and expertise. That explains without need for further enlargement why we discharge our responsibilities so effectively. To be fair, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House acknowledged that. Pragmatism largely explains how we work. We make bad law good and good law better. The raucous exchanges familiar to elected Chambers are mercifully mostly absent from this one. By contrast, there is a discernible and collaborative desire to analyse and get to the heart of any issue, legislative or otherwise, and a House with the aggregate talent to be able to do that. I accept that to many onlookers the wonder is that this works at all, but it does, and those of us who attend regularly know that.
Pragmatism, I suggest, should be the overriding consideration in any attempt to reform this House. I see the House of Lords like an intricate tapestry. How many of us spotting a thread hanging down from a jacket or pair of trousers have tugged at it to find that the entire hem falls down or the seam falls apart, or have pulled an annoying thread sticking out of a button only to lose the button altogether? Let me make two general observations. If in the main this House functions satisfactorily, we should be cautious about embarking on change. That is not advocating for no change at all—very far from it—but rather urging clear analysis and identification of what the problems are before we try to solve them.
Secondly, if after such analysis change is considered necessary, it must be approached in a holistic manner with regard to how the House operates as a whole. If we do not do that, we neither understand the threads we are pulling out nor what the unintended consequences may be. What is unworkable is tinkering with the structure, removing a bit here and there, and hoping that the rest will somehow stumble along. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House calls that incremental, but I call it disjointed.
The Government are committed to addressing the issue of hereditary Peers in this House, and in their manifesto they also deployed ageism, opining that by the age of 80 you are past it and should get out. That is discrimination. We have just seen at first hand the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and there are sterling contributions made by Peers in their 80s whose experience is relevant, whose expertise informs and whose acuity is breathtaking. The proposal also drives a cart and horse through female representation in this House. I hope that the Government have begun to see the light, having recently appointed some imminent or actual octogenarians of their own, and they are very welcome. I would like to think that I am still good for a few years to go.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Thank you, my Lords. What the Government’s ageism experiment has demonstrated is that a disjointed approach to reform does not work. On the principle of hereditary Peers, we hit the same buffers. It is difficult to argue for the retention of such a system in a 21st-century democracy, but what is not workable is taking a machete to the hereditaries, culling 88 Peers from the membership of this House and expecting it still to be able to do its job. That is a constitutional onslaught. If at a stroke we lose these 88 Peers, who reflect a welcome age span, a geographical spread and diversity of experience and expertise, how do the Government expect proper scrutiny of legislation, adequate manning of committees, not to mention support for the Lord Speaker and his department and servicing the Woolsack? At present, our proceedings are not just enhanced by the hereditaries; the hereditaries are critical to getting the business done. That void cannot be filled by prime ministerial appointments. That takes the constitutional unacceptable to the constitutional repugnant.
This all goes much deeper than disquiet about the hereditary principle. It strikes at the heart of our British constitutional governance, our distinct and different role from the elected House and the largely unwritten but workable parliamentary equilibrium which has evolved over decades. I urge the Government to reflect very carefully before they start pulling out individual threads of the intricate tapestry. Intelligent change requires reflection, consultation, understanding of the implications of change and the wisdom of seeking consensus.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, it is great fun following the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. I stand before your Lordships as a very rare species: I am a hereditary Labour Peer. There are only four of us altogether, and I am a bit more rare because I am the only Labour hereditary Peer speaking in this debate. More than that, I have more experience than other noble Lords, except for the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who has enormous experience in House of Lords reform. Indeed, shortly before I joined this House, in the first Wilson Government, there was a serious attempt to reform the House of Lords. It was defeated by an unholy alliance between Michael Foot on one side and Enoch Powell on the other. I then experienced the 1999 Lords Bill—but I had better be careful because at the height of the debates I came into the House with an enormous black eye. The rumour was that I had been duffed by an angry hereditary Peer for disloyalty towards other hereditary Peers.
It has always been my position that, as we are the mother of Parliaments worldwide, we should not have in our membership those who have got here by accident of birth, including myself. Clearly all of us hereditary Peers must go, whatever fine contribution we are making.
My noble friend the Privy Seal has invited us to provide comment about reform. My answer to that is twofold. First, there should be in place a House commission with full, unrestricted powers for the choice of new Members. Secondly, we should be an appointed House, not an elected one. The basic problem with an elected House—I know I am disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Newby—is that there will be two elected Houses in Parliament, and that is a constitutional problem. In the legislation there may be great attempts to fetter the electoral powers of this House but we will still be an elected Chamber, and there will still be a serious risk of a constitutional clash between the two Houses of Parliament. That will bring about the inevitable problems that, as our constitution is structured, we will be ill-equipped to handle. The United States of America has two Houses, each of electoral power, but there is a President in the United States of America who can try to find a solution between them. We have a constitutional monarch, and we do not want to bring a constitutional monarch into a constitutional crisis.
That brings me to the end of my speech. Having rather a reputation of going over time, I hope my Whips will note that I have gone under time.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, at its best, the House of Lords is an unrivalled repository of experience and expertise that can challenge the first Chamber to think again, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, and our very limited power if we cannot persuade is to delay legislation for a short and limited period—a power hardly ever used. That is no argument for retaining the status quo, for this House is certainly in need of reform.
First, mainly thanks to successive Prime Ministers, the size of the House has been steadily increasing and is far too large. On 22 October, we had 829 Members. We should reduce to 600 Members, and, importantly, that 600 should be a hard cap not to be exceeded. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on both counts.
Secondly, whereas the majority in this Chamber have had distinguished careers and bring extraordinary expertise and experience to our discussions of policy and legislation, some do not. There are a number of examples of unwarranted appointments, but I shall mention just one category: no donor to any political party should be able to buy their way into this House. As others have said, a second element of reform needs to be a broad-based statutory body, a new HOLAC that validates the quality of anyone put forward for membership of this House by whatever route.
Thirdly, we need a formula to establish the appropriate size of the political parties and Cross-Benchers in a reduced House. For the parties, it could be the share of the popular vote in the last two elections—not one—with Cross-Benchers, bringing a non-politically partisan perspective, taking up something like 25% of the 600 seats. Under that formulation, both main parties today would be virtually equal in size, with the rest of the House holding the balance.
Fourthly, to allow that to happen, we obviously need measures to bring down the size of the House from today’s 800-plus to 600. There is wide agreement that many hereditaries and Bishops make invaluable individual contributions, but their participation in this House by right is an historic anomaly not mirrored anywhere else in the democratic world, and it should end. That said, many individual hereditaries and Bishops have a strong claim, which I completely support, to be reappointed as Cross-Benchers, and I hope they will be. However, removing the hereditaries and Bishops would reduce the numbers by only 114. Removing the minority of Peers, around 150, whose participation is limited and who attended fewer than 20% of the sittings in the whole of the last Parliament would reduce the total number close to target.
Labour’s manifesto also trails the idea of Peers stepping down who are 80 or over at the end of a Parliament. Assuming an election in autumn 2028, that principle would produce 303 exits. I am conflicted, but losing at one go 300 of many of the most active and effective Peers in this House would be brutal, to say the least. No organisation of any kind could afford easily to recover its competence after such a scale of loss, and, to put it very politely, the idea that some of the most active should give way to the least active appears perverse.
Fifthly, every part of this House needs to be more diverse, more systematically representative of every kind of interest, whether by gender, ethnicity, experience, nation or region. I do not think enough people have said that. One role of a redesigned HOLAC should be to foster diversity, as well as to validate the appropriateness of individual appointments on all sides.
I conclude by saying to the Leader of the House: please do not kick the can down the road. Partial reform does not work in any setting. If we do not deal resoundingly with all these issues, an institution that has evolved over centuries into something of unique constitutional value will come under existential threat.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I surprise myself by taking as my starting point agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Foulkes, that in a democratic society there is always a case for a democratically elected legislature—and that is to understate the matter, I would have thought. Legitimacy in a democratic society is derived primarily from election but, for a conservative, legitimacy can also be derived from history and from tradition. It might sound a little quixotic to say that, but large numbers of people in this country completely understand it; that is why they have as much respect as they do for the monarchy.
It is the presence of hereditary Peers in this House that maintains that strand of legitimacy. Being appointed gives you no legitimacy at all. For the majority of people, it just looks like cronyism and, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who has just spoken, and to others, that is not addressed by having a statutory HOLAC. If that is not elected—if it is not in itself a form of electoral college—where does the electoral legitimacy reside that justifies its appointment of the people whom it would appoint to the legislature? One ends up in an infinite regress. There is no legitimacy.
Those who say you cannot have two democratic Chambers seem to have missed what has happened in at least 100 countries that I can think of. Even the United States manages to pass a huge amount of legislation, and that is a country where people deliberately designed the legislature to have a degree of conservatism, shall we say—a degree of holding back. That needs to be our starting point. Why should we not be a democratic House? Where does our legitimacy derive from?
There is a large measure of agreement among us on the need for reform. The passing of the hereditaries has always been part of that—there has been a consensus about that for the last 25 years—but that is not what this argument is about. This argument is not about the passage of the hereditaries as such; it is about the context in which that happens. That context is meant to be, and has been pledged to be, a reform of this House. I am not going back to what Tony Blair may have said to somebody in a corridor or behind the Woolsack or whatever in the past. I am going to this Labour Party’s manifesto.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said there were six proposals in it; I have identified seven. They come under the heading: “Immediate reform of the House of Lords”. Those are the words in the manifesto, a copy of which I have been careful to bring with me in case there is any dispute about it. They are removing the hereditaries. There is mandatory retirement at 80. There is a revision of the code of standards. There is the removal of disgraced Members. There is a requirement for participation. There is a reform of the appointments process and a commitment to addressing national and regional balance. All of those come under the heading of “These things will be done immediately”. They are not being done immediately. That is the problem. The democratisation of the House, which is also mentioned in the manifesto, is something that they say will be consulted on. It is not to be done immediately but the seven things I have read out are—and they are not.
This Government, in my view, have no mandate to introduce one of them outside that context—to revert to the argument that getting rid of the hereditaries is what it is all about when in fact it is not. For the last 25 years, it has always been about the reform of the House of Lords and removing the hereditaries only in a context that provides a new form of legitimacy. We all know in practice that nothing is going to be done about those things. We know that they are being kicked into the long grass and we are very unlikely to see them again, except possibly for a few administrative matters which can be dealt with fairly easily.
We have had arguments over the last century about reform of the House of Lords and I join others in saying this or something along these lines. In 1910 and 1948 constitutional conferences were held between both Houses of Parliament on precisely this type of question. We should do that again. Neither conference succeeded but they had the great merit that they informed the legislation the Government then brought forward so that it was much more acceptable and turned out to work. We need to see this in its proper context. We need to find a compromise. A conference of that character would be the best way forward while the Bill is withdrawn.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, seven years ago, on 19 December 2017, I said in your Lordships’ House—and I apologise for quoting myself but there is a reason—that
“we all know that things cannot continue as they are. We number over 800 and rising … we have become not so much an embarrassment but, many say, a scandal. At a time of austerity, when everything else is cut, our numbers rise inexorably”.
I concluded:
“Things have reached a point where change is unavoidable. The question is therefore not whether there is change, but who makes it. Either this House takes responsibility or it will pass to the Commons and the Government. Either we reform ourselves or others will reform us”.—[Official Report, 19/12/17; cols. 1979-80.]
I mention this because we did not take responsibility. We did not do anything. Rather, the last Tory Governments did not allow us to do anything, despite—as the former Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said very aptly earlier in the debate—universal cross-party support for the plans in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to reduce our numbers. Now we have this Bill, about which Tory Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, have pumped themselves up into an absolute fury. Yet we could have done something sensible. My noble friend Lord Grocott introduced Bills to abolish hereditary by-elections in every parliamentary Session from 2016-17, apart from the current Session and the short 2019 Session. That makes a total of five occasions. Had his Bill not been repeatedly blocked by the Conservative Government of the day, there would now be 26 fewer excepted hereditary Peers.
This Labour Government were elected with a clear manifesto commitment to introduce legislation to remove the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit in the Lords. The current tightly drafted Bill, now going through its remaining stages in the Commons, will end what were always transitional arrangements. The United Kingdom is one of only two countries that still have a hereditary element in their legislatures. The Bill is not about individuals or personalities but a 21st century Parliament which should not be reserving places for lawmakers just because of the families they were born into.
Many hereditary Peers—on all Benches—have made important contributions to public life, within and beyond the House. This reform is not targeted at them but rather at ending the transitional arrangements put in place after the 1999 Act and resolving a 25-year anomaly. As others have already said in this debate—rightly—should a hereditary Peer be thought fit and valued to be appointed a life Peer, as many clearly are, there is no reason to stop that happening through the existing mechanisms.
Labour’s manifesto was clear on the intention to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships’ House and there should be no unnecessary delay once the legislation goes through. I trust that the Official Opposition will continue to abide by our usual conventions. I look at the Leader of the Opposition as I say that. I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to send a letter to all Peers—or to arrange for one to be sent—reminding colleagues around the House why abiding by the historic Salisbury/Addison convention which respects government election manifesto commitments is so important. Will she look at that, please?
I am concerned that some noble Lords opposite are gearing up for a filibuster once the hereditary Peers Bill begins its passage through your Lordships’ House. Some were part of the Official Opposition in this House the last time a Labour Government ended up having to use the Parliament Act. I trust history is not going to repeat itself any time soon, certainly not during the current parliamentary Session. Given the Conservative Party’s dire defeat at the recent general election, it is weird that a number of noble Lords opposite have decided that this is the political hill they are ready to die on. This House is drinking in the last chance saloon. It is the biggest legislative Chamber in the world apart from the Chinese National People’s Congress. Is that really a benchmark to stand proudly by and fight to the end?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I have no wish to say anything about the reform of the House of Lords, but I think it is worth reflecting that when considering the future of institutions one should first engage in a process which carries out a review of the efficacy of the institution. We have already had many reviews, including, in particular, the review of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Following a review there must normally be a full consultation process to see how acceptable any proposals might be and then if a legislative change is needed there is often a wider review, with Green and White Papers. Only then would legislation be pursued and preferably with full consensus. That is not currently quite the case.
In considering changes to our structures and processes we need to fully appreciate why we are doing this, and our major concern must be to maintain and enhance our reputation to the wider world while not negatively affecting our important role as a scrutinising second Chamber, which I believe is in general being well performed. Those who call for wide reform or an elected Chamber—as my noble friend Lord Moylan has referred to—should always remember that our constitution is headed by a monarch without executive powers, unlike most other bicameral parliaments, where the Head of State usually does have an executive role, however limited.
Nevertheless, I want to briefly make a few suggestions. First, any policy to reduce numbers must apply equally to removals and appointments. I believe that only by dealing with both together can we be seen as producing something credible and fair. On appointments, restraint by Prime Ministers is absolutely necessary. History has shown that that has been a problem. Secondly, HOLAC must be reformed to have a stronger say in appointments. I do not favour a statutory basis as this has knock-on effects but at least there should be a convention—whether it is written or not is another matter—and its advice should be followed and all names put forward must be accompanied by a full set of reasoning as to why a person should be appointed to this House.
The writ under which new Members would serve could include clear obligations to attend the House and carry out legislative duties. Consideration might well be given, relating to new Members, of a time limit on their appointment or even a minimum, as well as a maximum, age for service. The United States Senate, for instance, has a minimum age of 30. But if so, it must be clear in the new terms of service when they are offered an appointment, so that their contract can be legitimately enforced. I offer my support to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: a requirement that Peers attend, say, 10% or 15% of sittings in any Session to maintain their positions should also be considered.
As for the numbers, from my point of view it seems clear that, beginning with the Tony Blair changes, it is sadly inevitable that hereditaries will lose their rights. However, we know there are a notable number of Peers in this category whose service to the House has been, and still is, enormously important and whose contributions should not be lost. I hope that a compromise can be reached to allow life peerages to be created to cover that issue.
Looking at the Life Peerages Act 1958, I consider my appointment to the House to be for life and, like others, I committed myself to serve for as long as I have the mental and physical capacity to do so. A change to those obligations for current Peers would be difficult to accept, both legally and morally. I hope that those who are already in place might be allowed to choose to retire gracefully at their own chosen time, but obviously in appropriate cases with gentle advice.
We should look at the attendance of current Members and require proof of attendance for them, perhaps in the same percentage as we might require of new Members. The leave of absence provisions are being abused. I hope that we make a change. In future, leave of absence should be restricted to specific reasons and not be constantly repeatable or extendable. The time approved should be capped. Clearly, Peers who have illnesses or who wish to complete studies or professional development should be allowed to do so.
Each year, a number of Peers choose to retire for a number of reasons, not just age, and those who do are thanked. Perhaps we should look at a package enhancing our gratitude. I realise that we have no spare cash to offer an honorarium, but we might look at other benefits or an ongoing relationship—I think the Leader of the House referred to this earlier—to make departure more congenial. This House is a hard-working and effective institution, so whatever is proposed must not be permitted to harm that.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for having brought forward this debate, which has been thoughtful and an immensely valuable contribution to deliberations on the future of your Lordships’ House. However, for me, it has brought on a slight Groundhog Day feeling, since I have been taking part in such debates since my first incarnation in this House, in the other place, and again in this House for nearly 30 years now.
