House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Child Poverty and Homelessness: Asylum and Settlement Policies
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for their child poverty and homelessness strategies of their proposed changes in asylum and settlement policies.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government will ensure that the needs of vulnerable people, including families with children, are fully considered as part of our asylum and settlement reforms. We remain committed to assessing all proposals carefully to create a system which is both fair and sustainable. Ministers are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of these changes, especially in relation to child poverty and homelessness.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the child poverty and homelessness strategies have been widely welcomed, but there is growing concern that the asylum and settlement policies will, as a recent Home Affairs Committee report warned, lead to more child poverty, thereby undermining these strategies. The Home Affairs Committee is clear that
“The Government will need to understand and mitigate any increase in child poverty”.
Will my noble friend therefore please undertake, first, to publish now an assessment of the impact of their policies on child poverty and homelessness, and secondly, to review and ease the “no recourse to public funds” rules, actual and proposed, so as to meet the child poverty strategy’s commitment to ensuring that vulnerable migrant children receive the support that they require, regardless of immigration status?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that the aim of these measures is to reduce misuse of support, not to make people homeless or to increase child poverty, which it is a core mission of the Labour Government to eradicate. We will not deny support to those who genuinely need it and who have no way to support themselves. My noble friend will also know that we have consulted on these measures. We have had some 200,000 responses and we are currently assessing them. A full economic impact assessment and equality impact assessment of the regulations will be undertaken in due course, and we will look at the responses to the consultation to inform how we deal with these measures as we go forward.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, as a former director of the Jesuit Refugee Service, I am concerned that the changes to the duration of refugee protection may create a state of permanent vulnerability and instability for refugee households. What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact of these changes on the mental health of refugees, and their implications for provision of services by the NHS and others?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness will know and will want to be assured that the whole purpose of these changes is to make both asylum and refugee status quicker in dealing with those outcomes. We have made some changes, and during the 30-month period of protection, if it is granted, refugees will continue to have the sanctuary their protection requires, and it will be renewed if they still require it. But the important thing is to assess claims quickly in order to make sure that we grant status quickly, so that people can earn a living and integrate into society.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, on the settlement policy, does my noble friend the Minister accept that extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years for care workers and other workers represents a breach of trust? They came here at our invitation and in good faith to care for our elderly and vulnerable people, and now they are being betrayed. Will the Government reconsider this policy and honour their original commitment?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, the earned settlement consultation ran for 12 weeks. It began on 20 November 2025 and closed on 12 February 2026. We are now reviewing and analysing all the responses received. That analysis will help us inform the development of that earned settlement model. I value the contribution that many people who came to this country as care workers have made. We need a supply of care workers; we need people to do those jobs in our community, but I also encourage people in this country who are unemployed at the moment to take on that work. We are assessing the contributions; as I said, we have had more than 200,000 responses and it is fair that we assess them. I assure my noble friend that the Government will act in the interests of the care sector and of the people who are here in the long term, as part of our response.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, homelessness in London has increased by 63% over the last decade—a rise largely driven by an influx of illegal immigrants, who themselves have seen a fivefold rise in homelessness in just over four years. Does the Minister agree with His Majesty’s Opposition that the arrival of people with no means to support themselves will naturally lead to an increase in homelessness, and that the Government must go further than the past and current changes they are making to prevent all illegal channel crossings, which are contributing to this problem?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s contribution. I just say gently that, in the four years between 2021 and 2024, an additional 2.6 million people arrived and 101,000 claimed asylum. The scheme to assess that was very slow and almost non-existent towards the end. We have increased the speed of asylum claims to make sure that we remove people who do not have asylum claims and integrate those who do. We returned 58,539 people between 1 July 2024 and 31 January 2026, and we have halved the number of asylum hotels from the 400 under the noble Lord’s watch to the 200 that are operating today. We have saved considerable resource in doing so. This is a problem and a challenge, but I am not looking to implement the lessons of the previous Government in this Government.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, with huge respect to the Minister, how on earth is he going to analyse 200,000 responses? Surely that is analysis paralysis.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No, it is not. We have had a consultation and we have 200,000 responses. We can look at those: AI is much used in the Home Office now to analyse what is happening. The key point is that the Government are trying to take action: we are trying to reduce the asylum backlog, reduce hotel use, stop small boat crossings and take action on all these important issues. There are certainly some areas of assessment and, going back to my noble friend’s original Question, we need to look at the impacts on child poverty and on families. But we need to take action to ensure that we regulate asylum and refugee status while we meet our international obligations and ensure that we are a civilised society, as we are now and will be in the future.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, the latest British Red Cross health equity report found that 73% of refugees and asylum seekers experience multiple layers of disadvantage compared to 20% of people supported by health and care systems. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the proposed changes on the health and well-being of children in asylum-seeking families?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend points to an extremely important issue. We will undertake a full economic and equality impact assessment of the proposals. We are using the responses from the consultation—going back to the noble Lord’s point—to look at what issues have been raised. We want to ensure that children in particular remain and have that support. Deprivation is a constant factor for unaccompanied children in particular; it is, in many ways, why people have tried to come to the United Kingdom. But I know that my noble friend also recognises that we need a regulated, efficient system that deals with people quickly, sorts out asylum claims, reduces the backlog, closes the costly hotels, stops the boats crossing the channel and, in doing so, allows for free and fair routes to be applied for so that those who are successful can join the economic community in this United Kingdom and earn a living.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the fair pay agreement in the social care sector, because we know that one of the best routes out of poverty for children is making sure that their parents have decent, well-paid work. Does my noble friend accept that insecurity of settlement status makes workers less confident and less able to enforce the rights they will get?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. She has campaigned for many years with the Trades Union Congress for rights at work. I have campaigned for rights at work, a minimum wage and good conditions for people in the care sector, and our Employment Rights Bill in this House and the House of Commons is to make sure people have decent rights at work. Nothing the Labour Government are going to do will undermine those rights, but we do need to get a grip on asylum and refugee status to ensure that we speedily process individuals and determine who has a right to stay and to have refugee or asylum status and that those who do not are removed. That is part of the process of the Government, who are trying to restore order in the very chaotic system we have inherited.
