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.