The first debate was in 1996, when I was struck for ever by the contribution of my late great friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, who rose and, in his stentorian voice, said, “I believe wholeheartedly in the hereditary principle”, and then after a pause said, “For breeding cattle”. He went on to describe the policy of these Benches, which was not about hereditaries. I have remained absolutely convinced since those days that a reformed House, based mostly, if not entirely, upon election, is the proper way to go forward.
I accept that that is not going to happen in a hurry. When we failed to get the 2012 Bill, which got its Second Reading, through to its other stages we missed a real trick for proper reform. In the short term, two things are absolutely imperative, both of which are in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
The first is size. We have to agree a size and agree it even before we have worked out how to get there. We have to say a number—I am not going to put a number on it, but numbers have been floated—and then we can agree how to get there. Until we have decided on the size, nothing else can really work. The second is limits. I am not in favour of an age limit. There is no age limit down the other end and I know lots of people can come into this House at a later stage in life and make a valuable contribution. I am against people being here for ever; it is ridiculous that we would look at a young person aged 30 being able to sit for 50 years while a highly confident 75 year-old had to go after five. I am in favour of term limits rather than age limits.
Why reform? The House works extremely well: its committees work excellently, the quality of debate is very good, and the way in which legislation is improved is excellent. Unfortunately, for all that great work—and I have nothing but admiration and respect for every Member of this House—there is one fundamental defect. It is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to: it does not have legitimacy. At the end of the day, when you are at the other end and voting out whatever has been done at this end, you will not have heard the debate. You just troop through the Lobby and the Minister’s phrase will be, “We’re the elected House”.
We are not legitimate in the eyes of the press, except on those very rare occasions when we come up with something that they happen to agree with, and we are not legitimate in the eyes of the public. I disagree here with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for whom I have great affection and respect, notwithstanding his regular name-checking of my election to this place the second time around. I have regularly discussed the House of Lords and our constitution with people on the doorsteps in Caithness. I do not pretend that Caithnesians are cleverer than those anywhere else; it is just that people actually care. Without that legitimacy, which I believe will ultimately come only from election, we are always going to have a problem.
I am not that keen on a commission doing everything, because the commission will be composed of the metropolitan Oxbridge elite. Where will the crofters, the carers, the binmen and the fishermen come from? That is what representative democracy actually delivers.
I remain convinced that, ultimately, we should have an elected House. Being elected for one term, with one-third elected every three elections, so that people would be here for 15 years, is the best way to do it, but I recognise that it will not happen in a hurry. Most of all, I am a parliamentarian and I want this House to be strengthened—to strengthen Parliament against the Executive. In a liberal democracy, at the point where we are under threat as never before from the algorithms that are driving us into silos of agreement and taking away from the great market of ideas, we need this House more than ever to function well.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in this important and timely debate. I am not sure whether I am at an advantage or a disadvantage, but I do not have the sense of déjà vu that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, just commented on, alongside a number of other noble Lords. This is my first debate on Lords reform.
Many of today’s interventions, and many comments in the public sphere, focus on the size of the House. I accept that size is an important question and that, in particular, our size relative to the other place may contribute to negative perceptions. However, we should not allow perceptions to take over reality, and we should not lose sight of what that reality is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, put it, we are a full-time House made up of part-time Members. Moreover, the fact that we have careers outside the House is crucial to our ability to discharge our core constitutional function, which is to provide supervision and scrutiny through expertise and experience. So yes, there seems to be a public perception about there being too many of us, but let us not frame the debate about Lords reform in a way that amplifies that perception. Let us not accept it, at least without some context, and certainly let us avoid the pejorative comparisons that are often made.
There is a separate question that is even more important than size. How far can a Government go in changing the composition of the House without undermining its legitimacy? In theory, there are no set limits to the number of new Peers that a Prime Minister can appoint; by the same theory, a new Government could come in and fundamentally alter the composition of the House. Lloyd George famously threatened to do so. If that threat ever came to pass, this House would lose its legitimacy almost immediately.
The British constitution has various examples of things that can happen in theory but just do not happen in practice, of powers that are subject to few or almost no limits in theory, but that are in practice limited by constitutional conventions, political self-restraint and past practice—even where that past practice does not have the legal force of a binding precedent.
Using the very helpful data dashboard produced by the Library, I had a look at the most recent practice. In the 1990s, the average number of peerages created per year was 34. In the 2000s, it was 24. It was 31 in the 2010s and in the current decade it is so far 38. I am one of the beneficiaries of the largesse of this decade. Prime Minister Blair appointed about 36 Peers per year. Prime Minister Cameron appointed about 39 per year, and Prime Minister Johnson appointed about 35 per year. If one factors in the size of the House, which of course varied under these premierships, the average impact ratio—if we can call it that—of each of these PMs on the composition of the House ranged from 3% to 5% a year. Of course there were years, typically at the beginning of a Parliament, where most of the appointments would have been made.
The decision that had the biggest impact on the composition of the House was the removal of the hereditary Peers in the first term of the Blair Government, but that removal, as we have heard, was not done unilaterally by the Government of the day. There was a compromise to ensure wider political support. This suggests that it would be very unwise for the Government to dig in their heels on the hereditary Peers Bill without seeking to secure all-party support and without striking some compromise.
It is not difficult to see what that compromise might look like. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, alluded to the possibility of at least some hereditary peerages being transformed into life peerages. There was also considerable support—perhaps even overwhelming support—for the proposals contained in the Burns report and the proposals made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Why not build on that consensus?
What must be avoided is a situation in which the expulsion of 92 Peers is done in a fractious way and is followed by the appointment of very large numbers of new Peers, perhaps also in order to fill the vacuum created by the introduction of a retirement age. If this is the direction of travel, I am afraid that any improvement in public perception deriving from a reduction in size would be far outweighed by the perception that our composition has been so fundamentally altered by one Government that we can no longer be credible as a Chamber of wise and independent counsel and scrutiny.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I want to make it clear what my attitude to this Bill is. In a race between the Grim Reaper and this Government to see the back of me, I hope that the Government win. In 1999, we stayed on to secure the further reform of the House of Lords; I believe that we should make a further attempt to do that.
The current arrangements, with the Prime Minister’s unfettered power of appointment, will not do. What the Leader of the House described as incremental change is no change at all: a few Members gone but the basic structure of the House staying the same. The dangers of that were very well illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
It is really not difficult to do stage two. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, set out one way of doing it and other Peers have set out others. They all focus on an element of quality control, but I do not think we need to create institutions to do that. As long as whoever brings in incoming Peers has to say why and how they will enhance the House, bringing in people who will not do that will reflect on the reputation of that party. One way or another, we will see fewer bad appointments.
If Peers who are still in the House have to commit, on our honour, to playing a proper part in this House and say that we have the capacity and intention to do that, then it will be quite easy to remove Peers who fail that test. We will have an ability under that sort of system to control our own quality. We can tie it back in to what my noble friend Lord Norton will doubtless refer to as being “assessed against purpose”. I am a follower of my noble friend and, after this evening, of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, also. He was a superb Minister in his day. It was always a huge pleasure to find oneself opposite him because he listened. If he agreed with you, he would take it back to the department and you knew that he would be effective in his arguments there, even if he did not always win.
Another change we should make, as has been said a lot this evening, is to numbers. We need to agree how many Peers are in this House and what proportions should be linked to the Government, Opposition and Cross Benches. It is not a difficult change to make. If that causes problems around an election, when the basis for assessing the numbers changes, as has been suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Foulkes, we can de-link peerages and the right to sit in this House. It has been done for hereditary Peers and it can be done for life Peers also. That, in a way, might be a useful change so that the people who have really earned a peerage but do not want to serve in this House can be given that honour, and membership of this House can be confined to people who really want to make a contribution.
I add that I very much support what my noble friend Lord Astor said about self-evaluation and improvement. We need to become a more reflective House. I would like to see us publishing proper independent research on our effectiveness and looking at ways in which we can do better. I would very much like to see us covering secondary legislation better. As other Peers have said, we are seeing much more of it. We need to get more control of it.
Lastly, when it comes to retirement age, one of my early memories of being on the Government Bench as a Whip and taking a Bill through is being thoroughly defeated by three speeches, mostly from the Cross Benches, from Peers whose total age when added together was 286. I do not think age should be the criterion. We live in an ageing society. We have to make the best use of all the good years that we have, and we should not set the contrary example in this House.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, when we embark on this momentous task of reforming the House of Lords, we ought to be very clear about what we are interested in. For me as a philosopher, the question is to be clear about the questions we want to ask and answer. I will propose the questions that we ought to be asking and prioritising. As far as reform of the House of Lords is concerned, I would list the following four questions as those we are all concerned to answer.
First, there are questions about the composition of the House of Lords. Who belongs to it: how many, how often and who appoints? There are questions relating to its structure. Secondly, there are questions relating to its function. What should it be doing? Is scrutinising legislation, organising short questions and debates all that it does? What else? Is it not possible to organise these debates periodically and reproduce them as pamphlets to be distributed to schools and colleges in our country where they can contribute to public education?
The third question is: what about the language we use? Are we happy to retain the titles “Lords” and “Ladies”, or are we uneasy about them? I certainly am and have said so on many occasions.
Likewise, on the internal procedures of the House, I have faced many occasions when there were far too many speakers—let us say 50—for the time allocated, so each one was given one minute. This one-minute wisdom escaped even Moses and the prophets of great religions. What do I say in one minute? It has occurred to me to ask: why should it not be possible to say, “The minimum time is three to four minutes for everyone, and those who fall outside that range can submit their speeches”. After all, what is the point of Hansard? It is not simply for those who are sitting here and listening; the point is for it to be read. Why cannot those who cannot deliver their speeches submit them to be published in the following day’s Hansard?
My final question is about language—not just “Lords” and “Ladies” but the language in which we talk about the House, inside and outside. For example, observe words such as “second Chamber” in today’s debate. What does that mean and what does it convey? It is a historical legacy. It is basically an abbreviation of “secondary Chamber”; it does not have the power or the functions. I suggest that the first important thing is to list those questions, to recognise those that are crucial and to find answers for them consensually.
In the few minutes I have, I will contribute my thoughts on two or three questions. I have floated one of them, although I have not had any takers so far. I have often thought that we are one of the most internationally minded countries in the world. Why should it not be possible for us to set an example by inviting an eminent outsider—it could be Clinton, Nelson Mandela or the Commonwealth secretary-general—as a kind of visiting professor in a university. He could spend three weeks with us and, during that time, interact with us and provide his perspective on the global issues in which we are interested. I should have thought that that kind of thing would set an example to other countries and might become a wonderful project.
Likewise—before the Chief Whip loses patience with me—it is also important to think of an alternative vocabulary, as I said. The third and the most important thing for me is to make sure that we are clear about the constitutional function of the House of Lords. What is its place in our political system? That place has yet to be determined.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I begin with two propositions that, in my view, should form the basis for determining reform of this House. The first is that form should follow function—we need to determine what purpose an institution serves. What is the principal purpose of this House, as a second Chamber of Parliament? The second proposition is that good law is a public good. If one accepts that, that helps determine the principal role of this House. It is a House of legislative scrutiny. That is not its only role, but it is the one that establishes it as a necessary part of our constitutional system.
The House of Commons is the elected Chamber, and the fact that it is elected ensures that it enjoys primacy. The fact of election also creates political imperatives for its Members. They need to be elected and re-elected, and they focus on activities that enhance their chance of re-election. They devote time to constituents’ demands, which have become more onerous decade by decade. They focus on outward-looking activities that bolster their political profiles. The quest for electoral success drives them to put the interests of party ahead of the institution of which they are Members. Focusing on detailed scrutiny of legislation does not come high on their list of political imperatives.
That shapes the relationship between the two Houses. The House of Commons determines the ends of legislation, and we accept that. We focus on the means. If one accepts that good law is a public good, that is a necessary role, and this House is ideally placed to fulfil it. The fact of being an appointed Chamber is a benefit—we lack the political imperatives facing MPs. We have the benefit of the experience and expertise of the membership, and the benefit of procedure: we do not utilise programme Motions, there is no selection of amendments by the chair and we do not normally employ closure Motions. We devote as much time as is needed to considering all the amendments tabled to Bills. This House makes a significant difference to the detail of Bills, and its changes are generally acknowledged by government as having improved the legislation. The law of the land would be significantly diminished without the work of this House.
Those two propositions should therefore form the basis of reform. We should avoid big bang reforms that destroy the complementary role of this House as a Chamber of legislative scrutiny. There is a democratic argument for an appointed second Chamber—those familiar with the literature will be aware of that. We should equally avoid discrete reforms that are detached from the purpose of the House. An arbitrary age limit, for example, may remove some of the experience and expertise that contributes to the work of the House, but removing Members who may have made little or no contribution would not have such an effect.
To bolster the capacity of the House to fulfil its key function necessitates focusing on how Members reach this House. We need to ensure that those qualified to contribute to the work of the House are nominated. We need to enhance our structures and procedures to reinforce what we do. That means looking not just at how we deal with Bills once introduced—should we consider, for example, taking evidence on Bills?—but also at the legislative process holistically. Expanding pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny would likely contribute to better Bills and would play to the strengths of the House. We are ideally placed to enhance post-legislative scrutiny. Such changes would enable us to engage more with those outside the House who wish to contribute their knowledge on a particular measure.
There is scope for reform, but we need to ensure that it derives from our understanding of what this House exists to do. In my view, we already do a good job of legislative scrutiny. We can take steps to ensure that we do it even better—that should be our focus, and that should drive reform.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate in advance of considering the Government’s legislative plans. I hope the Government are willing to reflect on the views of the House and prepared to amend their thinking if there is a consensus of views as a consequence of this debate.
I agree that we need to reform the House of Lords—that is long overdue. However, I have a number of serious concerns about the Government’s current plans. First, I am unhappy with the planned piecemeal and incremental approach of removing hereditary Peers first and then moving on to other measures such as an age limit, et cetera. In my view, this is a half-baked way to reform this House. I accept that this was in the manifesto and the King’s Speech, but we should have a Bill that incorporates full-blown reforms so that we can have an opportunity, such as today’s, to consider the implications of a range of measures and the comprehensive impact they would have.
Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I have a real concern about legislation to reform this House being generated in an immature House of Commons that has very limited knowledge about the role of this House and how it functions. We in the Lords should be bold and brave in proposing reforms for the Government to consider, as the Leader stated. We have tried in the past, but either we were not courageous enough or we failed to be taken seriously by the Government.
Let me comment on some of the specifics of the Government’s plans. To remove hard-working hereditary Peers, as a first step, looks rather vindictive to me. Even if their presence is something of an anomaly in today’s world, and a remnant of the 1999 reforms, it smacks of an attack on privilege. It would be much better for this to be considered as an element in a whole package of measures.
Let me be absolutely clear: I have no axe to grind on these issues. I have now reached the age of maturity, according to the Government, and am happy to step down if necessary—and may do so before being sacked. I am not interested in self-preservation. However, I am still a relative new boy compared with some, having been appointed in 2011 by HOLAC, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. It is an immense privilege to be here, but none of us is immortal and I would support a 15-year term.
As has been stated, there are dozens of Peers who never turn up and do not contribute to the working of the House, so why do we not sack them as a first step, rather than these hard-working noble friends of mine—sandwiched as I am on these Benches between hereditary Peers—who put in a real stint?
I propose that we should reform this House by considering the following measures. As suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in his excellent speech, we should change the embarrassing appointments process by which Prime Ministers can, at a whim, appoint another dollop of Members into the House without any real challenge or consideration of the impact. We should give the House of Lords Appointments Commission responsibility for appointments, if appropriate with statutory powers, to ensure political balance, professional balance, diversity balance and geographic balance. We should introduce either a limited term in office or a retirement age, or both. We should also introduce a clear participation requirement and a minimal obligation on attendance and, yes, bring the current hereditary replacement process to an end, but allow existing hereditary Peers to serve their term and be ultimately impacted by an age limit or length of term.
Finally, I am concerned about the longer term, and phrases in the Government’s briefing documents such as “electoral legitimacy” and
“replacing the … House of Lords with a … democratically elected second chamber”.
Unlike our Lib Dem colleagues, I do not believe that the role of this House as a revising Chamber will be enhanced or improved by having an elected House, or even a partially elected House. It would create tension and conflict with the Commons and be a retrograde step. What is needed is an effective appointments process through HOLAC.
In conclusion, let us work on a plan that proposes comprehensive reform of this House, rather than the piecemeal approach that is currently being proposed.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I recall a few years ago being asked by a senior member of the Royal Family for my view on the continued presence in our House of hereditary Peers. I replied, “Your Royal Highness, it’s simple—they are a one-way street. They are only here to serve, with honour and extraordinary commitment. They are beholden to no one. They stand up for what they believe and, no matter where they sit in your Lordships’ House, they follow their conscience. Their diverse interests, experience and expertise, together with their geographical spread among the nations and regions, remain incomparable, and they respect our conventions and gently remind us of our collective privileges”.
While the wretched Bill makes its passage, hereditary Peers continue to serve here and work harder than a large number of life Peers who show scant commitment to their membership and use this place and their title to further their outside interests. How many of the newer appointees pay their respects to the remarkable books of remembrance in the Royal Gallery—page after page of loyal servants to our whole United Kingdom, and their sons, slaughtered in defence of this realm in just two world wars?