Single-sex Spaces: Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the merits of implementing the proposed Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on single sex spaces by means of primary legislation.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the Written Ministerial Statement issued today by the Minister for Women and Equalities. Under Sections 14(7) and 14(8) of the Equality Act 2006, if the draft code is approved by the Secretary of State, it is laid before Parliament. If neither House disapproves the draft within a 40-day period, the Secretary of State would then bring the code into force by a commencement order.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, at the third time of asking—I am grateful to my noble friend for his forbearance—I have just two brief questions. Why have Ministers never met any of the leaders of For Women Scotland, whose case ended up in the Supreme Court? One of those, Marion Calder, is sitting in the Gallery today waiting for an answer of substance, which clearly will not come following the Secretary of State’s Statement. That Statement clearly says that the commission’s advice was received by the Government on 13 April—yesterday. That must mean it was agreed forthwith. We have had all these months of delay and inquiry, but, quite clearly, we have now got to the election purdah. That is what it was all about—to delay the decision until after 7 May—was it not? It is an absolutely disgraceful way to operate.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I understand that the Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, has responded positively to the request for a meeting, and I hope that will take place shortly. I have said repeatedly in this House—as a consequence of the repeated questions—that we must get this right. It is too important to not get right. The commission has worked very hard to ensure that all those considerations are taken into account. We now have received that revised code, and it will be placed before Parliament. As my noble friend quite rightly said, we are currently in a pre-election period. This means restrictions, and I am sorry; these restrictions are well established. Given the relevance of the code to the devolved Administrations, we are unable to make any announcements ahead of the elections. Those elections are only a matter of weeks away; as soon as they are out of the way, we will bring forward the code to Parliament.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, on 2 February and again on 26 February, the Minister was asked whether government departments are compliant with the Supreme Court ruling on sex. Given that the EHRC code does not cover employment and that the Supreme Court ruling will have existed for a year on Thursday, will the Government take another number of years to comply with the law, or will employees have to relitigate their rights all the way to the Supreme Court again, as the brave women in For Women Scotland did over six years? Will he commit to telling the House when the Government themselves will be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me repeat what I have said to the noble Baroness on numerous occasions. The Supreme Court decision is absolutely clear, and we will ensure full compliance with it, but that does not mean that existing policies and procedures in place can be simply wiped away. They cover a range of issues, particularly in employment, and it is important that the Civil Service properly reviews those policies. Let me reassure the noble Baroness—I have responded to Written Questions, and I have responded to her before—that we are fully insistent that everyone should comply with the law. That is, and will continue to be, the Government’s position.
Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that it has been a year since the Supreme Court ruling. We have recently had the Olympics say that protecting the female category is based on science. Sport England’s own report said that we cannot have the inclusion of men and fairness in women’s sport. It is not okay to protect 1% and say that 99% of women and girls in this country are not worthy of fair sport. Will the Minister please tell me why Sport England is still giving money to sports that are breaking the law?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Everybody should comply with the law; that is the Government’s position. Organisations that have any doubt about this should properly consult lawyers. We are absolutely consistent: the Supreme Court judgment is clear and should be applied. I am not deviating from that position.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking their time to get this right. I have to say, without any excuse, that they have not been helped by the mess they were given when the Equality and Human Rights Commission proceeded in haste following the Supreme Court judgment. There are obvious legal tensions, not least that which now exists between the judgment and the provisions of the Gender Recognition Act. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister to ensure that the Government will now move forward at pace and, in so doing, maintain their commitment to protect all the vulnerable affected by these issues following the judgment, particularly trans people, including trans women, who have been dehumanised, discriminated against and misrepresented throughout this entire procedure.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend will understand that I cannot comment on the contents of the draft code, particularly during this current election period, but I understand the sentiment behind the question. I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government are absolutely committed to balancing all rights and ensuring provision for all. That is what this Government stand for and we will ensure that it happens.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Government have rightly emphasised that protections for trans people remain in the Equality Act. Can the Minister expand on how the updated code will support service providers in balancing these protections alongside those relating to single-sex spaces?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am afraid I have to repeat the point I made: I cannot comment on the draft code during this period of purdah. I think everyone in this House knows the Government’s position. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the rights of everyone under the Equality Act are, and continue to be, protected. The Supreme Court judgment made that clear too; we should not forget that. We should absolutely remain considerate of the rights of trans people. I am afraid that this debate has been fairly toxic. We need to show a bit of compassion and understanding. I am confident that we can move forward once we have the code before Parliament.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, despite the love of the Civil Service words of “moving at pace”, many of us have had experience of government acting a little more slowly than we would like. To take a whole year to publish a code of practice is pushing that to the limit. Just because decisions are difficult, it does not mean they should not be taken. Ministers in both Houses have been dodging our questions for long enough. When—I am asking for a specific date, not another road down which to kick this can—will the Government actually publish the EHRC’s code of practice?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I understand why the noble Baroness is asking that question, but it has been very important that we listen and respond. The EHRC has done the same. We now have the draft code, as the Written Ministerial Statement says. The Civil Service has been very clear—the noble Baroness knows this better than anyone—that there is a period of purdah, especially as the elections involve bodies directly involved in the application of this code. As soon as the elections are out of the way, we will bring forward the draft code under the Equality Act 2006. She does not have to wait—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Hang on, I am still standing. I had not quite finished, but I might as well give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am privileged, and almost dumbstruck. I join others in paying tribute to the redoubtable team at the NGO For Women Scotland, who secured this Supreme Court judgment. A Government who proclaim their commitment to the rule of law ad nauseam have spent a year trying to evade it and now continue the gaslighting. The excuse of purdah is rather transparent. Why are the Government so contemptuous of voters, a majority of whom value single-sex facilities and services for women but are not permitted to see this code before 7 May?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I strongly dispute what the noble Baroness says—I do not suppose we will ever come to an agreement on it—but this is a very important issue. The Supreme Court judgment was absolutely clear; it brought clarity. If anyone is in any doubt about its implementation, they should seek legal advice. The impacts of the code of practice are very broad. I am not going to comment on the code. By the way, purdah is not something invented by the Government. Purdah is a well-established process, and we are not going to deviate from it. We are talking about elections that are only a matter of weeks away. This Parliament will have the opportunity, in accordance with the Equality Act, to review it properly.
HMT “Empire Windrush”: 80th Anniversary
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the 80th anniversary in 2028 of HMT Empire Windrush arriving at Tilbury Docks, and to recognise the significant contribution the Caribbean community has made to Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this Question and for her leadership in championing Windrush recognition. The 80th anniversary of the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” will be a significant national milestone. The Government will work with communities to mark Windrush 80 with care, respect and pride, acknowledging past injustices while marking a moment of reflection, learning and pride in a legacy we must cherish, recognise and pass on. The noble Baroness will know that we are already working on a project with the railway industry to reflect the Windrush journey and its enduring contribution to modern Britain
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. My Lords, I am so proud to be part of the Windrush generation who, like thousands of Caribbeans, have played and continue to play a part in British society, despite having faced hostility and rejection. It is great to hear that the Windrush Day scheme provides grants for local activities in recognition of their resilience and celebrates their invaluable contribution to Britain. However, the 80th anniversary in 2028 of the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” is a significant milestone which deserves far greater recognition to clearly define the occasion’s identity and the scale of its importance to modern British history. Will the Government consider providing additional funds for signature events for the whole country to recognise and show appreciation of the contribution made to the UK by the Windrush generation and really push the boat out, if you will excuse the pun? I am happy to meet the Minister to discuss this further.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness’s energy for this subject is well recognised and welcomed across the House, and I celebrate and support what she does. One of my very closest friends, who has sadly now passed away, was part of the second generation; her family came from Trinidad. I knew this lady from junior school, so all through my life I have been hearing these fabulous stories of the Windrush generation. The Windrush generation and their descendants have made a very profound contribution to Britain, helping rebuild the country after the Second World War and playing a central role in shaping the NHS, public services and national infrastructure. As the noble Baroness said, it is a story of resilience and contribution, reflecting both the hardships people faced and the barriers they overcame.
The noble Baroness asked a very important question about funding. The Government are looking very carefully at the programme for funding. We need to make sure that it is funded properly, but it would not be right to pre-empt the decisions on funding before we have spoken very carefully to the steering committee that is working on this and will be making sure that we mark this in a way that is relevant for the community. Once we have done that, we will be able to put some costs against it, and the Government are determined to make sure that we recognise it properly.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, as we approach this significant anniversary, can my noble friend the Minister update the House on the progress in delivering the Windrush compensation scheme? What is being done to speed up the claims, especially of elderly applicants?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right to raise this issue. As of January 2025, over £124 million had been paid across to 3,866 Windrush compensation scheme claims, and 94% of claims have now received a final decision. We remain committed to improving the compensation scheme to make sure that it reflects the lived experience of individuals. In response to feedback from the Windrush commissioner, communities and claimants, significant policy improvements were announced in October last year and implemented in January this year.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is right that we recognise the contributions of the Windrush generation to our country. The previous Government introduced the largest Windrush grant scheme to support charities, local authorities and community groups across the UK. However, we must ensure that these applicants genuinely intend to benefit the communities. Can the Minister clarify whether, under this scheme, grants have ever been awarded to the Muslim Council of Britain?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I know that the grant system that the noble Baroness spoke about has designated around 700 lasting assets, from books and exhibitions to films, educational resources and help for communities to commemorate, learn and come together. I will respond in writing to her question about the Muslim organisation.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. Will there be some national recognition of what those who came over on “Windrush” have done for this country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The answer to the noble and learned Baroness’s question is that the specific projects for Windrush 80 will be confirmed in due course. We are having further discussion across government and with the Windrush 80 steering committee. Whatever the legacy will be, it is critical that it is designed by the community. The Government are clear that Windrush 80 should leave a legacy that endures beyond 2028. I hope that answers her question.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for campaigning on this issue. Yesterday, with her, I had the privilege of meeting victims of the Windrush scandal at a round table. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about improvements to the compensation scheme, we heard that families are still struggling with an overly bureaucratic system and a lack of available legal support. If the Minister, with Home Office colleagues, will meet my noble friend, can we ensure that one of the ways of recognising the anniversary will be to ensure that, at that point, there are no longer any outstanding claimants to receive the justice that they deserve?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think what we all want to see is that the claimants’ claims are processed quickly and in the most straightforward way possible. I am very happy to meet the group that the noble Lord met yesterday. It is clear that compensation cannot undo the harm that was caused, but the Government remain committed to improving the Windrush compensation scheme to ensure that it reflects the lived experiences of communities and that it can be accessed simply and in a straightforward manner. The fact that 94% of claims have been dealt with now shows some progress in this area.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given the fact that Windrush 80 is a massive opportunity for the Government to continue to welcome people from my community—I am second generation—what work are they doing to make sure that young people are seeing this celebration as an opportunity to lean into their Britishness and not be portrayed as other? We are British, we are proud of being British and we want the Government to acknowledge that in these celebrations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to say that the important thing in all this is that we recognise the contribution of both the Windrush generation and the second generation in designing whatever the legacy of Windrush 80 is going to be. As he rightly suggests, that should include young people who are the descendants of the Windrush generation. I hope that significant work will be done with the steering committee to make sure that that happens and that it is the community that designs the lasting legacy.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, I am very much in favour of these positive remarks, but please remember why we are making them and why we are having this discussion. In my time at the National Audit Office, we examined the treatment that many of the Windrush generation had, which cannot be described as anything but disgraceful, and we cannot forget that. We treated those people whom we asked to come to live in our country disgracefully, and we have taken a very long time, in my view, to put that even vaguely right.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to highlight that issue. There has been a focus on the fact that, while we cannot take away the hurt and harm that was done, we can do our best to recognise the contribution made by the Windrush generation and deal with the issues outstanding from the hurts caused to them. I thought that it was very interesting, when I was reading up on this, to read the poem included on the Windrush memorial at Waterloo station. The last few lines of it are:
“Remember … you called.
YOU. Called.
Remember, it was us, who came”.
I think we all have to remember that.