We appointees are largely here by some luck and hopefully some attributes and skills, being in the right place at the right time and chosen for a particular reason. Recent appointments may have little to do with merit but suit the cultural mores of the moment—or they may have written large cheques.
I could accept this spiteful measure more if there was a morsel of logic that demands that the Bishops, originally here because of their vast estates, at the very least reduce their numbers. While their presence is firmly embedded in our constitution, they are now highly politicised and lecture us all while being entirely unaccountable, keeping their employees in penury while choosing to spend £100 million on reparations from the coffers of their dedicated and now tiny flock. The Bishops have argued that their work in the House is an extension of their service to the nation in parishes, schools and charitable work. Well, that exactly describes what hereditary Peers do as a matter of course: their duty, although they do not see it as such because it comes naturally to them. Just read the recent obituary of the late Marquess of Lothian.
We are told that a second stage of reform will follow. I promise noble Lords that it will not. We were told that last time in 1999, when the big argument for reform was all around “modernising Parliament”. Blair’s Government did not even have the guts during the following 11 years to end the nonsense of handing the title “Lady” to their wives, for fear of upsetting their missus.
As for those in another place, the Commons no longer functions. Members there arrive on a Monday afternoon and are largely gone by Wednesday evening, having failed to turn up to meetings—or, if they do, they rarely stay the course. We are lucky if they scrutinise even 25% of the legislation before them. Though accepting that ignorance can be a powerful tool, perhaps the nation is lucky to avoid scrutiny by some who clearly do not even understand our constitution.
Meanwhile, we are to be presented with a Bill for increased workers’ rights. How do the Government square that with their intention to just throw out hard- working and loyal individuals who have given great service, as much as 55 years in one case, without compensation or a care? How unkind are this Government? Truly unkind.
There is an expectation on the Government Benches that we should have calm debate and just let go. I have a good memory: in 1999, the then Leader of the House showed not a shred of grace, humility or understanding in her quest to kick out noble Lords. Fortunately, the late and learned Lord Williams of Mostyn was much more dignified as he sought to justify that Bill. From our Benches, the late Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish also fought with dignity and reason for noble Lords. Both those noble Lords, while fit and on brilliant form in 1999, died within a couple of years of those debates, both aged 62. My Lords, you have been warned.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if I was watching this debate many miles away from your Lordships’ House, coming home after a long, hard day, I might be astonished to see a House of patronage telling itself that it was doing a relatively good job at improving my life, and that it was going to get better by tinkering with that House of patronage at the edges. I also might look around at the Members taking part in the debate and ask myself these questions: do these people represent me, do they understand me and my community, and do they look like me?
The answer to those questions would, I think, be predominantly no. The reason is that 51% of people in the UK are female. On the Conservative Benches, 25% are female. On the Labour Benches, it is 39%. On the Cross Benches, it is 26%. The Liberal Democrats are on 41% and the Bishops are on 28%. They may also look at the age of this House—age is important to understand where the world is and where it is going. The average age in the UK is 40; the average age in your Lordships’ House is 70. One-third of the Members are between 70 and 79; one-quarter are between 60 and 69; and one-fifth are between 80 and 89. When I came to this House 10 years ago, some of the staff used to refer to me, at the age of 48, as “one of the baby Lords”. Only in the House of Lords can you be 50 and still be called a baby.
The ethnic mix of the House is also disproportionate to the UK. Fourteen per cent of the UK’s population are ethnic minority, but only 6% of this House. Outside this House, regardless of what we say here, for the last decade the vast majority of people say that they wish to see a fully democratically elected House of Lords, because that is the way they think this House will represent them, understand them and look more like them. It is a matter of principle that I support that radical change.
I disagree with the argument that if we have a democratically elected House, there will be words such as “constitutional vandalism” and “crisis”. That argument needs unpicking, not least because electing a second Chamber does not itself lead to conflict. Rather, a whole range of factors, including the distribution of powers, the methods for resolving disputes and the conventions that affect the relationships between both Houses and the progress of legislation need to be addressed. It is not a foregone conclusion that an elected second Chamber leads to constitutional crisis or automatic conflict.
If the Government are going to continue the drip-drip reform of this House, there is one issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, commented on: the role of the Bishops. I notice my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, sitting there. I promise I will be a little more gentle on him than the noble Baroness was, but I believe that the role of the Bishops has to be part of the reform agenda, in terms of the historical role of the Bishops, which no longer reflects modern Britain. Take a look at the numbers who call themselves Anglican, the number of people who attend church or who would even call themselves religious or Christian in the UK. I believe that having Bishops in this House is not just about a system of representing their parishes. They have a special place as the established Church, to defend that established Church and mingle in legislation on such issues as education, the curriculum and social matters, which I think are outstanding with modern Britain. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, what is the Government’s thinking on reform of the Bishops’ Benches in this House?
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, democracy is a strange animal: an animal of which no perfect specimen exists anywhere, nor ever has or ever could. It is an animal that is different from one country to the next, because countries have different histories, social and cultural characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, peoples and peculiarities. It is an animal that is different, too, from one moment to the next. Who would have thought that one-third of the popular vote in a British general election, on a turnout of 60% of the electorate, could generate, for the party concerned, nearly two-thirds of the seats in the other place and a majority of 174? Not I—yet that is what happened in July of this year.
As I say, democracy is a strange animal and at some moments, it is stranger than at others. Of course, politicians are strange and imperfect animals too. On the whole, whatever they themselves may fondly believe, they are very much stranger than most of those they represent. One might think that a truly freak election result, such as that of 2024, would necessarily lend a certain humility to the MPs, the party, the Government concerned, and therefore a certain openness and flexibility of mind, and a certain caution, not least on constitutional matters, such as the composition of this House. One might think that, and think it only normal, which it would be—but strange as it may seem, if one did, one would be disappointed.
That brings me to the topic before us today. I have three questions. We are, all of us—however we come to be here, by whatever strange route—Members of a revising Chamber. My first question is therefore this: would the loss of its hereditary Members make this place a better or a worse revising Chamber, or would it make no difference at all? I believe that it would make it a worse one, and that a majority of your Lordships, on all sides, know this full well and know why. Forgive me if that sounds vainglorious, but this is too important a moment for false collective modesty. We box, in this place, above our weight, and everyone knows it.
My second question is, would the loss of its hereditaries make this a more democratic and thus a more representative Chamber? At first glance, perhaps it would. After all, what could be less democratic than a hereditary legislator? Or, to speak of my own case, what could be less democratic than to owe your membership of this House to a title created, as the Daily Mirror put it, because your
“great-grandad’s cousin’s dad’s fourth cousin’s dad’s cousin’s great-great-great-grandad was made a Lord in 1628”?
Who could be less representative of the general population than the bearer of such a title?
Yet it is not quite that simple, is it? Not when one considers the underlying political, constitutional, cultural and human realities. To begin with, we have—all of us hereditaries—been elected, and some of us by the whole House. King Charles might be the King, and most of his subjects British, by virtue of an accident of birth, but it is not by accident of birth alone that we sit here. By contrast, the vast majority of Peers, all but the Lords Spiritual and ourselves, owe their place on these Benches to patronage. I have looked hard at this system of patronage—looked, so to speak, in its mouth, under its bonnet, in its nooks and crannies—and for the life of me, I can find nothing very democratic about it.
There is then the little matter of those cultural and human, flesh, blood and temperamental realities: the kind of people we are, individually and collectively; or more to the point, the kind we are not. We are not politicians or political players—or not of a conventional sort. We are of a conventionally strange sort, perhaps. Of course, this is something we have in common with most members of the public we seek to represent. I believe it to be something rather important.
My third and last question has to do with timing. Is this the right moment for such reform? There were negotiations. There was clear agreement to postpone our removal, if removal there must sadly be, until wider and deeper reform of this House. Present proposals seem premature, peremptory and unworthy of Parliament. So to my three questions: would the loss of its hereditary Members make this place a better revising Chamber? It would make it worse. Would our removal make this a more democratic and representative Chamber? No, it would not. Is this the right moment? If agreements mean anything, it is not.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, it should not need repeating that an unelected Chamber should not exist in 2024. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for bringing forward this debate and I hope that this is a sign that reforming Parliament is a priority for His Majesty’s Government.
First, I would like to speak about the relationship between Westminster and Wales. Westminster has never worked for Wales. I believe that, in my lifetime, we will have an independent Wales where all decisions about Wales are made in Wales. Until that is the case, Plaid Cymru Members of Parliament and Peers will be here in both Chambers, standing up for the people of our nation. We will be in the room and around the table wherever decisions are made that affect the people of Wales.
Until we have an elected Chamber, political parties should have representation in proportion to their numbers in the other place. Plaid Cymru is underrepresented in this Chamber. We have consistently had four MPs in the other place; this should be reflected here. The wider point about political imbalance has been eloquently pressed by the noble Lords, Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
I record my support for the hereditary Peers Bill as a first step on this reform journey, although it does not go far enough. The comments made by noble Lords on what the Bill does not do should not be used as arguments against it. Instead, this energy should be channelled into the next reforms that we should be pressing on with. This is not a question of if but when. His Majesty’s Government have said that this is their “immediate first step” in reforming this Chamber. Therefore, we must not delay progress for greater reform. These reforms should at their heart be about how we ensure that Parliament best serves the people it represents. When I speak of representation, I do not just mean improved regional representation or a 50:50 gender-equal Parliament; I mean diversity of lived experiences and a rotation of new voices in this Parliament.
I will not repeat the well-made arguments from a number of noble Lords about why certain reforms are necessary, but instead I add my support to some of the suggested reforms for the next stage of this journey. I have two simple reforms. First, we should introduce a participation requirement, as referenced by many. I view our roles here as jobs, not honours. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, put it, I do not know of many jobs that you can decide not to turn up to, and a revising second Chamber has a job of work to do. Secondly, we should introduce term limits, for which a number of noble Lords have highlighted their support today. As we move to agreeing that nobody should be born into a job, we should also agree that nobody should have a job for life. If your Lordships do not mind me saying, as the youngest Member of this House I would be the one to benefit most from a job for life. That should not be the case for me or anybody else. I share the views expressed earlier on that.
So where do we go from here? For this momentum to be continued, a timetable should be published promptly for the next stage of reform, before Second Reading of the hereditary Peers Bill, to avoid conflating other reform agendas with this singular but necessary step. I ask His Majesty’s Government to be bold in this regard and set a timetable that will commit to additional reforms in this Session to deliver on the commitment outlined in His Majesty’s Speech to
“encourage wide participation in the democratic process”.
I see no need for a drawn-out timetable. The work has to be done, as report after report has told us is the case. It is time to see the final proposal and start the next chapter of our democracy—a Parliament fit for the 21st century. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I was going to admit that I am slightly nervous of speaking in this debate because I see myself as quite a new Member, so I congratulate her on leaping in where I fear to tread. Along with everyone else in this Chamber, I care very much about this place, so I would feel remiss in not taking part in the latest conversation about its reform and the wider issue of our standing and reputation.
As has been said, we all know the valuable work that we do in this place, yet the chasm between the public perception and the reality of what we do is vast. Our Press Gallery is rarely frequented and the public’s view of us is not exactly positive. A while back, I had a call from a journalist colleague whom I had not spoken to for some years. He was doing a story on the House of Lords. “Oh dear”, I said. “I suppose it’s not good news?” He laughed. “No, Liz. It’s never good news when it’s the House of Lords”.
Why is that? It is partly because that is the way it has always been. In truth, the Lords has always had an image problem. For centuries, right through to the 1950s, the reputational threat came from non-attending Peers. In more recent years, as we have heard, criticism has been focused on the increasing size of the House. However, as others have asked, is that the root cause of the problems we face? It certainly does not help but, as my noble friend Lord Wakeham said, when you get down to it, I am not sure this is about the numbers.
As we know, there are currently just over 800 Members. This compares to similar numbers for most of the last half of last century. For part of that time, attendance was indeed low—in the 1953-54 Session there was a daily average of just 97 Peers. More recently, average attendance has stayed constant: an average of 418 in 2006-07 and 396 in 2022-23. I mention this because, contrary to received wisdom, we need those people to keep turning up week in, week out, roll up their sleeves and get on with the work of this House. On a purely practical level, I disagree with the Government’s proposed reform of removing the hereditary Peers given how they box above their weight, as my noble friend Lord Reay rightly said.
It is not just numbers; the Government say the reform will bring “immediate modernisation”. It will show that we are different now. Perhaps it will in the short term, but really it will just reinforce that discrepancy between the public perception and the reality of what happens in this place. I genuinely believe that the knowledge and insight that our hereditary colleagues bring to legislation is unique and valuable. Is it born of privilege? Yes, but in all honesty I do not have a problem with that. The hereditaries have chosen to put that privilege to good use by putting themselves forward for a by-election. I do not care if they are a Duke or an Earl. So many want to work just like the rest of us and it would be wrong to throw away the benefit of their experience.
In addition, removing them will not address the fundamental problem of accountability. Personally, I am far more interested in the Government’s proposal for a participation requirement, which could bring about more meaningful change. As it stands, the public think we get paid with their money to swan in and out and do very little along the way. This view is usually reinforced by the Sunday Times, which often writes about X Peer who has spoken only X number of times in the Chamber while taking X amount of money. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, such examples damage us all, even if in some instances they do not always give the full picture.
There are so many ways that people contribute to the work of this place, be that voting, taking part in legislation, advocacy or membership of committees. I would be in favour of some kind of metric to assess the participation of Peers. Those who do not wish to take part should not be able to claim expenses, but it is reasonable for those who do to be paid for their time and effort. It is necessary work and we should not be ashamed of that. Such a proposal would need careful thought and proper consultation, but to my mind it would be of far greater value than the reforms currently on the table.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, the debate is the better for hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. I thought the Leader of the House made a very well- judged and apposite speech.
The villainous butler to Lord Meldrum, Stokes, in the situation comedy “You Rang, M’Lord?” would opine below stairs that every Member of the House of Lords should be given a shovel and sent down the mines. Centuries earlier, there was a more drastic solution. In January 1649, the Commonwealth executed our monarch, and very soon after the monarchy itself and then the House of Lords were abolished—our House was no more.
Should it be a free vote, I would not vote for an elected House of Lords. My fears would be for the other place—the Commons. It has low public esteem, it could not bear an elected rival and our powerful free press, social media and professional, committed investigative journalism has exposed Westminster’s feet of clay. The constant searchlight is so severe, and even your Lordships’ House is, occasionally, not free of taint.
An elected second Chamber blessed by the secret ballot would always challenge, criticise, frustrate and rival the Commons, whomever the constitutionalists might devise to hold the ring. Never underestimate the contempt of the Commons for the second Chamber; it is in the mood for change. By 1657, the then Lord Protector Cromwell, still a regicide, found it necessary to bring back the House of Lords. His Council of State hit upon a House of 63 nominations—Cromwell, of course, would do the nominating—but no more than 42 accepted, and on the first day only 37 arrived.
My summary is that this House works: do not fix it; keep it. Its imminent reforms will surely be piecemeal. There is a template in existence—the noble Lord, Lord Burns, fashioned it quite some time ago. Octogenarians such as myself—I am in my 86th year—should go, and perhaps even septuagenarians.
Consideration of an elected House brings to mind a Westminster event for university chancellors. Our chief guest was Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal. She was, as ever, smart in her splendid admiral uniform. Opening her persuasive remarks, we chancellors heard the Princess Royal state, “I stood for election once and I won”—and of course London gained. It seems that we are on course for elections for everything. Where shall it end? In surprising places, I would think.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow another Jones.
Before I was appointed to the House of Lords as a Green Party Peer, I was born and raised on a council estate in Brighton. I was born in the 1940s and I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. I cannot remember when I found out about the House of Lords and how it is constituted—it might have been much later—but I was shocked that there was still a feudal element going through what I thought was a democratic system. It represented a reminder of how the UK is still struggling to emerge from a past where a select group of people—almost all public-school-educated white men—were born to rule. Getting rid of this ridiculous anomaly, as Labour has announced it will do, is a long-overdue reform, but this particular move is pandering to a populist dislike of elitism and makes no real sense.
One crucial example of the value of hereditary Peers was around the issue of sewage. It was the Lords that reflected the public’s anger at the water companies making billions of pounds for their shareholders by dumping sewage into our rivers. I found myself getting behind a major rebellion led, extremely politely, by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, an Eton-educated hereditary Peer and landowner, and friend to the Royal Family. His key amendment led to a government shift, but, more importantly, it forced sewage as an issue into every MP’s inbox as the public demanded better. Even during the general election, people on the doorsteps were still talking about sewage.
I am not mounting a defence of privilege; that offends me deeply. I am a firm believer in a wholly elected second Chamber, which has been Green Party policy since I tabled a Bill on this in 2014. My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle tabled the same Bill on arrival. We Greens want radical change—but sensible, logical change. Therefore, I find this rather meagre reform from Labour slightly puzzling. Why pick on hereditary Peers while leaving the corrupt system of prime ministerial patronage? One effect of that cronyism is that the House has far too many non-attenders, who just take the title and run off—I find that very offensive.
Meanwhile, the cash-for-peerages scandal, along with a long list of dubious appointments, particularly by Boris Johnson, show that our system is still open to exploitation by Prime Ministers, who can give titles to party donors and those who have provided political favours. It is a terrible process, and that is where Labour should have started, if it was really serious about positive change here.
Why get rid of the hereditary Peers but leave the 26 Bishops in place? I like the moral authority that Bishops bring to debates, often raising the vital issues of poverty, discrimination and deprivation that perhaps others do not, but why should they vote on legislation? How does that make sense in a country where we are not even Christian any more and fewer than two out of 100 people regularly attend Church of England services?
There are as many former Prime Ministers sitting in your Lordships’ House who have granted peerages to the Green Party as there are Green Party Peers: two. The Greens and other smaller parties, even Reform UK, are still woefully underrepresented in the Lords. The decisions by Prime Ministers to appoint peerages are totally opaque, and there does not seem to be any political will to ensure that smaller parties are properly represented in the Lords. If the Government insist on retaining an elected second Chamber, they should make the appointments process much more transparent, ensure smaller parties are treated fairly and stop appointing people who have done nothing other than donate money to a political party. Getting rid of the hereditaries is a tweak; it is petty, and in some ways cruel.
When we have a House that is undemocratic, overcrowded, dominated by silly archaic practices and unrepresentative of the British population, we should be careful about which changes we make. We need a smaller House and a second Chamber that is representative of the regions, elected by a form of proportional representation and operating in a modern parliamentary building, rather than a 200 year-old museum that threatens either to fall down or to burn down. We should have term limits, all be elected and be limited in size very carefully. Honestly, I will vote for the rubbish Bill, but it is wrong.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. To our mutual embarrassment, I think we agree more often than we care to admit in public.
In the available five minutes, I shall focus on my conclusions; my reasons will follow in future debates. First, I have always supported an elected second Chamber. The Executive, through their ability to dominate the House of Commons, is far too powerful. To balance that, we need a second Chamber with much greater powers than this House possesses. In the contemporary world, that means an elected House. However, I recognise that at the moment there is no appetite for such radical change.
Secondly, I agree that the size of this House is too large. I would seek to reduce it to around 600 by the end of this Parliament, although I do not think that it is a first-order issue.
Thirdly, as regards the appointed Peers, it is undesirable that they should be appointed for life. I suggest a term of, say, 10 or 15 years.
Fourthly, on the Bishops—I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield—I think that 26 is too many. I noted what the noble Baroness said but five is quite sufficient: the two archbishops and the bishops of Durham, Winchester and London. However, I would not insist on an immediate episcopal cull and would hope to have retirement at the conventional retirement age.
Fifthly, it is reasonable to impose a retirement age on sitting Peers. The age of 80 or so sounds reasonable to me although, if the Labour Party’s manifesto proposal is implemented, the actual age of retirement in many cases will be somewhat greater. Both my wife—the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg—and I fall into that category.
Sixthly, there should be an effective filter on the appointment of Peers. Independent scrutiny of suitability and intended participation is highly desirable although, in respect of sitting Peers, I would be very cautious about too rigorous a test as to participation, otherwise, in order to satisfy scrutineers, there could be an excess of interventions by the hitherto largely silent.
Lastly, on the hereditary Peers, in my view their proposed exclusion is highly regrettable. For Labour, the proposal is largely totemic, like the ban on fox hunting or VAT on private school fees. Many hereditaries have contributed hugely to the business of Parliament. Moreover, I question whether their presence in this House raises any more issues of principle than those raised by the presence of the rest of us—for we, the appointed Peers, are after all sent here in a wholly unaccountable manner, whereas the Conservative hereditary Peers seeking a place in this House have generally to appear at hustings, answering questions from an often critical electorate, which is not a filter that the rest of us have to face.
I agree that the by-elections should be abolished with immediate effect. Having failed in two such by-elections, I sit as a life Peer. But as to the hereditary Peers themselves, if they are to be removed, I suggest that it should be at the end of this Parliament. By that time the Government will have had ample time to come forward with a range of considered and comprehensive proposals.
The early removal of the hereditary Peers will be a serious loss to both country and Parliament. It will do a very grave injustice to individuals, many of whom have served with great distinction—and we may then find that no further reforms are brought forward.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I very much appreciate the way in which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House introduced this debate in a conciliatory tone. Having been here during the 1990s, I remember the unpleasantness at that time, which I hope we can avoid. I will not weary the House with my view of what should happen to it, because there have been so many different views and very little agreement, except perhaps that we think on the whole that it is too large and, in my view, too full of prime ministerial appointments, and we need a much stronger and independent commission to make the appointments. I will just concentrate on the Bill that is being debated in the other place.
The Prime Minister has wisely, for now at least, backed off from some of the wider proposals made earlier. It is not to be an elected House, at any rate yet, nor is he going to cull the aged as yet. But the other place, ironically, has decided to start the process to remove those who, ironically, are the only elected Peers in this House.
The current by-election system is a farce, and it was cobbled together only as reform legislation became bogged down—as it always does—to get out of a hole temporarily and to stop more legislative time being spent on an issue which, as others have suggested, except for the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is not really of interest to the electorate. It was never intended to go on as it has, or for so long. But—there is always a but—if a promise was made by a Labour Government that the deal would not be changed without proper reform, are we not bound, if we cannot honour it now, to produce a proposal which is acceptable to the remaining hereditary Peers and to the House? Ironically, as a group they are statistically harder-working than the rest of us life Peers. They give the time, they turn up, and they make important contributions to the running of this place and its committees. Some bring particular expertise which is in short supply in the House. Some have given invaluable service over many years, and others—some of the more recent younger Peers in particular—have already made outstanding contributions. Some of the 92 remaining are ready to go and have told me so, but surely we should be both honourable and generous. All should be offered life peerages. There are 40 or so Bills scheduled for this Session. Let us do that, get this Bill out of the way, and get on with governing.
Lord Horam (Con)
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I too welcome the conciliatory tone in which the Leader of the House introduced this debate. I welcome this debate, which is obviously looking at the whole area of the second Chamber, not just this particular Bill, judgment on which is taking place in the other Chamber this evening.
I am a long-standing member of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which has for a long time been well chaired by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, and now also by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. The point of that group is that we believe not in an elected second Chamber but that this Chamber and all its valuable work can be improved. Various schemes have come forward over the last few years—the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for example, had a notable example of what can be done—to do to improve the working of the Chamber in many respects.
One of them, of course, has been the question of the numbers. Although the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed out that it is not necessarily a first-order issue, it is an issue, and it is certainly one with the public. Again, a lot of work has gone into that, and in particular the idea that it should be targeted on the question of participation—the extent to which people are active in the second Chamber—has been a very important issue.
However, over the last 14 years, the Conservative Party was in power and very little was achieved—almost nothing. There was a certain amount of optimism during the period of the noble Baroness, Lady May—fortunately now in this Chamber—but very little otherwise, and we are stuck with the fact that there are now more Peers than there ever were before.
We have to face the fact, realistically, as politicians or not politicians—whichever you like to call us—that we now have a Labour Government who have a clear mandate and a very clear policy in this area: first, to remove the hereditary Peers, and secondly, to look also at the people over 80. I am 85 so am in that category. The numbers are very similar. We in the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber have always talked of about 600 or so; that would be the right sort of level for the second Chamber. The numbers for the Government’s approach will be rather smaller than that; it could well get down to 450 or 500. That is the sort of level they are talking about.
I am opposed in principle to hereditary Peers being elected, and I would like to carry on rather longer myself even though I am 85. However, the fact is that we cannot argue with the end result, which is a smaller Chamber. We are not in a position to dispute that, given that we had our opportunity to go about it in one way we thought best. We have to accept that the objective is the same: a smaller Chamber. It is not the way I would have done it but sometimes, frankly, one should not allow the best to be the enemy of the good, and the good is a smaller Chamber. I think that if, as usual, the House behaved itself very well and made generous offers to those who were removed from the Chamber, that would be a very sensible way forward.
The other point I would like to make is that one thing the campaign has looked at over the years is the regional balance in the Chamber—an issue that has come up in this debate. The fact is that, according to the stats from the Library, 24% of us are registered as living in London and 22% in the south-east, so 46% of the whole Chamber is of a London orientation. Only 3% or 4% are registered in the north-west, 3% or 4% in the north-east and only about 5% in Scotland, for heaven’s sake. I cannot remember the figure for Wales, which has been mentioned in previous remarks.
All this means that people perceive us as being out of touch with people in the rest of the country—in the provinces of England. That looks bad, is bad and detracts from our authority because the House of Commons could always say, “It’s all very well listening to you but you do not reflect the people as we do”. That makes it more difficult for us. At the end of the day, if we get to a significantly smaller Chamber with a better regional balance and that is the end result of what the Government do, I will applaud it.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, as the 50th speaker in this debate, I have to say something different from everybody else—I will try.
There are two problems here. First, people think it is an anomalous thing that we are an appointed Chamber. I do not think it is anomalous at all because the entire British constitution is an anomaly. There is no reason why we should not be what we are. Other countries have followed our constitution and arrangement of Parliament but, obviously, they have not had an appointed Chamber. We have one because that is what we have always had. I do not see that there is necessarily any point in changing that.
The second problem is that whenever the Labour Party comes into power, it realises that it does not have enough people in the House of Lords. That is because it does not have enough hereditary Peers. That is the way it is. I have one simple way to solve the problem: on election, create 100 hereditary Peers. Problem solved. Then it will have the numbers here and it will get its things passed. I am sure there are eager people on the Labour Benches and in the Labour membership who would, much as they hate the hereditary system, love to be here. Really, the problem is a ruling Government not having the numbers and hereditary powers to be able to pass their legislation. We have discussed things around this, but those are the two problems.
Look at the history, as some people have done, of every time the Labour Party has come to power. I especially remember what Harold Wilson tried to do. He tried to find some way of, as it were, deactivating the hereditary element in the House of Lords. He said, “Let’s make a distinction between the right to come and discuss matters and the right to vote”. As a noble Lord said, it was sabotaged by Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. Michael Foot thought he wanted to abolish the House of Lords and Enoch Powell said, “Over my dead body”. Basically, that union frustrated that reform.
Then, of course, in the period between 1974 and 1979, the majority of the Labour Party was much too small to do any such thing. When we came back to power under new Labour, we made another attempt; I say “we” because, at that time, I was in the Labour Party. Obviously, that attempt was halted half way through, and 99 or 100 hereditary Peers were left behind.
I always thought that we would solve the problem of numbers—along with reforming the House of Lords in terms of hereditary peerages—but, somehow, a decision has been made that we cannot do that. It is a pity because one thing I thought we would do is an analysis of all the existing Members—who has been working, coming regularly and making contributions. It is simple: those who are inactive should be thrown out, not on the grounds of age but on the grounds that they were appointed here but did not do the work. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, gave some numbers. We could reduce the total number by quite a bit if we used rules like that, but a decision has been made not to do that.
Instead, a decision has been made to get rid of the hereditary Peers. It is class envy, and I do not like that. There is no other reason to get rid of hereditary Peers except that some people think they have no right to sit here. Once we abolish by-elections, they will be de facto life Peers anyway, so what is the problem? As I said before, if they work, let them be here; if they do not work, throw them out along with the other life Peers.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on one aspect of House of Lords reform: the Bill to remove the remaining 92 hereditary Peers from the House, thus eliminating many centuries of tradition and a golden thread back to the 13th century. I will also suggest further reform that should be included in the Bill.
In March 1999, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the 1999 Bill to abolish the majority of the hereditary Peers
“reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.
He continued by saying, in the most carefully worded statement, that the 10%—that is, the 92—
“will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]
The words could not have been more unequivocal. Some 650 Peers left quietly on the basis of that promise. It has now been broken so why, in consequence, should we honour the Salisbury convention on this Bill?
Also, in 1998, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, Lord Kingsland, said:
“As I understand it, we shall be faced with a Bill which seeks to replace a House based on a mixture of nominated Peers and hereditary Peers by a purely nominated House. That proposal does not go as far as the preamble of the Parliament Act 1911: it is a proposal that looks backwards rather than forwards and one which reduces the independence of this House without adding to its legitimacy. It is a solution to a problem that I do not recognise. Therefore, in my submission, the Opposition would be entitled to think most carefully about whether or not the Salisbury Convention applied to the Bill.
Perhaps I may put it in another way. We are talking about a constitutional Bill. It is not a Bill which seeks to change the law; it is a Bill which seeks to change the way in which we change the law. It goes to the composition of the sovereign Parliament, of the Queen in Parliament. The Salisbury Convention applies to a settled set of relationships between Commons and Lords, but this Bill seeks to change the nature of one of the two component parts of that relationship. In those circumstances, does the Salisbury Convention apply?”—[Official Report, 15/10/1998; cols. 1053-54.]
I believe that it is the responsibility of the remaining 92, as well as those colleagues who believe that the former Lord Chancellor’s promise should be adhered to, to make sure that the proposed legislation includes provision to move to stage two, as promised. I will highlight areas that need to be discussed in more detail in the Bill.
There should be a referendum to ask the public what sort of second Chamber they would prefer. There should be measures to restrict the size of the House. It cannot be right that the number of Peers keeps increasing so that only the National People’s Congress of of China has more members. The right size of the House should reflect the political balance of the parties at each general election. Measures proposed by the Burns commission on retirement and new Peer creations should be included in the Bill.
There should be an attendance and contribution minimum. There should also be a retirement age of 80, which is already proposed. However, this should not be mandatory; it would be fairer to have a secret ballot of the whole House once a year to decide whether a Peer over the age of 80 should continue. The current retirement procedure works well, but unfortunately its effect is totally negated by the more-than-compensating appointments of new Peers. Slightly confusingly, the Prime Minister has already appointed three Peers over the age of 80. The only Prime Minister to limit appointments was Theresa May. More should follow her example.
Next, the Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory basis and be firmly applied to all new appointments, political included, thus controlling the quality of prime ministerial patronage. Amendments should be considered to the structure of the membership of the House. It should be debated whether the Chamber should be elected. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, opined in the interesting TV programme “The Lady and the Lords”, this is what the public would expect. I would like to consider the rebalance of the 25 Bishops to include representatives of all faiths. We should consider changing the name of the House to “the Senate”, as it would not allow hereditary Peers to be Members.
Another issue that should be looked at is the powers of the House. We should be able to amend the realms of secondary legislation. Also, on Finance Bills, we should have the power to amend badly drafted legislation, particularly where, due to the guillotine procedure, the clauses are not even discussed in the other place. Finally, how will certain business mechanics work when the hereditary Peers have gone? Can there be exemptions for shadow Ministers and Whips on the Front Bench? Will there be enough noble Lords to sit on the Woolsack?
I understand that a key reason for the proposed Bill is removing a number of Conservative Peers from the House, meaning that the Government will not have to create the equivalent number of new Labour Peers. However, Cross-Bench hereditary Peers have been caught in the crossfire, necessarily. Very often in the last Administration they supported Labour and Lib Dem amendments and so are no major threat to the Government getting their business through. The convenor in particular should be spared abolition. What will happen to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain? Can the Government make an amendment to the Bill to make it clear that they can still carry on their ceremonial duties at the State Opening of Parliament?
In conclusion, I am sure that the proposed legislation will need the most thorough scrutiny so that it honours the promise made by the then Lord Chancellor in 1999 and includes the additional issues that I have mentioned.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My oh my, democracy is a bit of a pain, is it not? This Palace has been here for 1,000 years. Eventually women were given the vote, and by 1970, 18 year-olds were given the vote. It took a bit of time. We have been patient.
The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 had something else in it. It described it as an interim measure until the second Chamber could be
“constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis”.
We have had plenty of opportunities since 1911 and plenty of manifestos—including from the Labour Party. I was elected in the Commons by the people in 2001. I had a look today to see how many people still in the Commons were there before I was. There are 33. All the rest, the vast majority—diligent, hard-working, decent people—were slung out. The electorate removed them. Some constituencies removed many in that period and some did so in pretty much every recent election. That is democracy: decent people removed by the people.
Should any noble Lords ever choose to go on the many parliamentary tours that I do, they may not approve of my explanation of the history of this country. Succinctly put, I explain how our democracy emerged. We had kings. They wanted to be king of France as well. Our democracy basically emerged as kings fought wars with France to grab a bit of France and then fought wars to keep that bit of France. To fight wars, they needed taxes and soldiers, so they got soldiers—or money for soldiers—saying in return, “We’ll give you a title. You can have Scotland or Lancashire as well as part of the deal”. That is a simplification, but it is not an exaggeration of how this place built up over the years, with a few scandals built in as well—we were not in the days then of DNA testing to prove who had the entitlement.
That has passed on down the generations to determine the laws of the country. It might have been good enough for 900 years, but in the last century we started to evolve into something called democracy: that the people choose. I caution against referendums. Extra questions should be added. “Should the House of Lords be abolished immediately?” I am not sure that it is in the interests of our sustainability to put that question to the people. We could decide each to fight our own by-elections with the people but have “none of the above as an option”, but there might not be many left if we went down that route. So the move towards democracy also includes someone winning an election on a manifesto and saying, “Here is what we are going to do”.
I put it to the House that people are a bit fed up with politicians who win elections and then do not do what they have promised to do and that people have voted for. It may not suit people in here that the people of this country have voted for the abolition of hereditary Peers and an age limit in here, but they have.