Atlantic Undersea Cables: Russian Subsurface Operations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Antrobus
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the Armed Forces in deterring Russian sub-surface operations threatening Atlantic undersea cables.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, as demonstrated by the operation that the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, our Armed Forces are continually ready to respond to threats against our and our allies’ critical undersea infrastructure. We are further supporting our Armed Forces in this effort by: launching the Atlantic Bastion programme, which will create an advanced hybrid naval force; providing an extra £100 million for vital P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft; and working closely with NATO allies, including delivering the Lunna House agreement with Norway to build a combined fleet of new submarine-hunting frigates and uncrewed systems.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that taking a more overt approach to highlighting Russian aggression is necessary to send a message that attempts to attack critical undersea infrastructure will be called out and attributed to Russia, and to ensure that the public are fully aware of the dangers that we face from our primary adversary? Additionally, given that the UK military operation lasted for more than a month and involved 500 British personnel, 450 flying hours and several thousand nautical miles sailed, does he acknowledge that our Armed Forces are confronting the most challenging security circumstances in decades, and that we must all understand better that this is no longer a world of isolated crises but one of interconnected threats?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend about interconnected threats. The important thing that flows from her Question is that, notwithstanding our focus on Iran, on Ukraine, quite rightly, and on many other operations across the world, it is a tribute to our Armed Forces personnel that they recognised the threat they found in the north Atlantic and responded to it. It is important that we demonstrate that to Russia, which, as my noble friend rightly said, is a major threat to us. As I have said from this Dispatch Box time and again, part of the Armed Forces response—and the response we need from our NATO allies—is to deter people from taking action against us, knowing that there will be consequences should they break international law or threaten us. The action we took in the north Atlantic on the attempted covert operation of those submarines was a tribute to all of us and to our country.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, is quite right to urge the Government to give more support to our hard-pressed Armed Forces in meeting the many challenges that they do. As the Minister knows, the Prime Minister has provided a temporary three-month bridge to enable work on the GCAP fighter project to start, but is he confident that the defence investment plan will be approved in time to permit the project to continue beyond the end of June?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am confident that the defence investment plan will come forward with a large number of investments, which, as the noble Viscount points out, will be vital to the future defence of our country. He has been a doughty proponent of GCAP, an arrangement between us, Japan and Italy for a new generation of fighter aircraft. It is a really important way of demonstrating that our country is looking at what we do to deter adversaries not only now but in future. I am sure that GCAP will play a full part in that.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I commend our senior service for the work it has been doing for some time in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom and Ireland. Can the Minister give us some details on the recent agreement between our Government and that of the Republic of Ireland in relation to the seas off Ireland, in particular whether the Irish Government are contributing to our Royal Navy’s costs?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, who always raises these issues, quite rightly, with respect to another part of the threat to us, which we need to deal with. She asked for the details of the memorandum of understanding signed a few weeks ago, in March. It focused on enhancing maritime co-operation, cyber defence, air domain information sharing, and increased joint procurement. That modernised memorandum of understanding will not only help Ireland meet some of the challenges and threats that it perceives to itself, notwithstanding its position of neutrality, but ensure that we work with Ireland, as far as we can, to deter the threats we face from that part of the Atlantic.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, Norway supplied 47% of our total gas consumption in 2025 and the UK is increasingly dependent on its offshore wind infrastructure and interconnectors as part of our energy mix. What urgent steps are being taken to strengthen our energy security and repair capabilities, to further harness autonomous technology and AI for continuous remote monitoring and to deepen our co-operation with allies to patrol, deter and prevent such threats?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Earl will have heard me mention in my Answer to my noble friend the Lunna House agreement between us and Norway, which is a significant step forward in the co-operation between us. Norway is a key ally in dealing with the threats we face. I think he was also asking about developments in Atlantic Bastion, which I also mentioned in that Answer. It talks about ships and frigates—the frigate deal that we have done—but also about the autonomous systems we need to develop. I say again from this Dispatch Box that the Navy of the future will be a hybrid Navy; it will have extensive autonomous platforms and motherships—for want of a better word—above, on and below the sea. Our work with Norway and our other allies, through Atlantic Bastion and other alliances, will make a major contribution to protecting underwater structures on which this country depends.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I welcome very much what the Minister said. But some 18 months ago, a group was formed, including senior Royal Marines and Royal Navy officers, to look at these underwater and over-surface risks to our maritime infrastructure. Six months ago, we stood that down because we think all the risks are well known. I was alarmed to see that the Secretary of State invited industry leaders to a meeting literally only in the last 48 hours. I am amazed that that had not happened already, beforehand. Can the Minister, who I have very great respect for, tell me whether this was the first meeting that senior Ministers have had with senior industry figures?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There have been many meetings across government and there are always meetings across government, with DSIT and DESNZ, which have responsibility for underwater structures. I think that the meeting the noble Lord referred to is a meeting that the Defence Secretary announced last week in which he talked about the need for them to come together again to look at the increased threat from Russia with respect to that. That demonstrates the increased co-operation across government to meet what is a very real challenge and threat to our country.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the professionalism of the RAF and our Poseidon P-8 pilots operating out of Lossiemouth in monitoring the recent activities of that Russian attack submarine and the related Russian spy ships is to be commended. We thank them, and I hope everyone in this Chamber acknowledges their contribution. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, for her distinguished career in the RAF and her contribution to our defence and security. If the RAF surveillance operation had identified a malign attack on undersea cables, what UK assets were available in these seas to thwart such an attack?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks a very reasonable question, but I cannot go into some of the operational details that she requires. Suffice to say, the important thing was that the Poseidon P-8s that she identified, flying from Lossiemouth, identified the threat. We also put a Type 23 frigate out there, HMS “Somerset”. Working with other assets, they made sure that the Russian submarines were aware that we were aware of them, because of course the whole point of submarine warfare is covert activity. We found them, we saw them, we took action against them and, if we had needed to, we would have been able to deal with that as well.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, during the Cold War, I was a member of the “red tie” group, which consisted of intelligence officers, operations teams and the defence industry. Basically, we monitored the Soviet submarine threat. By the end of the Cold War, at any given time, we knew exactly where all its submarines were. We had up to 12 of our own operational SSNs to mark them, plus American ones to mark them. If war had started, we would have killed them all within the first few minutes of that war.
I fear that we are no longer in that position. Part of the reason for that has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Robertson, who refers to it as people’s “corrosive complacency” over a number of years. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has highlighted what is being done now, but I have a feeling that we have a long way to catch up. We are nowhere near that position, and we are in a state where we ought to put our military, and certainly our defence industries, on some sort of war footing to be able to catch up and to do the things that we need to do.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I was just thinking about the red tie club, as I stood up. But the serious point that my noble friend makes is clearly an important one about our ability to detect and deter those who would threaten us. The importance of the activity that took place in the north Atlantic was that we were able to use the P-8s. We have nine P-8s based at Lossiemouth. Of course, not all of them are operational, although most of them are and they are enabled to detect and deter. There are other ways of detecting submarine activity, which is really important. As I say, the ability to deter and to take action where necessary is really important.
I say to my noble friend that our noble friend Lord Robertson quite rightly pointed out what he felt, and the need for the strategic defence review to be implemented and funded. That debate and discussion will move forward. I also say to him—he will be particularly interested in this, having mentioned submarines—that I was recently in Plymouth, where we are putting billions of pounds into the docks at Plymouth to ensure that we have docks which are capable of dealing and working with the submarines that we have now to increase and improve the availability of those submarines. That is true in many areas of the country. There is huge and significant investment going in. The issue for us is what we do now, in the interim, to provide the deterrent and capabilities we need to ensure that our forces are able to act in the way that they do while we wait for some of those new ships and new capabilities to become ready to us. We are looking to advance that.
I am sorry to take up noble Lords’ time but the need for this country to move to a position of war readiness is crucial. That is not a government effort but a whole of society effort. From this side of the House, from that side of the House, from all parts of the United Kingdom, to deal with the threats that we face, our population have to understand the threats that they face. We as a Government have to talk to them and all of us have to stand up and say that we will defend our country and the values that we stand for.
House of Lords Commission
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Access rights for departing hereditary peers (5th Report, HL Paper 283) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, following Royal Assent of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, the remaining excepted hereditary Peers will leave the House at the end of the current Session. The report before the House today proposes that these hereditary Peers should be granted the same access rights as Members who retire under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Resignation: New Standing Order (6th Report, HL Paper 280) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, this report proposes a new Standing Order to implement Section 2 of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, to allow another person to give or sign a notice of resignation from the House on behalf of a Member who lacks capacity to give or sign that notice personally. The process will be overseen by the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, made up of the Chief Whips of the three main parties and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, and chaired by the Senior Deputy Speaker. This sub-committee will be the final decision-maker in all applications.
The details of the operation of this procedure are set out in the report, but the key principle is that resignation pursuant to the Standing Order will be permitted only if two conditions are met: first, that the person applying has the authority to act on behalf of the Peer; and, secondly, that the Peer has lost and is unlikely to regain capacity to give notice of resignation personally. Section 2 of the Act came into force upon Royal Assent, so if agreed by your Lordships’ House the Standing Order will come into force immediately. I commend the report to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
After Standing Order 21, insert:
“21ZA Resignation on behalf of peers who lack capacity to give or sign a notice of resignation
1. In implementation of section 1(5) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, this Standing Order makes provision for the giving and signing of a notice of resignation by a person (“the applicant”) acting on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity to give or sign it.
2. Resignation pursuant to this Standing Order is permitted only if the applicant has submitted an application to give and sign notice of resignation on behalf of the peer (“the application”), and the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee of the Procedure and Privileges Committee (“the Sub-Committee”) has, in accordance with paragraph 7, and having determined that the conditions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 (“the first and second conditions”) have been met, approved the application.
3. The first condition is that the applicant has authority to act on behalf of the peer. Evidence demonstrating that this condition has been met may include, but is not limited to, evidence that the applicant is acting on behalf of the peer as:
(a) the donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs;
(b) a continuing attorney under a Continuing Power of Attorney;
(c) the donee of an Enduring Power of Attorney;
(d) the donee of any equivalent Power of Attorney; or
(e) a property and financial affairs deputy appointed by the Court of Protection.
4. The second condition is that:
(a) the peer is unlikely to regain capacity to give or sign a notice of resignation; and
(b) in assessing whether this condition has been met, the applicant has consulted medical professionals, and, if appropriate, family members or others caring for the peer.
5. The applicant must submit the application, which must include a signed statement confirming that the first and second conditions have been met, together with appropriate supporting evidence, to the Clerk of the Parliaments.
6. The Clerk of the Parliaments, having reviewed the application, will present it to the Sub-Committee with a recommendation.
7. The Sub-Committee will then decide either to approve or refuse the application, and the Clerk of the Parliaments will communicate this decision to the applicant.
8. If the application is approved, the applicant may then give and sign a notice of resignation on behalf of the peer in accordance with section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.”
Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the bereaved family members of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire, as well as survivors and members of the local community. Nothing that can be said in this House can diminish the loss they have endured or the impact this tragedy has had on their lives, but they have the respect of this House and of the country as a whole.
The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed the lives of 72 people, was a profound and avoidable tragedy. Its consequences continue to be felt by bereaved families, survivors, the local community and far beyond. Grenfell must never be forgotten, and we must continue to ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There remains much work to do on justice, reform and making homes safe, but this Bill is concerned with one clear and specific responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we ensure that remembrance is properly supported over the long term.
From the outset, I want to be clear with noble Lords. This is a simple Bill with a focused purpose. It exists to provide the statutory authority necessary to support the construction and long-term care of a Grenfell Tower memorial and related activities. The design of that memorial and the way it is shaped must remain with the bereaved families, survivors and the community. This Bill is intended to support that work, not to replace or override it.
Grenfell has never been, and must never become, a matter of party politics. It is about doing what is right and keeping our word. A commitment was made to support the bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower. This Government are honouring that commitment. That is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was established in 2019. From the beginning, its work has been community led: listening to bereaved families, survivors and the immediate community, and helping to shape a shared vision for the future of the site.
After extensive engagement over several years, the commission published its report, Remembering Grenfell, in November 2023. The report set out clear recommendations, including the creation of a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower: a private space where elements of the tower can be laid to rest with dignity and respect, and a physical and digital archive, alongside a permanent exhibition, to ensure that the story of Grenfell is preserved honestly, sensitively and with care.
This work has been guided throughout by those most directly affected by the tragedy, and it must continue to be so. Views about the future of the site are deeply personal and not always shared by everyone. The process supported by this Bill is one that remains firmly community led. The Government have welcomed the commission’s recommendations and will support it to carry them forward. Community led design work is now under way, following the appointment of a design team through a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and members of the local community.
This is a focused Bill. It provides the statutory authority required for the Government to spend public money on the construction of a Grenfell Tower memorial and on its long-term management and care. It also enables spending on preservation, an archive, an exhibition and a site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest, and allows for land to be acquired and works to be carried out where necessary. Although preparatory work and community-led design are already under way, Parliament must provide the statutory authority required to fund the delivery of this national memorial and ensure its upkeep over the long term. The Bill provides that authority.
I underline one important point for noble Lords. The Bill is deliberately narrow in scope. It does not determine the design of the memorial, make planning decisions or set governance or ownership arrangements. Instead, it does one essential thing: it ensures that the expenditure connected to the memorial is properly authorised, in line with the rules governing public spending and with Parliament’s consent.