There are weaknesses in democracy, and people argue and say, “Ah, they voted for other things”. If we want the people of this country to trust our Parliament, it gets quite simple when there are simple propositions. Therefore, if there are alternatives, those alternatives have to be absolutely in the spirit of what was in the Labour manifesto, not washing it away and pretending or negotiating but delivering it or coming up with something equally good as an argument. I am not hearing those alternative arguments today: I am hearing special pleading. We have had hundreds of years of special pleading, and, for democracy, that is not good enough.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann—he set me up quite well. I declare an interest as the Earl of Devon, one of the more hereditary of our hereditary peerages. The title dates from our tribal Saxon days: Ordwulf defended Devon from Viking invaders and served scones, cream and jam to the rebuilders of Tavistock Abbey. In modern times, the earldom was granted to Baldwin in 1142 for supporting our first female sovereign, Empress Matilda. I am the 38th Earl of Devon since then, a line broken only by a handful of attainders and beheadings, most recently by Thomas Cromwell and soon to be televised on the BBC—better to be in “Wolf Hall” than “Rivals”. The title I hold was restored for the fifth and final time by our second female sovereign, Mary I.
We sat in your Lordships’ House long before it had a home in this Palace; founding Knights of the Garter, we fought at Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt and Bosworth; we tilted for Henry VIII at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, and we welcomed William of Orange to dinner on the first night of his Glorious Revolution. My grandfather was one of the last on the beaches at Dunkirk, before taking a bullet through his helmet in north Africa. I sit here, less violently, as champion of Devon in Westminster and of Westminster in Devon, a conduit between local and national, like Baldwin nearly 900 years ago.
Labour suggests that hereditaries are “indefensible”. That is ironic given how consistently we have defended this island nation. Not here for personal gain nor for anything we have done, we are here due to an antiquated sense of duty, which is not only defensible but a key characteristic of our constitutional fabric. We rend that fabric at our peril: Britain will be poorer without it.
Just because Labour says that it is “indefensible” does not make it so—that is Trump-speak. An hereditary thread runs through our society, from our sovereign Head of State to our basic freedom to inherit private property. Our national identity is inherited, particularly in the regions. Some sneer with colonialist prejudice that, outside Westminster, only Lesotho has hereditary seats in Parliament, as if Lesotho, being African, is somehow less. Lesotho reserves places for tribal chieftains in recognition of their cultural and regional leadership; the United States, Canada and others constitutionally recognise such leadership too. Why should we not?
The presence of hereditary Peers in the mother of all Parliaments is a distinction of which we should be proud. No other parliament can boast an unbroken link to its liberal feudal roots in Magna Carta and habeas corpus. Our presence is proof positive of the resilience of our parliamentary system.
The Government suggest that public opinion justifies their constitutional vandalism. Where is the evidence for this? The Government should put the hereditary presence to a referendum, alongside that of the Bishops and of the life Peers appointed by prime ministerial patronage. Given the furore over the institutional sheltering of child abusers, scandals over prime ministerial curtains, spectacles and suits, and the preferential procurement of pandemic PPE, hereditaries may do well in a Lordly beauty parade, second perhaps only to the angels of HOLAC.
We see no demonstrations over our hereditary presence. Indeed, our most serious public unrest was motivated by those preying on a deep-rooted dislocation among those who consider themselves traditionally English. The riots of last summer were ghastly, but they were not a call for constitutional reform and the removal of a moderating and hard-working hereditary presence in Parliament.
Further, our hereditary Members are disparaged for our gender—that is a protected characteristic. While we are all male, this is not our choice but the choice of successive Governments, happy to alter the succession to the Crown and to offer parliamentary time to promote female Bishops but reluctant to accommodate female succession to hereditary peerages. As the youngest of four, whose father and grandfather were the only sons among many sisters, I have long felt shame in male primogeniture and have sought to change this, with no success. This is discrimination—refuse to permit female succession and then deride our lack of diversity. If I were offered one final wish for a condemned Peer, it would be to amend this legislation to allow any gender to succeed to hereditary peerages. I know the Labour Party has yet to come around to the merits of female leadership—some 880 years after Baldwin—but I am sure it can be convinced, and I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her encouraging letter to me on this issue. I trust that she will join me to overcome the patriarchal barriers she identified.
Many commentators agree that this House is the most effective body of our politics, recently tempering the extremes of the other place over Brexit and Rwanda. Removing hereditary Peers will not improve that function: it will politicise and patronise this House and make your Lordships no more defensible, and I worry particularly that it will leave our sovereign with no hereditary partner—who will go toe-to-toe with the Crown over feudal rights to the Isle of Wight? His Majesty will be isolated and vulnerable to republican attack.
In conclusion, I note the wise words of Robin Cook on a similarly tepid reform proposed in 2005:
“This would limit modernisation to moving from the 15th-century principle of heredity to the 18th-century principle of patronage. The result would not be a chamber bursting with the independent, colourful figures necessary if we are to restore public interest in parliament, but a chamber stuffed with that bane of modern political life, the loyal, safe pair of hands”.
The Earls of Devon’s previous executions have been in noble cause. This short-term, partisan political mugging is, regrettably, not that.
Lord Shipley (LD)
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his support for the principle of hereditary Peers, talked of his sense of duty. I understand that, but I make the point to him that ending hereditary Peers’ membership of the House means ending it as a hereditary Peer—they could, of course, become life Peers, and I hope that many will.
This has been an excellent debate so far and has covered virtually every aspect that I could think of. The tone was set well at the very start by the Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the Opposition. The Lord Privy Seal talked of this House as being “unique”; that is a very important word. It is an asset, she said—and it is an asset. The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about the need to discuss what we are to be and what we will do. Between those two contributions I think there is a debate that we can have.
I remember well the 2012 Bill that got through Second Reading in the House of Commons only for us to discover that the House of Commons was not keen on an elected second Chamber duplicating its work and then claiming an electoral mandate to do so. The Commons prefers scrutiny and revision to be the job of the second Chamber.
The Government should build on our strengths as a Chamber. The House of Lords is very good indeed at scrutinising Bills and at holding the Executive and the Commons to account. It is also very effective in its Select Committee work, getting into the detail of complex topics and making proposals for change based on evidence.
I accept that the 1999 Act was seen as a transitional arrangement. I accept too that the 2024 Labour manifesto said that reform was essential, and promised an immediate modernisation of the House and, in the longer term, an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. That would be in line with the recommendations of the Labour Party commission of two years ago, led by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who said that he wanted a senate of the nations and regions—that is what I want. The point that we must have a discussion about is whether they are to be nominated based on their election to another body or whether they are to be directly elected. The process that the Government are proposing sounds right to me. I agree that there has to be a stage modernisation.
We have talked about ending hereditary Peers’ membership of the House and about reducing the size of the House. The point has been made that, if all noble Lords aged over 80 and all hereditary Peers left, it would, by 2029, reduce the size of the House to 420. That would be a huge loss of expertise, so I have concluded that we need a more appropriate pace. Further, the question of the level of participation has come through to me as an issue in this debate.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, suggested, an age cap would be too arbitrary. Like him, I would prefer a fixed term of 15 years, with one-third of the House elected every five years. For those who believe in a wholly elected chamber, you cannot have that and an age limit of 80 at the same time. The electorate has to have the power to vote for somebody over the age of 80.
We have heard about the dangers of competition between the two Chambers around who has the most recent mandate, but the existing Parliament Acts limit the powers of the House of Lords and that situation can continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, referred to the Library brief, which reminded us that 45% of Members of this House have addresses in London and the south-east. Only 21% of the Members of this House have addresses in the regions of Yorkshire and Humberside, the east Midlands, West Midlands, and the north-west and north-east of England. There is an imbalance that we have to address.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is 25 years yesterday that the House of Lords Bill reached the statute book. Many noble Lords have pointed out that the exception which permitted 92 hereditary Peers to remain was agreed because Peers of all parties did not want their unconditional abolition. They therefore secured a down payment on the Blair Government’s promise of full reform. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, very eloquently pointed out, that promise was not fulfilled. Now, however, the down payment is being grabbed back.
We are offered only the plain proposition in the forthcoming Bill that we should:
“Remove the remaining connection between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords”.
So we must ask: why? To a certain type of mind, the answer seems blindingly obvious. It is that the hereditary right of Peers to sit in this House is, to quote the relevant Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, “outdated and indefensible”. Actually, this is by no means as self-evidently true as the Government suppose. After all, the succession to this Throne, which watches over our proceedings every day, is based on a hereditary right—that of one family to produce our Head of State. That right is strongly supported, I believe, by the majority of the King’s subjects.
It is not our task today to debate the hereditary principle; we need to debate the present practice and how it helps or hinders the work of Parliament. We must ask how that work would be improved if the 92 departed. We would be a wholly appointed House, as other noble Lords have said. Would that be better? Some 25 years ago, it meant more of what were called “Tony’s cronies”; today, it will mean more of Keir’s Peers. I am a defender, and indeed a beneficiary, of prime ministerial patronage, but can we honestly claim that a House composed by that means alone will add value to what we have today?
Is there something bad, not in principle but in practice, about the 92 hereditary Peers who are currently Members of this House? The 92 are in a difficulty here, because they are well brought up people and reluctant to blow their own trumpets—although I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, blew his in the most tremendous way. If this Bill passes, it will be their duty to go in dignified silence to the scaffold. I rather feel that it falls to the rest of us to defend not the individual merits of individual hereditary Peers but the collective merits of their being here, until, at least, a better replacement is agreed.
I am still fairly new to your Lordships’ House, but I venture to observe much that is valuable. One is that the hereditaries are usually modest and courteous. They know, to use Lord Melbourne’s phrase about the Order of the Garter, that there is no damned merit about their right to be here, so they are not self-assertive; they know that they must serve. For similar reasons, I think the hereditaries are, on the whole, rarely creatures of party. They bring to bear on legislation independent judgment of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, praised. I do not think it a coincidence that the 1999 amendment that kept them here is called the Weatherill amendment. The late Lord Weatherill was the Convenor of the Cross Benches, and in that capacity he wisely discerned the value of the public-spirited hereditary presence. He did not want that element cut out without proper reform. His attitude lives on today on the Cross Benches under its distinguished, and, as it happens, hereditary, convener. I believe it is appreciated right across your Lordships’ House.
Another fact concerns the wider balance of power in this country. It has been said, and many believe, that we are overly governed by London-based elites—mostly people on the public payroll. These are sometimes disparagingly referred to nowadays as the blob. The hereditary presence in our midst seems distinctly unblobby. The 92 are frequently not London-based; they have strong territorial connections with most parts of the United Kingdom. This makes them well-informed on matters from which Whitehall is sadly distant, such as farming, many environmental issues, and practical economic matters such as the effects of tax and regulation on small entrepreneurs and small businesses. Overwhelmingly, the hereditary Peers come from the private sector, and it is shocking how untrue that is of the other place nowadays. It is a clear benefit of their presence here.
When we debate the legislation, I hope we will not throw away an identifiable good on an ideological speculation about some better system which no one has yet devised.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for proposing this debate. From the debate, it is quite clear that many in this House desire to reform the House of Lords, particularly the process by which Members arrive here. I wish to limit my remarks purely to the hereditary Peers Bill, which is still passing through the House of Commons and which will probably arrive here in the New Year.
I feel extremely privileged to be here and have very much enjoyed my service—I do indeed consider it a public service—and I understand that it is difficult to justify that a seat in this House can be obtained by inheritance. However, I cannot allow this debate to pass without saying that seats in this House obtained through donations to political parties are even more difficult to justify, and I think that the political parties ought to address that problem as well.
I know that there are some noble Lords who consider that it might be possible to resist, filibuster or in some way delay the hereditary Peers Bill when it arrives. I am not of that view. The Bill was in the Labour Party manifesto. It was in the speech from the Throne. It will pass in the House of Commons with a large majority. For the House of Lords to be seen to be in any way opposing or delaying it would be unseemly and would not reflect well on the reputation of this House.
In recent years, we have amended various pieces of legislation and have often had the public on our side, but on this one, if the public are remotely interested, I do not believe they will support the continuation of hereditary Peers in this House. I will personally be very sad to leave, and I believe that many hereditary Peers have rendered dutiful, selfless and hard-working service, but the general election has elected a Government with a huge majority to remove us, and they must have their way.
It might interest noble Lords if I quote from a speech made in this House in May 1846 by the first Duke of Wellington. The subject of the debate was the repeal of the corn laws. The first Duke was at the time the Leader of the House of Lords. He stated that the measure was in the speech from the Throne and had been passed by a majority of the House of Commons. He further stated that it had
“been agreed to by the other two branches of the Legislature”.
In such a situation, he declared, the House of Lords is
“entirely powerless; without the House of Commons and the Crown, the House of Lords can do nothing ”.—[Official Report, 28/5/1846; col. 1404.]
So in 1846, long before the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and long before the Salisbury/Addison convention, the first Duke as Leader of the House believed that the House should pass that particular Bill whatever the personal preferences of the ultras on the right wing of the Conservative Party. That is more or less my view today on the hereditary Peers Bill. When it comes to us, I will react accordingly, and I hope that those Members wishing in any way to obstruct the Bill will allow it to pass.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, it was a privilege to listen to that last speech and indeed to many others we have heard today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate.
In considering the role of this House, our history is important. The Glorious Revolution of 1689 led to our constitutional monarchy as we understand it. Since then, we have been blessed: our constitution has developed and evolved without revolution. The first half of the 19th century saw much social unrest, but ultimately the emancipation of the Catholics and the first Great Reform Act—not least through the ultimate wisdom of the first Duke of Wellington, who persuaded the ultras that they had to give way.
Two more reform Acts followed and the franchise was extended. The Parliament Act 1911 asserted the supremacy of the other place. That was strengthened and further embedded by the Parliament Act 1949. Since 1945 we have continued to proceed peacefully under the Salisbury convention.
The year 1999 saw further major reform. The removal of most hereditary Peers was followed by my noble friend Lord Wakeham’s royal commission in 2000. It produced 132 recommendations but probably half a dozen heavyweight recommendations. These included a reduction in numbers and a partially elected House. Significantly, it recommended an improved appointment system and was against a wholly or predominantly elected Chamber. Subsequent Governments, of both political complexions, have made no attempt to enact any such changes in the following 24 years. That is regrettable.
The last Parliament saw the Government challenged hard in this House on Rwanda and other serious Bills. There were many rounds of ping-pong. Despite everything, we have an effective second Chamber. Previous Labour Governments have got their legislation through Parliament. The conventions work.
We know that debates in Committee and meetings with Lords Ministers achieve important changes to Bills. That is the product of our collective expertise and rational debate. Too many Bills arrive here undigested and ill-crafted. In the other place, as we have heard from others, Bills are not examined or debated in anything like the same detail or with the same care. We improve them greatly.
The Bill before Parliament is directed only at hereditary Peers, of whom of course I am one. We should be thankful that the Government have not brought forward further substantive proposals. That is not to say we should do nothing. I would like to see a proper consultation. The appointment system certainly needs strengthening. I would not take it away entirely from the Prime Minister, but I would leave even prime ministerial appointments subject to veto by the commission.
We need other protections. If I have one concern, it is the risk of elective dictatorship. We have to trust that the Executive—the Crown in Parliament, the second limb or the second leg of the stool—will respect the interests of the nation as a whole. We have to hope that the Supreme Court, the third leg of that constitutional stool, does not have to be involved again. The Crown in Parliament, the Executive, in considering the role of this House, must respect the boundaries.
However, why have we not had a White Paper to address the core issues: our role and our powers, appointments, partial elections, the age of appointed Members, numbers and other subsidiary issues? In saying that, I am not expressing a conclusion, but we need a White Paper with serious suggestions. In this, I commend the speech of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who emphasised that above all we have to define our purpose. We think we know what it is, but it has to be clear.
As for hereditary Peers, I say only this. We know there will be no more by-elections, that is a given, but summary expulsion in short order by the end of the Session shows a lack of magnanimity. Worse, it is not part of a package. Will it actually improve the quality of this House? We have heard others explain that 92 of us will just leave summarily. That will be a real hit because, almost without exception, we are all real workers who are seriously involved in this House.
I ask in all sincerity for a serious White Paper, and I ask for it now, before Christmas, so we can consult on it and act on it after Christmas. Then, we can get something done in the next three or four years of this Parliament—better late than never.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have heard most of the speeches either in the Chamber or on the monitor and I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The title of this debate is about reform of the House of Lords yet 90% of the contributions have been about the composition. We ought to be talking about what the House of Lords is for and how we best deliver it. A few noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Norton, and my noble friend Lord Rooker made these wider constitutional points but most have ignored them. Frankly, we need a separate debate about the future of the House of Lords, maybe on the basis of a White Paper. Meanwhile, I am going to revert to the norm and follow everybody else and talk about composition.
This is a long-running story. Just before the last general election I was asked by somebody if it was really true that a Labour Government were going to democratise the House of Lords, and I assured them that it was absolutely clear and that Keir had committed us to it. I meant Keir Hardie, of course, because in those days we were supporting the Liberal Government in 1911 and, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, reminded us we are now 113 years on.
We need now to recognise the part of the Labour Party manifesto not in the Bill now in the Commons. We are not only abolishing hereditary Peers but abolishing life Peers, as we all have to retire at 80. I do not object to that. I would have preferred a fixed-term cut-off point but we ought to enact that proposition at the same time as we are getting rid of the hereditaries or shortly thereafter. I do not object to it although it will get rid of me and a lot of my colleagues here and across the House.