Community-led design work will continue while Parliament considers the Bill, allowing progress to remain on course. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were permanently changed by the tragedy. It will be a place for remembrance, reflection and respect.
The memorial does not diminish the other work that must continue following Grenfell. Bereaved families and survivors have waited far too long for justice. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan Police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations it has ever undertaken.
We must continue to reform the system so that residents’ voices are heard and safety concerns are never ignored. The Government remain committed to implementing the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to deliver real and lasting change, and to ensuring that everyone can have confidence that their home is safe.
This is a modest Bill in form but it carries real weight. As I said, it is not about party politics but about how we remember Grenfell, what we learn from it and what we choose to do as a country. It does not address every issue arising from the tragedy, and we acknowledge that there is still much to be done. What it does is ensure that the national remembrance is properly supported and protected, with Parliament’s agreement and in a way that respects the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community. Above all, it helps to ensure that Grenfell remains part of our national memory and that its lessons continue to shape a safer and fairer future. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, none of us will forget the events of 14 June 2017. The shock we all felt is nothing to the pain that the Grenfell community have suffered. We can never fully appreciate the cost of the Grenfell fire to those who were there that night and those who are part of that local community. They have shown such bravery in their fight for justice and I pay tribute to that community, who have demonstrated such resilience in the wake of this tragedy. Through the inquiry, they have been fighting for justice for eight years now. I know that noble Lords across the House share my hope that that community will soon get some further closure.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, which represents an essential step forward for the delivery of a lasting memorial for the 72 people who tragically lost their lives as a result of the events of 14 June 2017. Every one of them deserves to be remembered. Their memory ought to be cherished, and Ministers are right to progress this important work to deliver a fitting memorial for the whole of the Grenfell community. Indeed, the memorial is not just for the 72 who died as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire; it is also for the 74 people who were injured and for the friends and families of all those affected by the fire. It is also for those who live nearby and who have links to that community. It is for all those who have been affected by the fire.
I pay tribute to the Minister for continuing the hard work that was initiated under the previous Government. I am also grateful to the Minister in the other place, Samantha Dixon MP, for taking the time to meet me to discuss both this Bill and the ongoing work to support the entire Grenfell community. I also pay tribute to all those who have supported the Grenfell community since the fire, in both national and local government—the MHCLG in particular—the RBKC and its officers, the NHS, the voluntary sectors, the community groups and the memorial trust. Their work has been vital and I know that they will continue to support the Grenfell community.
I turn to the memorial itself. This has taken a long time and that is the right approach. It continues to be essential that work progresses at the community’s pace, not anybody else’s. The Conservative Government ensured that the memorial was budgeted for and I am pleased that the current Government have continued that support. As the Minister said, this is not a political issue. We must work together across political divides to do the right thing for the Grenfell community. Indeed, this is not just a memorial: for many of those who lost their lives in the fire, Grenfell is their final resting place. The site deserves to be treated sensitively and with dignity, particularly for their sake.
In government, we had a cross-governmental committee to ensure that the Government were supporting the Grenfell community. I ask the Minister: how are the Government continuing that cross-government work that we started? The work we did, for example, was on health. This community has health issues unlike any other, both mental and physical: fire, smoke, contamination and all those mental issues that come from being involved in such an incident.
Children’s services were particularly important to me when I was the Minister. The children who had been in their early primary years were now becoming teenagers. Many of them had spent all their childhood in families where Grenfell and the fire were continually there. They saw it day to day when going to and coming back from school, or going to the leisure centre, but their families were also damaged by what they had seen and heard, and what they had lost. I particularly hope, as those young people become teenagers, that we are making sure, across government, that they are supported, protected and helped.
When I talk to the bereaved and survivors, they tell me that there is still no justice, so what are the Government going to do to move this on, to give this community peace and the ability to move forward with their lives? With that in mind, will the Minister confirm that Ministers will continue to engage fully with the Grenfell community as work progresses on the memorial? My honourable friend in the other place, Gareth Bacon MP, said:
“The victims of the Grenfell Tower fire belong at the heart of everything we do in this place and outside it to remember the tragedy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/26; col. 706.]
That is a principle that Ministers should keep in mind whenever they are working on the memorial and the other measures to support this community. This was a local tragedy but also a national tragedy, and it is right that the nation should remember in a fitting and lasting way all those who were affected by the Grenfell fire.
We on these Benches are clear that the Government must make good all their commitments on funding, so can the Minister confirm that all the funding pledges will be delivered on time and in full? On a related note, the refurbishment of the Lancaster West Estate for those still living there is an essential project to ensure that the estate is fit for the 21st century, and as a lasting legacy from the bad times to a better time in north Kensington.
Will the Minister update the House on progress on the refurbishment? This work is ongoing, but there is still not clarity on the level of further financial support that may come from the Government. Will the Minister confirm when that final detail will be available? If she cannot, will she at least give your Lordships’ House a commitment to expedite this in the interests of local residents who would benefit from urgent clarity? It is clear that any further delays will only be for the worse for that community.
We have debated the Grenfell inquiry in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions, and we know that there are people who bear some responsibility for the fire who have not yet been held to account. That is very important to the community. Will the Minister please provide the House with an update on progress towards delivering on the recommendations of the inquiry? How are Ministers furthering efforts to ensure that all those who bear responsibility for the events of 14 June 2017 are held accountable?
Before I sit down, I want to reiterate our firm support for this important Bill which will enable the delivery of the much-promised Grenfell Tower memorial. Ministers are right to continue the work of previous Governments to deliver a memorial that will serve the entire Grenfell community and indeed the nation. We wish the project godspeed, with the hope that it will give some closure and peace to the north Kensington community. We will support the Government in everything they are to deliver on promises made to the Grenfell community.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend the Minister for her words and for the continued commitment, which she is correct to say started with the previous Government. I welcome her comments that this is not a political matter but one of moral duty and the necessity to recognise that a tragedy of this scale speaks to the state of our nation—not just of our politics, of our housing, of people’s class or where they come from, but actually the state of the nation. The sensitivity with which my noble friend the Minister spoke is greatly appreciated, and I hope that those out in the community and the immediate families of those who lost their lives will recognise the intent, as spoken, that they are to be given the power to determine what the physical manifestation of this memorial should be.