It is actually 31 years since I joined the House— John Major was the Prime Minister—and the reason I am here is that Tony Blair wanted me moved from a previous position. He then gave me a number of very decent jobs in this House and I have very much enjoyed it. But that indicates that not only the hereditaries but every single one of us has no legitimacy in a way that would be understood in any other democratic country in the world. We are all here on historic anomalies, and if we are going to change this we need to change the lot of it and do that fairly rapidly.
I remember when I first came into the House, I thought it was going to be done fairly quickly. I saw that my first pass went into the 21st century and thought I would not need it that long because the Labour Government would clearly enact a new form of the House of Lords within their first or second term. But when it came to 1999 I was very disappointed—my noble friend Lord Liddle referred to this—when the deal was done to retain a proportion of the hereditaries and follow that up with by-elections. I remember the phone call from my noble friend Lady Jay, who was then Leader, and being astounded that we had made such a deal; we are still living with the consequences of it.
There have been various possibilities for change. I supported Jack Straw and the Labour Government’s proposition that it be a partly elected House. I supported the coalition’s proposals for a partly elected House and Nick Clegg’s proposals then, but nothing has happened. I have been deeply impressed by the contributions from a lot of hereditary Lords and from a lot of other noble Lords who came into the House of Lords through various nefarious ways; I have been friends and admirers of many of them. But we do not have the basic legitimacy of a Chamber in a modern democracy, and we need to work out what the second Chamber does.
In that time, we have also moved to being a quasi-federal state, plus having a degree of devolution within England as well. Most second Chambers in most democracies reflect the lower tiers of government within those democracies. The bulk of the membership of this House needs to be elected, directly or indirectly, by the chambers and regions of Britain. The time for that debate is not just to talk about hereditaries; it is to see what the role of this Chamber is in the long term, how our democracy is going to develop and where we are going. That will take a longer period. I will vote for the Bill when it comes through but it is only a partial solution, and we need a bigger-picture solution.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who lives up to his name in his speech. I rise in this Chamber, first, to acknowledge both the immense contribution of many Peers—including earls, dukes and viscounts—who are here today and have given many years of service to your Lordships’ House, as I do for those who have in the past.
Being still a newbie to this Chamber, it is with immense humility that I engage in a debate about reform of this House, which I appreciate has been ongoing for many years. However, I will lean on my personal experience, having joined this House just over a year ago. Since then, one question above all others has continuously been posed to me by family, friends and members of the public: “What do you do in the House of Lords?” To be honest, at first I was rather flummoxed by that question too. Yes, there are generic answers: we are the second Chamber; we are described as the best think tank in the world, due to the breadth and depth of expertise we all share. There is even the straight-bat response: we scrutinise the Government and improve legislation.
These answers more than miss the point. We expect that most people understand the detail of what Parliament does and so should have a general understanding of what we do—that they appreciate the detail and difference between the responsibility we carry in this Chamber and that of the other place. This is, sadly, wrong. Most people do not have a depth of understanding of this place. Why should they, for we have spent relatively precious little time explaining it? Again, I base my view on my own experience. So many people have a vague sense of who a Peer may be and what they may do, but where have they got those views from?
I suggest that, over decades, inaccurate assumptions, media reporting—some misreporting—and the occasional noteworthy achievement in legislation may have enabled this House to be visible in glimpses to broader society, but in an extremely patchy light. Ask a member of the general public what we do and generally they are flummoxed too. There are thousands of hours of debate—much more, I may add, than in the other place —hundreds of amendments to Bills and numerous evidence sessions and committee meetings, painstakingly reviewing Bills line by line, with sincere passion. We have cases made on knowledge gleaned over decades, in a vast array of industries and professions. I appreciate that, in speaking here, we do our best to shine a light on the efforts that we put in, but have we really done enough to project outwards the work done in this Chamber, and this House, so that the British people can genuinely feel aware of the role that we play?
We speak of reform. Do we speak from the basis of saying, “The public understand what we do; they want it, and who does it, changed”? I appreciate that all institutions should seek, for their own good, to assess their relevance, governance and structures on an ongoing basis—and yes, there are areas of this House that need to change. But let us also do the work of this House justice by doing more to bring people closer to what we do, why we do it and who we are. For example, we have heard about the size of this House many times in debate today. The figure of 800 is used to demonstrate how large or bloated this Chamber is but we are not all here each day, as has been acknowledged. If we are knowledgeable in our subjects and areas, we seek to invest time and effort on those topics, which means that, like subject-matter experts, we will take part in those activities. Is that so hard for us to explain?
There may be those whose attendance is less, but are we going to judge value by an attendance record or by the quality of the input when attending? I appreciate that there are more nuances to this debate, but we must do more to explain how this Chamber is meant to work, not how people assume it works.
I reiterate that my time here has been short so far, but I highlight the work of the Lord Speaker in leading and championing numerous engagement activities on behalf of this House, and the work of the communications team and its ever-increasing efforts using social media to raise awareness of our activities. But this is the tip of the iceberg, and we need to do much more.
The pace of change, the speed with which the digital world moves and the ways and means in which society adopts, adapts and understands have changed and will continue to do so, so we must change too. We should reform the House of Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, suggested so eloquently, we should use more technology to engage, to be more digital, to be more open and to have our work more visible. Then, if there is a case to change or even remove some or all of us, at least we can say it was done with full and best knowledge of the efforts we all put in to serve the people.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
Before I joined your Lordships’ House this year, I had little understanding of its role—like most people in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, said. I thought for a moment I was going to be enlightened by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but I think I am still slightly in the dark.
To make decisions on reform of this House, we need to think about exactly what the House’s role is and how it can complement the work of MPs in the other place and the civil servants who support government. I have been thinking, as people ask me what we do, about what in the last few months of my time in this House I have seen that we do really well. Where can we provide something that the other place does not? What are its problems and why are they occurring? What can we do to resolve them?
To start with the strengths—and there are some—the ability to go into depth and convene expertise in Select Committees is incredibly impressive. The House goes through legislation in real detail, as others have already said. People speak out about concerns and issues openly, respectfully and constructively in this Chamber. There is also the breadth of expertise and experience that Members of this House bring. When I talk to people and describe how Members range from farmers to pharmacologists, and from filmmakers to financial experts, they are genuinely surprised. We need to talk more about what we do and who we are in this Chamber. They are appreciative of what those different experiences can bring.
Members of the other place are chosen by local communities to represent the country geographically. That is not the purpose of your Lordships’ Chamber. This membership is representative of—or at least seeks to represent in different ways—professional and other life experiences. Of course, I recognise that we are in no way representative of life experience and professions in this country, but we can bring diverse experience. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, at its best this place brings a huge breadth of experience to help ensure that the Government’s legislation achieves its aims, is joined up and does not have unforeseen consequences for some people.
We have Members with very deep experience and long memories, some of which I have been benefiting from this evening, to help us learn from the past. With appointments that can last decades, we can take responsibility for considering long-term risks and planning. We do not seek short-term popularity. I was going to say that there is no incentive to kick the can down the road but, having heard this debate, I fear that there is one subject where we kick the can down the road.
What about problems? Everybody today has talked about the size of the House. I think that is linked to the way in which Members are appointed. It seems that every time a different party comes into government, it feels the need to appoint new Members to your Lordships’ House to achieve a majority. With lifelong membership, the result is obvious.
In order to solve that, while enhancing the benefits of long appointments and breadth of experience and expertise, my suggestion is to remove party politics from this Chamber altogether—to allow every Member to be a Cross-Bencher, and to speak and vote as they feel appropriate having listened to and considered the representations of other Members and the wider public. I realise that getting to speaker number 61 without anybody before me having mentioned this means that I am probably saying the unthinkable.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I am very interested in bringing more opinions from outside this House into its workings in a formalised way, learning from things that have been done in countries such as Taiwan. That way, we can truly listen more directly to the voices of the people we serve. If we have a non-party-political House, with only Government Ministers having a formal political position in the Chamber for the duration of their ministerial appointment, this removes the incentive for the continual growth of the House through political necessity.
On appointments to this Chamber, a lot can be learned from the study of the basis of trust—the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned trust. When you ask people why they do or do not trust a particular person, they regularly talk about a few things: competence, reliability, honesty and motivation. Do they have your best interests at heart, or their own? Those four criteria are not bad ones to use to guide the selection of those who serve in this House. An independent appointments board that keeps an eye on the representativeness of this House’s experience could help to ensure that we have a second Chamber that can fulfil an important and trusted role within our democracy. But we should also formally and properly consult the public on different proposals for the reform of this House, just as we should on all issues that we debate.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the Leader of the House for introducing the debate. She and I have always had the most cordial of relations. I have been in this situation before, in the 1997 Parliament, but I survived it by becoming an elected hereditary Peer—although, of course, I had a plan B. Now, in the face of not just the Bill but a constant stream of very unfair comments about the House and its membership generally, all my motivation to undertake the role of Peer of the realm and Member of your Lordships’ House has been steadily corroded away, to the extent that I have now decided that I want to retire in the spring—and I am two years younger than the average age in your Lordships’ House. I need a lot of persuasion to do otherwise.
It is no good my friends around the House saying, “Don’t worry, you’ll pick up a life peerage”, as has been suggested in the debate. The chances of that happening to me are inversely proportional to the size of my independent streak and my lack of admiration of post-2016 Conservative Administrations—even though I think I am a proper Tory. As pointed out by many noble Lords, many outside comment on the composition of the House of Lords without considering its role, which is largely accepted to be to revise legislation, to be an additional check on the Executive and to be a source of expertise—that last part is extremely important.
When we read the post-US election analysis, we see that the Democrats failed to grasp that the US electorate were fed up with professional politicians who have limited experience of the real world and who inhabit only the Washington beltway. In the House of Commons, a minority of members of the Government, and perhaps even the House generally, have ever had a proper revenue-earning job.
The international security situation is dire—we now have state-on-state conflict in Europe. But research from your Lordships’ Library indicates that only about 17 Members of the House of Commons have any military experience, and only three have operational overseas aid experience. Only one MP, Alex Ballinger, has both. Of course, several of the current hereditary Peers have military experience, and one has both. No prizes, but it is sometimes said that Attlees are modest people with much to be modest about—but when the Bill comes into effect we will have no one in this House with both operational military and operational international aid experience.
It is curious to me that, in 32 years in your Lordships’ House, I have never been asked by the media what I am actually doing or working on. One current issue is prison reform, which, with the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is going rather well. The other is very niche, so far as Parliament is concerned. We have about 600,000 professional lorry drivers in the UK, and 400,000 heavy goods vehicles. The problem that I am dealing with is that a very few police forces are harassing the heavy haulage industry in circumstances where other police forces do no such thing. To do this work, I need to bring to bear practical experience of heavy road haulage operations—and this is important. It is something that no one else in Parliament possesses.
Once the remaining hereditary Peers are eliminated, the remaining life Peers will find themselves coming under increasing pressure in terms of composition of the House—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others. This is because the political Benches will be filled largely with party apparatchiks with varying levels of experience, party donors, and MPs who have left the House of Commons in a variety of circumstances. Most importantly, they will all owe their position in the Lords to knowing someone in the Westminster bubble, something that is not necessary for a hereditary. No wonder the House of Lords has been described as being “hideously London-centric”.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that I shall not apply for an HGV licence—I am getting a little too crabbed with age for that.
It is difficult to add anything new to the debate that we have had since 1999, and of course today’s debate shows it. Having waited so long, I am tempted to intervene at least briefly. During that period, all options have been considered, and of course rejected, since the big bang of 1999. There have been some minor changes, with proposals on retirement, expulsion and so on, but even when there has been a consensus in your Lordships’ House and generally, such as on the Burns report, it has been rejected. I have heard many pleas this evening for yet further delay.
While we debate, numbers have increased, of course. Your Lordships’ House now has 804 Members, and the Conservatives have 86 more than the government party, Labour. I warned Mr Johnson’s Government that by recklessly increasing numbers he would provoke a counterreaction, and that perhaps is now the danger.
Even when I was in the House of Commons I voted against an elected Chamber. Why? I saw it as a recipe for conflict and that both legitimacies would challenge one another. There would be the danger of losing some expertise. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, called the “warriors’ Bench”. There is too little practical military experience in your Lordships’ House, and we should seek to retain that.
The problem also is, if there were to be elections, we would be unlikely to see professionals wishing to join and seeking places on a party list. An elected House would be more partisan because of the process of election, and more parochial. I note that, when the Labour Peers’ working group produced a report in 2014, it suggested that there should be a referendum on an elected Chamber. They also talked about a constitutional convention. What is the Government’s policy on that?
Currently, the Government have brought forward very limited changes. They can of course make some hereditaries life Peers, or even delay their expulsion, but their removal is likely, which will reduce overall numbers and the imbalance for the Conservatives. As for the retirement age, why not combine this with a fixed term, particularly now that we are seeing more appointments at the age of 30 or so?
What are the principles for moving forward? We wish to retain the expertise and quality of scrutiny, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, mentioned, post-legislative scrutiny. We must deal with the inflation of numbers, perhaps using the Burns formula. We must reform the appointments procedures, perhaps again following the Norton Bill of 2022. We must eliminate the bias in favour of London and the south-east, and perhaps bring the devolved Administrations into the process. Diversity means that we should reduce the number of Bishops and add other faiths and denominations, but we should be careful of unintended consequences, such as an unthinking move to disestablishment or to a written constitution.
Overall, I support the Government’s gradualist approach, which is a step on the road to what I concede is an unknown destination, broadening down from precedent to precedent, as the old adage goes. As someone who is likely to die, at least politically, as a result of the Bill, and likely to be a victim of the process, I salute the Government’s proposals.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for her introduction and for the opportunity to consider House of Lords reform. There are many matters to which a new Government might apply reformist zeal: the public services, the public finances and the UK immigration and asylum system could all do with structural reform, as people from across the political divide agree. But the arrangements for Britain’s separate constitutional powers are not of the same order. They have evolved over time, like a tapestry reworked and mended to fulfil a clear purpose—a function, as has been mentioned—and, in doing so, to protect the democratic freedoms of this country and the liberty of its people.
As we have heard today, there are three powers. There is the legislature, a Parliament of two Houses, of which this House is one and the other is a directly elected Chamber. There is a judiciary recognised for its independence and expertise. It, with this Chamber, is the watchdog of the third power, the Executive—the Government of the day, accountable to the electorate, through the ballot box, and indirectly through Parliament, under arrangements for each House, which, with their functions, have also evolved. Innocuous as they may seem, these arrangements ensure not only that people are governed under laws they have a say in making, by a Parliament and representatives they elect, but that those who govern are accountable and the laws are properly made. Changing the composition of this Chamber, removing certain categories of Peer without simultaneous plans for the alternative, opens the way for a House of Lords packed by the Government and unlikely to hold them to account. We would be back full circle to the cry of Lloyd George and the Liberals when they described the House of Lords as “Mr Balfour’s poodle” only this time it will be Sir Keir’s, and we have had a flavour of how executive power will be used.
This country has slipped into each century as if by accident, evolving gradually and, from the 18th century, without the violence, civil war or bloody revolutions to which our European neighbours have too often been victim. Nor has it suffered totalitarian rule, to which some neighbours have been subject in our own hundred years. The costs of that were great, not only to ordered government but in the assault on liberty and property rights. By contrast, this country, through its separate constitutional powers, extended the franchise, moved to religious and democratic arrangements and accommodated the replacement of the main opposition party, the Liberals, with the Labour Party as one of the main parties of government. When it came to govern, the Labour Party put country before ideology, accepted the arrangements under which it was governed and sought to work with the constitution, guaranteeing freedoms and liberty, not against it.
The Prime Minister has already mentioned regret at some of the failings evident in his first 100 days. Let him now turn the corner and be true to a better Labour tradition, rather than make an assault without due process on how we are governed and why. I hope he will think again before making this reckless move.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor.
On 13 October 2022, I won a Cross-Bench by-election by one vote, causing the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to describe me as the least safe seat in the country. I think he followed that by saying you could not make it up. There was 70% turnout and single transferable vote—democracy at its finest. Unfortunately, I was keenly aware that all 12 candidates and the electorate of 30 were all men, not exactly representative of the UK as a whole. Like my noble friend Lord Devon, I was also keenly aware that, as the seventh Baron Hampton—I am the youngest of three and my father was the youngest of four—an estimated 16 females had been bypassed in the passing on of the title.
It is difficult to justify, although some noble Lords have made a pretty good fist of it. However, it is the only way that a working secondary school teacher could get into the House of Lords. The head of an academy trust? Yes. An ex-Education Minister? Certainly. That is what I do, as do many of my noble friends among the hereditaries. We have some quite real jobs.
The House of Lords fundamentally works but needs a few tweaks. The age debate is strange to me. Why would you get rid of all this expertise? As many noble Lords have said, why not give HOLAC more power and let it decide? Obviously, the hereditary Peer by-elections would have to go, but those deemed useful and who had done good work could be turned into life Peers. This fulfils the manifesto pledge. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others have said, all prime ministerial and party appointments should be stopped. HOLAC should have powers over who gets appointed. New appointments could be capped—two out, one in, perhaps—to bring the numbers down under the Burns principle. The numbers could be judged on the last general election. Cross-Bench numbers could be in line with the Official Opposition. Also, as we have said many times, all those who commit serious breaches should go.
Regardless of age, every Peer should have a seven-year fixed term, but they can reapply to HOLAC, if it feels that they have been useful. That decision is based on expertise and performance in committees and legislation, rather than just speeches—because let us face it, we do not necessarily need to encourage more speeches. This might get rid of the captains of industry, the captains of England and the party donors who turn up only one day a year to retain their right to sit.
The House of Lords is a House of experts. These changes that will weaken the House are driven by some doctrinal need to please an electorate that really do not know or care about reform of the House. Strangely, they are also being touted as a way of cleaning up politics. This is not stagnation—only 59.7% of the electorate bothered to turn up to vote in the last general election to get rid of a deeply unpopular Government. The interest in this House is negligible. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked, “Do you hear the people sing, my Lords?” Me neither.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I am very much in a minority on these Benches, in that I very much oppose an elected House of Lords for a whole host of reasons. It would destroy the relationship between both Houses, where we acknowledge the primacy of the other House. It would inevitably cost more and become much more party-political, certainly around candidate selection.
I favour an appointed House, but with a major change. My change would satisfy the urging by the Leader of the House for us to be ambitious and would satisfy my leader, who in his excellent opening speech—although I did not agree with elements of it—suggested bringing in contemporary expertise. My approach would be to reduce substantially the number of political appointments and to look to our national institutions and professional bodies—perhaps the top 50 or 100, such as the Royal College of Surgeons, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the National Farmers’ Union, the TUC, the Museums Association, the Howard League for Penal Reform, et cetera—to nominate one of their senior members to sit for a limited period in this House for, say, five years as an unaffiliated or Cross-Bench Peer. They not only would speak on their area of expertise but would agree to take part in the wider debates and activities of our House. At the end of five years, the respective bodies would then nominate someone to succeed that person.
This system would have two advantages. First, it would bring in, almost by definition, current expertise. Secondly, it would also bring in an element of democracy, as the individuals chosen by those institutions and professional bodies would by definition have been chosen by their peers. I believe that this major change would satisfy so many of the weaknesses that currently apply to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an excepted hereditary Peer who already suffered the fate of expulsion from this House in 1999.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of my fellow hereditaries—although I think that we are broad-minded enough to agree—and at the risk of agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and the Labour Party manifesto, in my view the principle of heredity is indefensible. However, what I am afraid I do not agree with, as many of your Lordships do not, is the “incremental” change that the Leader of the House described. It seems that many of your Lordships feel that this sort of change is politically motivated.
We have heard comments that it is clumsy, heavy-handed, cruel and unkind in not recognising the valuable contribution that existing hereditaries make and should continue to make. We have also heard that it is not what was agreed by the previous Labour Government 25 years ago: that removing the remaining hereditaries would not be done incrementally. What was, in effect, agreed by large majorities in both Houses in 1999 was that it would not be done until a complete alternative had been agreed on.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, went on to say that the nation is not interested in what we are debating today. First of all, nor is the nation interested in much of the business that your Lordships carry out, but nevertheless we do that unglamorous work because it has to be done, and we do it in more detail and with more diligence because the other place cannot. One thing I can say with certainty is that there is not the fascination across the nation that the party opposite has with wholesale reform of this House. I heard a parliamentary colleague comment to me just today that in his whole career he had knocked on over 60,000 doors, and not once was House of Lords reform mentioned.
The Labour manifesto also went on to say, as was reiterated by the Leader in her opening statement, that:
“Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them”.
Many of your Lordships are deeply troubled that there has not been any consultation on the Bill now before Parliament, and that it has effectively been signed, sealed and delivered in the other place.
I will use this opportunity to try and take this all back to first principles: what is the House of Lords for? Does the nation want your Lordships to carry on the principle that has been built up over centuries, in a way that can happen only in a nation that relies on a constitution founded on convention and common law? Does it want the House to be a Chamber, often free of political bias, to review and revise legislation passed to it by the Government and the other place? That is effective check and balance, the cornerstone of democratic structures.
I now turn to the process of change and how should one go about managing change, and offer just a couple of observations. Here I turn to the corporate world and governance in public bodies. Boards are convened according to a skills matrix. In my view, that is how a second Chamber should be constituted, through a properly established and empowered appointments commission, free from political influence. However, with a board of effectively 600 people, far deeper and broader expertise can be sought, and to address the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and other noble Lords’ suggestions around term limits, I suggest that any limits should take into account a desire not to lose deep corporate memory, something that besets every corporate and public board.
Then, as many of your Lordships have also addressed, we have to look at how that body is constituted: elected or appointed? Many of your Lordships have grave concerns that having another elected and therefore politicised Chamber will lead only to further short-termism at the heart of our legislative process. The other advantage that this House has in a long-term appointment—in this case, life—is the ability to think long-term, also bringing with it a lifetime’s experience and deep expertise. We could also opt for a hybrid Chamber, part elected and part appointed, to enable deep knowledge and experience to be woven into what might otherwise be highly politicised decision-making. The issue then is what transitional arrangements would need to be undertaken.
I conclude by echoing what many other noble Lords have said: that when brought before this House, it will be the wrong Bill for the wrong time. We need more time to analyse what the nation actually wants. I respectfully request that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House takes back to her colleagues in Cabinet these and other concerns that your Lordships have brought before this House in this often lively but deeply informative debate.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, in a debate where roles and conventions have been constantly referred to, I know my role as the penultimate Back-Bench speaker: to get on with it.
I support my Government’s policy and Lords reform, and I congratulate the Leader of the House on her elegant introduction. However, as the third member of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House —we have already heard from the chairman the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—I have to say that I am disappointed that, as a House, we could not have taken this reform into our own hands years ago. The report from the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House was published in 2017 and has been updated every year since. As noble Lords have said, it concluded that, if the House agreed, we would work to
“reduce the size of the House”—
two out, one in—
“and maintain a cap of 600 members into the future”.
It went on to say that the proposal would have provided
“sufficient turnover of members to refresh the House and rebalance it in line with general elections over time, while also guaranteeing a sizeable fixed proportion of independent Crossbench peers”,
as well as a beefed-up HOLAC.
These proposals were supported by a significant majority of the House and would have gradually reformed it without the need for legislation. However, the then Conservative Government’s response was unenthusiastic, to say the least, and ultimately unhelpful. With the honourable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, Conservative Prime Ministers were unwilling to open up the discussion on the prime ministerial prerogative in appointments to this House. I really do think that, had the previous Government agreed to support the logic of the Lord Speaker’s proposals and my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Private Member’s Bill, we would not find ourselves in the present situation, as my noble friend Lord Murphy said.
We all have friends and colleagues across party and non-party lines in this House. We will of course be sorry to see people whom we like, respect and look forward to seeing each week leave us. However, the Labour Party’s manifesto, on which a decisive electoral victory was won, could not have been clearer, as was alluded to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington: it was to introduce legislation immediately to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I hope that, despite feelings running high—I understand this—the Government’s right to enact that manifesto commitment will be respected in this House.
I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord True, said that he respects manifesto commitments. Looking to future legislation, I say that it will be important for this House to work together, across party lines, on new reform; this was said by the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Norton of Louth. I look forward to that collaboration very soon.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, from the perspective of being at the tail-end on the Back Benches, I can truly say that this has been a far more interesting debate than I thought it would be when I saw the speakers’ list this morning. This debate is about a great House of Parliament—one that has, I would argue, held its reputation for seriousness, scrutiny and revision. Today’s debate has proven that. As my noble friend Lord Wakeham said earlier this afternoon, the House of Lords does what it is supposed to do; we have done that today in debating this issue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said earlier, we are here today only because of the Bill before another place, but what he sees as a virtue I see as a dismal failure—namely, the failure of the Government to keep their word to the House, made 25 years ago, that the remaining hereditary Peers would leave when a proper reform was enacted. I clearly remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, happily agreeing to the by-elections because, as he said then, they would never happen because the Government would bring forward a proper reform Bill early in the new Parliament; that is why the by-elections would not take place until the second Session of the subsequent Parliament. Of course, as we all now know, there was no second reform Bill.
Here we are, 25 years later, with Labour’s tired old ideological song about removing the right of the hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, yet there is still no proper reform, and no thought, and Labour seeks to blame us for its failure.
What is the way forward? I am one of the few people in Parliament who was part of a process that successfully brought a full reform Bill before another place. In 2012, the House of Lords Reform Bill passed its Second Reading on an overwhelming vote, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, reminded us, but fell because Labour would not co-operate on a timetable Motion. I sat on two Joint Committees, one chaired by Jack Straw and one successfully by Nick Clegg, building on straw. It was cross-party, both Houses were represented, it was focused, and it came ultimately to an agreement that was reflected in the Bill that was presented.
I believe that the only credible motivator for reform is the existence of hereditary Peers. I urge the Government to reconvene a Joint Committee of both Houses—we have seen how it worked in the past—to sit and come up with a proper plan that reflects well on democracy and our democratic traditions, and maintains the House’s reputation for excellence. So much has changed since 1999 that we can take account of—the new devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the new metro mayors in England and the GLA. We should look at the case for direct or indirect elections from these bodies and see how representation in the Lords can be improved.
I sense a dilemma at the heart of the speech by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. She said that the Lords is complementary and an asset to the Commons—and I agree—and that it has deep historical roots. But she was afraid of being seen to do nothing. Surely doing nothing is better than deeply damaging the Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, warned. Of course, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House promised further reform—participation, age limits, tighter appointment systems and so on—but I have no faith whatever that any of that will happen once the Bill has passed. I am with my noble friend Lord Forsyth on that.
Surely there are better ways of going forward, such as the example set in 1922 when the new Irish Peers were stopped from coming here but the old ones could stay on until they died.
On that note, from time to time we hear that there will be life peerages for some hereditary Peers, such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, and my noble friend Lord Howe, but why is all this secret? Why can the Minister not tell us, in this quiet of the night, exactly what the Labour Party has planned and remove the threat of immediate execution from these Peers?
The Bill has passed in another place this evening without any serious debate. We shall have to wait for the Bill to come to our House to give it proper and full scrutiny. I finish with a plea to the noble Baroness. If we have 50-plus speakers at Second Reading, can we please have a two-day debate and not be limited to five minutes?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—the second Lord Strathclyde—who has the distinction of having one of the last hereditary peerages created, which was in 1955 for his grandfather. This was three years before the Life Peerages Act and nine years before Governments stopped providing hereditary peerages. A little later and his grandfather would have been a life Peer, and he would be a very distinguished commoner.
We have to be careful not to romanticise our hereditary peerages. There are Courtenays and Wellesleys, but only 29 Peers survived the Wars of the Roses—the noble Earl’s family was lucky—and the majority of extant Peers have been created since 1832, and nearly half since 1900. What distinguishes life Peers from hereditary Peers is that we have received direct prime ministerial patronage, while most hereditary Peers have received patronage from their grandfathers or great-grandfathers.
There is a wider context which we need to consider: the depth of public disillusionment with Westminster politics as a whole and with democratic politics, as we see in this country, have just seen in the United States and are seeing on the European continent. Public trust, as measured by polls, has sunk to between and 5% and 10% of the public, which is the lowest ever recorded since polling began. In July’s election, as other Peers have remarked, more than four out of every 10 registered voters did not bother to turn up and vote. Of those who did, 40% voted for parties other than the two on which our entrenched two-party system is built. That is dangerous, and means that we all need to think about how we rebuild public trust.
As for the Lords, as YouGov polled recently, 14% of people had a positive view of the House, 42% had a negative view, and 33% did not bother. Asked what reform of the House of Lords they preferred, 16% said that it should remain as now, 39% said that a partly elected and partly appointed House would do, and 55% said that they wanted an entirely elected House.
We need to recognise what public legitimacy means for Parliament as a whole. We need to think about Parliament as a whole, and I regret that we keep hearing these arguments about the primacy of the House of Commons. I was listening to a newly elected Labour MP last week, who told me how appalled he is by the way he is treated by his Whips and by how Ministers patronise him and his colleagues. Prime ministerial primacy is what we have, disguised as the primacy of the Commons. If we are going have a strong democracy, we will need a stronger Parliament—both Houses together, not just maintaining prime ministerial primacy of the Commons and then Commons primacy over the Lords.
If we are going to discuss broader reform, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that we have an awful lot of material—I still have a lot of it in my study from the 2010 to 2012 period. It is good that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has reminded us just how much work we put in and—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord True—how much was done jointly through various Joint Committees. There were wide consultations. The proposals were for a statutory appointments commission; an end to the link between the honour, title and membership of the Lords; and 360 elected Members, with 90 appointed, 12 Bishops, 8 Ministers and a 15-year term.
We can start from there; that is a good foundation on which there is, I suspect, general agreement. We are more likely to get something like that by compromising consensus than most of the alternatives. Some people would say no to direct election, but indirect election, which several Members here have suggested, might be an alternative. The Gordon Brown proposals touched on this also.
As I spend my time commuting between Yorkshire and London, I am deeply conscious of the London dominance of British politics and the weakness of the English regions in representation in Parliament and in government. A second Chamber which represents the nations and regions would be extremely beneficial for the quality of our government.
We talk about balance, but no one has really tackled the question of the imbalance of party representation, which is a legacy of the last Government. We have, after all, nearly 100 more Conservative Peers in this House than Labour. I had half hoped that the Leader of the Opposition would start informal discussions with the Government about some scheme for voluntary retirement of some of the older Conservatives, just to come back towards a balance. Part of the agreement we came to in 1999, which I was on the edges of as part of my party, was not just that we would have temporary by-elections and then further reform but that, in the interim, neither of the major parties would seek to have an overall majority of Peers. That part of the agreement has now clearly been broken, and that is part of the justification for the current proposals.
That is where we are, and we now have a very modest first step. I say to the Leader of the House: we need to be reassured. We on these Benches want to go a great deal further towards a fully reformed second Chamber, and want to know where we are going next. We are told that there will be consultation, that we will perhaps move towards term limits for new appointments, and that there will be a stronger HOLAC, as many noble Lords have said, and we are willing to support much of that. We certainly wish to be involved in conversations on it, but we need to keep going. The sense from this debate is that most of us accept that this is a necessary next step, but it should not be the only step for the next 20 years. It should be the first step in a number of things that will take place not in this Session but in this Parliament.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for making this debate possible.
I quote:
“There is a place with a proud record of standing up to government. It works diligently and thanklessly to improve legislation. It applies expertise to policy … It acts with a seriousness that is absent almost anywhere else in the political system. It is the House of Lords … through a strange combination of circumstances, the Lords has developed into something unusual in the British political landscape: a functioning chamber. It is, simply put, one of the only aspects of our constitutional arrangements that actually works”.
I am, as some noble Lords will be aware, quoting the recent work of the political commentator Ian Dunt—not known for his conservative tendencies.
Can the House of Lords be improved? Of course it can. There is no part of our political system that could not lend itself to improvement in the face of carefully conceived and properly considered examination.
This Government’s expressed intention is to replace the House of Lords with a second Chamber of the regions and nations. A number of your Lordships have alluded to this proposal. I will not spend too much time on it, principally because it is not going to happen during the life of this Parliament and is unlikely to happen during my own lifetime, assuming that to be a longer timeline. I observe, however, that the House of Lords is an integral part of the legislature for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not an assembly of regions and nations, all of which have their own devolved competence. Of course we should be representative of our whole United Kingdom, but not just in terms of geography.
Pending its plan to replace the House of Lords, the Labour Party set out in its manifesto its proposal for immediate reform, which it described as “essential”. This has been touched on during this debate and is expressed by the Government as the requirements for “immediate modernisation”. I believe it important to actually look at the terms of that manifesto, because the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, quoted only one part of the immediate proposal for reform, and repeated references have been made to the importance of the Salisbury/Addison convention.
As noble Lords will be aware, at page 108 of its manifesto the Labour Party stated its proposal for “immediate modernisation” and followed it with this comment:
“Whilst this action to modernise the House of Lords will be an improvement, Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords”.
So what is this “action to modernise”? I quote:
“The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.
Labour will ensure all peers meet the high standards the public expect of them, and we will introduce a new participation requirement as well as strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed. We will reform the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments and will seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber”.
That is the manifesto proposal for immediate reform of the House of Lords, pending the longer-term proposal —not simply the removal of the excepted Peers. What we have is the removal of the right of the excepted Peers, who are otherwise here for life, to sit in the House of Lords, a mandatory retirement age of 80, a new participation requirement, the removal of disgraced Members—I do not note any noble Lord having spoken against that proposal, so I do not see why it should not go ahead immediately—and reform of the appointments process to ensure the quality of appointments. I acknowledge that all the foregoing are capable of being done immediately, and the implication that they can be done together is, of course, compelling. As the previous Labour Government repeatedly asserted when faced with Private Members’ Bills such as those of Lord Steel, which addressed only some of these issues, the removal of excepted Peers or their elections could take place only as part of wider reform of the House of Lords.
In order of importance, the list from the Labour manifesto must surely begin with the urgent need to reform the appointments process. Where else in the world does the Executive, in the form of the Prime Minister, effectively determine the membership of the legislature? Montesquieu would be spinning in his grave. There are minor appointments that do not rely on the Prime Minister’s direct control—the Lords spiritual, the excepted Peers and the people’s Peers—but otherwise our Prime Minister is free to reward political success in the other place. Our Prime Minister is free to reward political failure in the other place. Our Prime Minister is free to reward anything that he puts his mind to, without us being able to essentially discover the underlying reason.