In that context, I do not intend to speak to the principle of the memorial that has to exist on that site, because I do not believe it is for anyone in this House to speak to that, nor to define it. It is not our privilege nor is it our right, because we did not lose our loved ones. I hope that those conversations will continue and, as the speakers clearly expressed in those first two opening statements, the way it progresses has to lie in the control and power of those who lost their dearest loved ones. I hope we do not rush that, and I commend my noble friend Lord Boateng, who so ably led the commission with that in mind and charted such difficult waters. I think it is the sole job of this House and the other place to hold the Government of the time to account on that matter, and to demonstrate and evidence that there has indeed been conversation with those families, and that there has indeed been a richness of process that allows for divergence of thought, because grief is personal.
In that sense, I have nothing further to say. I did not have any notes, because I tried to write something, but I could not. Instead, I would like to speak to what I think “memorial” must mean for the state and for society, because I think they are separate things. Sometimes they are conflated, whether in statements around justice or around change, but what we are talking about today, in respect of a physical memorial, is very different from what I think the memorial should be for the rest of the nation, and the reason I say this is because of what I witnessed that night.
Since that night, I have thought long and hard about what my place was in that tragedy and what might motivate me to keep going to, I would hope, drive better change in the spaces where I might have a good effect. What has motivated me was both the profundity of what I saw that night and the courage that was embodied in individuals, both rank-and-file firefighters and those who lost their families. Because I have no notes and I could not think of something suitably strategic to say, I would like to tell the story of the night from the eyes of someone who stood there, having been sent in to try to do something to resolve what was a desperate situation on the ground.
In telling the story of these two men, I hope it might bring home to this House the horror of the night. We use words like “tragedy” and “loss of life”, but I cannot explain the granular horror of the night without telling the story of people, of humans, and the courage embodied in both the family of the young man who lost his life, and who I will describe in a moment, and the rank-and-file firefighter. In doing so, I hope we will understand our privilege and that of those who lead industry and who build and refurbish houses. We have something to aspire to, and we should be led by them and not pretend that we lead them. In the same way that the power in respect of the memorial must be given to the families, we must let them, with their courage, lead us in a continued journey and endeavour, not only to improve the built environment but to restore our reputation as a country, because I saw Grenfell as a statement on where the UK had got to. I will now tell the story.
Having arrived at Grenfell, I was confronted by the absolute failure of the building almost immediately—it was so graphic and profound. It was unbelievable that it had happened in this country; it looked like something you might see in another country. Having realised that we would have to end “stay put” immediately—all the investigation that has followed since has shown the trauma that all of it placed, completely understandably, on families—I wanted to go inside the tower to understand what I was sending firefighters into. I queued to run in—we ran in under the shields of our policing colleagues because of the debris falling. I was standing behind a firefighter I had known for some time; I had served with him earlier in my career. Both of us were scared because of the scale of what we were heading into. Then, due to the ferocity of the fire, and due to the nature of where this poor young man had been trapped, the young man jumped from the building. Having jumped from the building, there was a terrible shout. I will never forget the noise of the impact, nor the shout as it came. He hit my colleague full on. He died in the most terrible way, this poor young man, and I thought my colleague had died, because they were both inert on the ground.
Surrounding me were 100 firefighters waiting to go into the tower, so I asked that the body of the young man be moved with dignity and that the body of the firefighter be moved. I went into the tower. Inside the tower, I was confronted by a situation where there were no real services of any kind to provide protection to firefighters on their way in. We did not have enough water, so we were going to commit them, without water, right into the upper reaches of the building. We were in a situation where multiple members of the public were trying to get out of the tower, desperate to save their lives. Bodies were being carried down the stairs. It was a scene of absolute horror on a scale that I had not witnessed before, and I had seen many awful things in my careers in both the Army and the fire service.
It became clear to me that I could not provide any comfort to my colleagues in terms of what we were ordering them to do. So I came back outside the tower and briefed 200 of them. I basically said to them, “Our radios are failing. We have no water. I’m going to ask you to commit into the building—I can’t order you; you have families and you have places you might want to go home to—but I believe it is in the best traditions of our service. At the end of the day, we’ve got breathing apparatus and we’ve got protective kit; it’s what we have to do and it is in the best traditions of our service to the community”. Not a single one of them stepped back; they were terrified but not a single one of them stepped back—and it was the same throughout the night. We had failed as an institution, but rank-and-file firefighters did not, and their courage to this day has lifted me.
As I walked away from that briefing, I came across the gentleman who had been standing in front of me, who I had believed to be dead. He was sitting on the ground serving his breathing apparatus set, having discharged himself from the back of an ambulance. He pulled his drip out, gathered his breathing apparatus set and committed himself into the building to save lives.
A month after taking over the role of commissioner of the London Fire Brigade, charged with changing the institution that needed desperate change and failed that night—along with government, the industry, the local authority and anyone who should have demonstrated any care—I met the family of the young man who had jumped from the tower. Their courage was shocking. Their courage was as significant as the firefighter who had suffered serious injury and then gone back into the tower. They had clarity about what had gone wrong. They told me what had gone wrong. They explained the failure of my institution to me. They explained the failure of government to me. They told me that they expected justice, and they told me what they wanted. To echo the words of both my colleagues here in the House, we are not there yet. They set clear and straightforward expectations.
I am going to end—I apologise for the time taken—simply by saying that the physical memorial that must be laid in Lancaster West is for the families and those who survived. We have a different job to do. If noble Lords ever doubt the necessity of it, I ask them to think of my colleague, the family of that young man, the desperate situation they found themselves in and the courage with which they have lifted themselves since then.
I thank the Minister for her words, and I hope she will agree that it is the duty of this House, along with the other place, to hold ourselves and wider society to account to make sure that those changes are made real.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, any community that forgets its memory becomes senile. Remembering Grenfell Tower and those who died in the fire, which should have been preventable, will save us from becoming senile. The memorial will be a visible reminder, lest we forget.
At the first memorial service held at St Helen’s Church in North Kensington, I was invited to preach by Clarrie Mendy. I described the tower as a tall coffin in the air—a symbol of forgotten people, but people we will constantly remember.
Clarrie Mendy had lost two family members in the fire, and she became a powerful voice in the campaign for justice for those who were affected. She brought in a wide range of community and church leaders from across London. If you Google “Clarrie Mendy Grenfell”, there is a lot of information about the impact she had. Sadly, Clarrie died in 2020 of motor neurone disease, but her legacy is that of somebody who, in spite of loss, saw her work as galvanising everybody so that nobody forgets. May she and all the others rest in peace.