Consequently, how can you dispel the shadow of nepotism and the hint of cronyism—far greater, if unspoken, an issue than the excepted Peers? This point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, when he referred to the appointment of mates and pals, and by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when he talked about the executive takeover of Parliament. So we have an essential and important step to take immediately: how we deal with the appointment process.
The most immediate and urgent of Labour’s manifesto proposals is the modernisation of the Appointments Commission in order that it can effectively challenge Executive appointments. I note that one Prime Minister alone, Tony Blair, made 374 appointments to this House.
I used the word “reward”, and as the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, observed, that is not the purpose of this House. We are not here to see people arrive simply because they have been rewarded for whatever service they may have given. They should be here in order that they can participate in an important part of the legislature of the United Kingdom, and our objective should be to secure those who are able and, indeed, willing to participate in that legislative process. I notice in passing that in the past five years the highest rate of participation of any cohort in the House, whether attendance or participation in committees, has been that of the excepted Peers.
However, there is an urgent problem that needs to be immediately addressed. As expressed in the Labour manifesto:
“Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy”.
This, like the present system of appointment, is liable to bring the House into disrepute in the eyes of the public. It could be remedied immediately. We could adopt the policy of the Scottish Parliament Act 1572. If I might remind some of your Lordships who have forgotten its terms, this provided that every noble, every elected baron of the shire, and every elected commissioner of the royal burghs would be subject to a daily fine if they failed to attend Parliament without reasonable excuse. So, instead of a daily allowance, we might have a daily disallowance. More seriously, it would be a simple matter to immediately require all Peers upon appointment or already in the House to give a solemn undertaking of participation. If they declined, they should not be able to take a seat in this House, and they should not be able to vote. If they fail to adhere to the undertaking, again they should no longer be able to take their seat in this House, and they should not be able to vote. If noble Lords wish, as many do, to reduce the numbers who may sit in this House, I suggest that such an immediate move would probably reduce the numbers by hundreds almost overnight.
The matter of a retirement age is clearly regarded as controversial—I note the number of noble Lords who did not mention it in their contributions. Of course, it does not exist in the other place, and it would clearly remove some talent prematurely. I have to observe that we adhere to the notion that our judges are not competent to interpret and apply the law once they reach the age of 75, while we consider ourselves capable of making the law without any limit of time, so there may be an issue there for us to consider.
What has exercised people more than anything else is apparently the hereditary principle, which was only one part of the immediate reform proposed in the Labour manifesto. One noble Baroness referred to it as “ridiculous” and another noble Lord as “indefensible”. I simply notice that the hereditary principle is the pillar upon which sits our constitutional monarchy, so we must be a little careful about such generalisations as we have heard during this debate.
Why is it so criticised? The noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, referred to the work of Gordon Brown, and his report of 2022 lies behind much of what has been proposed here. His report concluded that the 92 excepted Peers could not remain as they were merely the representatives of the landowning class. He raises an interesting point about the idea of a particular class being represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may recall that Sidney Webb drafted the constitution of the Labour Party. When doing so, and in particular when drafting Clause 1, he was determined that workers should receive the proper reward for their labour, and that in order to do so they would have to secure representation in Parliament. That was the objective of the constitution of the Labour Party. So he intended that a class, the labouring class, should secure representation in Parliament. I wonder how that differs from the idea of the landowning class achieving representation in Parliament.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, suggests that there are more of the workers. He may be right, but of course we are a democracy, so we all have the right to be represented in Parliament.
Not a lot has changed since Sidney Webb drafted that constitution. I can think of only two changes. One was when Tony Blair sought the amendment of Clause 4 and the second was when the present Prime Minister could not remember what a worker was. On that second point, he might have gone back and read Sidney Webb, who made it very clear that a worker was someone who not only laboured with their muscle but laboured with their brain. So there is a definition out there that we can fall back on and use. In passing, I always thought it was interesting that Sidney Webb became the first Baron Passfield and therefore entered this House as a hereditary Peer.
The issues that we have debated, and which the Labour manifesto identifies as a prelude to the replacement of the House of Lords, are, as I say, capable of immediate and simple implementation. Why then have the Government departed from what their own manifesto described as the requirements for “immediate modernisation”, to contradict their own previous judgment and put forward only one, albeit pending, replacement of this House?
For example, do we need to delay strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed? I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House: if so, why? Do we need to delay reforming the appointments process in order that it is less opaque and open to abuse by the Executive? I ask the noble Baroness: if so, why? Do we need to delay the introduction of a much-needed participation requirement? I ask the noble Baroness: if so, why? Do we need to ignore the previous Labour Government’s stricture that the removal of excepted Peers should only be part of this wider reform and modernisation? I ask the noble Baroness: if so, why?
As many noble Lords observed, including the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Jones and Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lord Wrottesley, we are threatened with piecemeal reform. We have been threatened with that in the past; it is not an inviting proposition. All the points raised as essential and immediate in the Labour Party manifesto are capable of almost immediate and joint implementation. So I ask the noble Baroness the Leader: why is it that only one aspect of that essential Labour manifesto commitment is taken in the Bill? Would it be so difficult to address the issue of disgraced Peers, the issue of participation and the issue of appointment, which is so critical to the independence of this House as part of the legislature rather than as the poodle of the Executive?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s rather long debate. It has been a significant debate. It has been wide-ranging and largely very thoughtful. We have also had a very wide range of views. I am aware that some noble Lords are fairly new to the debate and new to the House, but others have been round this circle a number of times and have enormous expertise. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for his contribution today, given the expertise he has brought to this issue, and I know the work he has done the past.
I want to try and address as many of the points raised by noble Lords in the time I have. I stress, as I did in my opening comments, that this is not the end of the conversation or the debate on this and we are listening to comments made. I will address first why the hereditary Peers Bill, which has been introduced and now passed in the other place, was the first item. A number of noble Lords misquoted the manifesto today but the immediate issues brought up were the legislation around the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The manifesto then went on talk about what has also happened. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, can shake his head, but that is exactly true: it is what is in the manifesto. It is very clear in the manifesto that the first stage is about hereditary Peers. Why would that be the case? Why would that be the first item to be addressed? The reason is that the principle on that issue has already been established and acted on back in 1999 when the legislation went through.
Transitional arrangements were put in place a quarter of a century ago. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others say how there was a really engaging process at the time. I think others remember it slightly differently. Viscount Cranborne managed to do a deal—I have to say I admire his negotiating skills—where 92 hereditary Peers remained, and not only did they remain but if they left there was a by-election to replace them. That is extraordinary and I pay tribute to him. I have to say that his party did not really like it and he did not last very long after that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was a beneficiary of his departing from his position. That is where we are at the moment. But in the idea that this would not be the first step in the current reforms when the principle is already established, I think the noble and learned Lord is being a little bit mischievous and he knows it.
I will comment first on the opening speakers from the main groups. I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for his comments about the spirit of compromise. I do wish, when I had come to see him before on the Grocott Bill in the spirit of compromise, he had taken that same line there. We may not be where we are today had that been the case. He will recall, as will previous Leaders, that I offered to co-operate on that and help the Government see that legislation removing the by-elections through.
By not doing that, we get to the point where we take the same position. We have heard this time and again from the party opposite tonight: “Do not do anything unless you do everything. We do not know what everything is so let us do nothing”. I am sorry but that is not a sustainable position and—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
On this occasion, I will take one more intervention, given even the lateness of the hour and the lack of opportunity to progress with my argument.
Lord True (Con)
I was really trying to help the noble Baroness guide her argument because it is not the first step that the House is interested in; it is the final step. What do the Government propose that this House should do and what should it be? Will she please tell the House?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have to urge patience on the noble Lord. I am at the start of my comments on the debate and the noble Lord seeks to intervene on me within a few minutes. I would urge him to have a bit of caution and patience, but I want to raise another point. He said that this was sprung on us; how utterly ridiculous. It has been 25 years; it was in the manifesto; it was a major part of his comments and those of others on the King’s Speech. This was not sprung. I wrote an article saying, as I have said in the House on many occasions, that if the by-elections continued this would have been a consequence of that. The option was there to stop the by-elections. One noble Lord—I cannot remember who—said that we have stopped the by-elections now. No, we have only paused them until the conclusion of this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, had great strength in his arguments. There was consistency of principle but pragmatism as well. He asked whether I still held the view that the House worked best when there were roughly equal numbers between the government party and the Opposition. That is a personal view which I expressed in a Select Committee that he and I both attended. It is hard to get to those exact numbers, but when you have such a great imbalance as there has been over the last few years, the House does not do its best work. I think the House works better with roughly equal numbers. I will return to that in a moment.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his very thoughtful and helpful comments. He has been instrumental in bringing forward papers to look at the conventions of the House over the last year or so, and I am grateful to him for his time on that. He was also the first to try to put some detail on the issue of participation. As I said when I opened, I think we all have an innate understanding of what we mean but quantifying that is quite difficult. I am grateful to him for looking to do so and for his comments on laws and conventions.
A number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Forsyth, Lord Mancroft and Lord Inglewood—talked about there being a power grab for parties on this. It is quite right that, in recent times, no political party has had an overall majority in this House. That is the right way for us to operate; it will not be changed at all by the Bill that has now been completed in the other place. That will not change as a result. If we look at the statistics of how we operate, currently the Conservatives have 34% of your Lordships’ House; after the Bill being implemented, that would be 32%. On my side, currently 22% of the House are Labour Peers; after the hereditary Peers are removed, it will be just 24%. In fact, the party that gets closest to being reflected most accurately is the Liberal Democrats. There will be very little difference between that party’s representation here and in the other place.
I also gently—or perhaps not so gently—remind noble Lords that after 12 years of a Labour Government, there were 24 more Labour Peers than the Conservative Party had. After 14 years of the Conservative Party in government, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour had. When I hear weaselly words such as, “We’ve got to stop this Prime Minister making appointments”, I ask: why was that never considered prior to the Bill being introduced?
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked what the Government’s view is of the size and composition. He was right to raise that but the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made a very valid point, which I accept. There is little sense in the House reducing its size, by whatever means, if that is not a sustainable position to hold. I will take that away and reflect on it because the noble Lord is right.
We also have to ask: why do we think a smaller House would be the right thing? There has to be the purpose first, which is not having a smaller House. The purpose is to be more effective in how we operate and what we do. The representations I have had from across the House, from almost every noble Lord who has been to see me, is that they think we would do this better with a smaller House. Indeed, some noble Lords who have since departed said to me that they felt as the House got bigger, they were less able to make the contributions that they wanted to make. It is absolutely right that if Members leave the House, that should not necessarily be to create a vacancy for more appointments.
The manifesto talked about retirement age and participation. I am keen to engage further on this and I am grateful to noble Lords who commented on how that could be implemented. A number of issues were raised and I will take those forward. A point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was that one reason the House has become so large is that you have Members coming in but not departing. He sought to look at that at the time of his report. I think that the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Inglewood, made similar comments.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Liddle, raised something that has been raised before: decoupling the title and the membership of the second Chamber. There is no doubt that, when noble Lords are given a title, it is recognition of work they have done in the past. But it also has to be an expectation of what they are going to do in the future and the contributions they will make. The two go hand in hand. We want to see an active membership. As I said, that does not mean that every Peer has to be here all day every day. We are a full-time House. Not every Member has to be full-time, but they have to make a commitment to the work of this place.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, raised the issue—I think it is an interesting point—of devolved Governments’ First Ministers being offered peerages. The SNP of course does not nominate people to this House. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was that, where there are institutions in which you can make your voice heard, you should do so. I think her party takes a very different position from—I say this in the loosest form—its sister party in Scotland on that one. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, was the First Minister of Scotland: currently he is the only one from our party. Other parties have made nominations as well. But I think it is a point well made. We want a more diverse House, in terms of a whole range of characteristics, including geography but also age, gender, ethnicity, religion and other issues as well.
A number of noble Lords raised participation. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his initial comments on this. I would quite like to have further discussions around the House on this as I do not think there is a consensus on how to move forward. My impression, from the conversations I have had, is that most noble Lords think that this is important, but no one can actually quantify it. What you do not want—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said this—is a perverse incentive to encourage people to turn up or speak when they do not need to speak. But you do want to know that someone is serious about being here.
All of us have expressed concern about those noble Lords—albeit a small number of them—who come in here, sign the book to retain their membership and then walk out and leave. That is not being serious about this House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is good to have some encouragement from the noble Lord; it is not always forthcoming.
This comes back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made about whether there could be two kinds of title. There are difficulties with that, but I think it is something noble Lords might want to consider. In the manifesto we deliberately were not exact or precise about that. We thought it was something to be discussed by the House and for the House to come forward with something on that. It is about striking the right balance.
I think most noble Lords have spoken in support of the Bill that is going through the House of Commons but have made a number of other comments. Some want us to go further, some sense that it is a first step in the current programme and some are not comfortable with it.
The issue of some Conservative hereditary Peers becoming life Peers was raised. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, raised the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. He is absolutely right; we have to ensure they can properly fulfil all their duties. I have already raised this with the Lord Speaker to ensure that that can happen. We will do nothing that makes it difficult for them to fulfil their responsibilities and constitutional roles. He does not have to table an amendment: we will ensure that happens. I can give him a guarantee already on that one. They will continue to exercise their functions.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor—who has explained to me why he is unable to be with us for the wind-ups today—the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised female succession to hereditary titles. The noble Earl and I have been in correspondence on this. I am sympathetic to his points. It is more complex than I had anticipated. I have made some initial inquiries in this area, and part of the problem is that the original writs of summons—his is much older than anybody else’s—specify that it is through the male line. There are all kinds of issues, including adoption and the expectations of existing heirs. As I say, I am looking into the matter, as he raised it with me, because I know he is interested in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said that the removal of the hereditary Peers in that Bill was to clean up politics—that is absolutely not the case. Those are two very different issues, and no one is casting aspersions on individual hereditary Peers.
HOLAC was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Cromwell. They are absolutely right that there are issues with how HOLAC operates. I am not content to leave this entirely to HOLAC; the political parties have to take responsibility for their appointments and the checks that they are supposed to do. There may be something about HOLAC asking for assurances that those checks have been done. There are discussions to be had on that. HOLAC has an important role for the Cross Benches, which have not always had the appointments that they should have in that regard—even though they are currently larger than the Labour group in this place. The point about the quality of new appointments was well made, but political parties have to take some responsibility for that as well, or face the consequences.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, mentioned diversity and the composition of the House. He and I have discussed this. If we are diverse as a House, the public can look to the House and see that it better represents the country. I do not know where the noble Lord got the idea of a senate of nations and regions. Our longer-term plans say that:
“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.
In the meantime, we seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. That is a worthy objective and one that we should take seriously. We will take it forward.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked why we should not bring in a new age limit for the House of Lords now. On the manifesto commitment about Members retiring at the end of the Parliament in which they reach 80, I have to thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes for that suggestion in the first place. He and other noble Lords from the Labour group put that forward.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
He may have been younger but he certainly was not more foolish.
I take on board the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in particular about the cliff edge, and I am happy to discuss that with him further. We want to ensure that, when new Peers come in, they have the opportunity and the time to gain the expertise that others did, so that they can take on those roles as well.
On appointing Peers over 80, there is nothing to say that somebody over 80 cannot play a full part in the role of the House—that is not the issue. It is about ensuring that we reduce the size of the House and that a mix of Members can come in. That is the kind of implementation issue that we will discuss with noble Lords. Some noble Lords clearly were not listening to my opening speech if they thought I did not mention that.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, mentioned party-political donations and said that some may have bought peerages. This is a serious issue. There is a difference between somebody who makes donations and somebody who is a donor, if that makes sense. Lots of people in political parties make small contributions through their membership, but it would be of concern if somebody were appointed only because they were a significant donor, rather than because they had made a wider contribution to society or because of the contribution they would make in this House. I take the noble Duke’s point on that.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, by-elections have not been ended—they have only been suspended for the passage of the legislation. I would have loved them to be ended; we tried many times, but the then Government would not support that.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right that he and I have always had a good relationship. It is not just because he reminds me so much of his grandfather, but that is not a bad reason to hold him in high esteem as well.
On a final point, a number of comments and criticisms were made of Members in the other place. The amount of time spent on legislation in the other place has gone down, and I regret that, but I urge noble Lords to think about the pressures on Members of Parliament who are elected, the work that they do and the range of their responsibilities. We have one job in your Lordships’ House: to scrutinise and revise legislation. They have a multifaceted job, and I feel uncomfortable when there are criticisms of them that I feel are unjustified.
I am out of time and do not want to detain the House, but a number of Members raised points about looking for a consensual way forward. The hereditary Peers Bill will make its way here, and I hope we have fruitful discussions on it—but going forward beyond that, I am very happy to have further discussions with noble Lords on the kinds of issues that we have raised tonight. It has been a really helpful and mostly thoughtful and respectful debate, although there were a couple of comments that were not. This is one of those instances when we have largely seen this House working at its best. I assure the House that we will put our best foot forward in shaping the reform agenda for this Parliament, and I look forward to hearing more from noble Lords on the issues that have been raised this evening.