When I went to that service, I took bay leaves from Bishopthorpe Palace gardens for everyone present, and I focused on the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nation—words taken from the Book of Revelation, chapter 22. I am glad that we took a lot of bay leaves, because the church was heaving. Everybody was again determined to never forget what happened at Grenfell Tower. I played a lament on my djembe drum, which went on for some nine minutes. In the silence that followed, we had a community that was determined to make sure that we will not forget.
St Helen’s Church was nearest to Grenfell Tower, and its vicar, Steve Divall, and its people did a lot of work to help. I used to visit it regularly in order to ensure that what we committed ourselves to doing would happen. The Bishop of Kensington was Graham Tomlin, and he too did a lot to help people on the ground. My final words were, “No stone should be left unturned”, and I am very glad that the inquiry left no stone unturned. The Grenfell Tower commission has done an excellent job of making sure that we remember.
Let us remember Grenfell Tower and give the Bill before us a resounding yes, lest we forget. Our memory will become senile if we do not do what the commission is asking and what the Bill wants: to enable some financial provision, which needs to be done through an Act of Parliament. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I wholeheartedly want to thank the Minister for the way she introduced it, and I thank the other two speakers before me, who also focused on the whole question of memory. Memory matters, and when we do not remember, we find ourselves in real, deep trouble. The physical memorial will remind anybody who passes by or who visits that place that some great tragedy happened, but out of it, we are determined to make sure that we remember, because without remembering we find ourselves sometimes drifting into oblivion or thinking that the present troubles are where we need to do all the hard work. We will remember.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill, a piece of legislation that carries with it profound responsibility, as my noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham said.
The tragedy at Grenfell Tower in June 2017, in which 72 lives were lost, remains one of the darkest moments in our recent history. It is a loss that is measured not only in numbers but in the absence of loved ones, in the silence left behind, and in the enduring grief carried by families and the wider community.
Before I continue, I just want to thank my noble friend Lord Roe for his contribution and for sharing his experience and his memory. His words today really left a mark on me, so I thank him for sharing that and for driving home the importance of this memorial and the lessons and changes that need to be made as a result of this devastating event. We need to make sure that we move forward so that there is change, and that it is long lasting.
The Bill comes before us as a poignant time. Next year will mark a decade since this tragedy. Ten years on and the pain remains, the memory endures and the responsibility to honour those who were lost is undiminished. As my noble friend the Minister said earlier, in legislative terms this is a modest Bill. It does not seek to resolve the many complex issues that arose from this tragedy, nor does it replace the ongoing work of justice, accountability and reform.
But what it does do is essential. It enables the creation of a permanent memorial: a place of remembrance, a place of reflection and a place that ensures that those who lost their lives are never forgotten. That matters, because memory is not passive. It shapes how we honour the past and how we act in the future. The importance of this memorial lies not only in what it represents but in how it is created. It must be led by the voices of the bereaved, the survivors and the community. Their experience, loss and resilience must sit at the heart of this process. This is not simply about building a structure; it is about creating a space that carries meaning, dignity and truth.
While the Bill is focused on funding, it carries the weight of wider moral justice. It is part of our collective duty to remember, to honour and to ensure that the legacy of Grenfell leads to lasting change. A permanent memorial will serve not only as a tribute to those we lost but as a place for future generations to understand the consequences of failure, including the failure to listen to a community and to act on their worries and concerns, as well as the importance of accountability, safety and humanity in public life.
As I said, remembrance must never be passive. It must shape how we act. This Bill gives us the means to do what should always have been done: to create something lasting, respectful and worthy of those whose lives were taken. We cannot undo the past, but we can honour it with purpose and ensure that it is never forgotten. I support the Bill.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, like every other speaker, I start by remembering the 72 lives lost and the countless others—the victims’ families, friends and the community—whose lives were for ever changed by the fire. The tragedy that took place at Grenfell Tower in the early hours of 14 June 2017 must never be forgotten. I, like others, was deeply moved by the direct witness of my noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham and the heroism that he described, as well as the horror.
I welcome the Bill so empathetically moved by my noble friend the Minister. It will ensure the establishment of a fitting and lasting memorial, shaped by the community. It will not only commemorate the victims but serve as a lasting reminder of the avoidable actions that must never be repeated.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the stark words of Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chair of the Grenfell inquiry, when phase 2 of his report was published. He said that
“the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways by those who were responsible for ensuring the safety of the building and its occupants”.
I and my party welcomed the previous Government’s commitment to delivering the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry in full, and I support the current Government’s plans to implement them all by the end of the current Parliament to ensure that a lasting legacy of this tragedy will be that everyone is safe in their own home. It was heartening to hear the commitment to this legacy from across the political spectrum when colleagues in the other place considered the Bill last month. I am proud that the same commitment is evident in this House today.
I particularly highlight the need for a change in culture towards one of transparency and accountability: a necessary change that the Grenfell inquiry emphasised. Collaboration across all these Benches is crucial if we are to ensure that such a change in culture is cemented in practice and in delivery, so that a tragedy like this is never allowed to happen again.
I will focus briefly on the social housing sector’s role in the remediation process. Housing associations are crucial to the delivery of the policy. The safety of their residents is of the utmost importance to them, and I know they are working at pace to remediate the buildings under their care. The collaborative approach of government and the social housing sector in the development of the joint plan to accelerate the remediation of social housing and its deadlines has been welcome. There is now a clear plan of action, which is coupled with sufficient resources to deliver the ambitious numbers planned.
The Government have given the social housing sector, including housing associations, equal access to the cladding safety scheme, which was announced in the 2025 spending review. This will be a transformative step towards securing the necessary resources. As everybody has said, progress has been far too slow. Now, alongside the package of measures the Government have introduced to bring about a decade of renewal for social housing, this has given housing associations more capacity to remediate buildings at a faster pace.
Progress is at last being made. Analysis by the National Housing Federation of the building safety remediation data published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government shows that the social housing sector has been completing works at around twice the rate of the private sector. However, it is clear that there is much more to be done, and we need to see this welcome commitment to securing residents’ safety from all actors across the wider housing sector.
It is crucial that the social housing sector has the resources available to continue delivering on its commitment to carry out remediation works as fast as possible. In conclusion, I ask my noble friend to commit to continuing to work closely with the sector to secure the on-time delivery of the deadlines outlined within the joint plan, to ensure that the tragedy that took place at Grenfell is not allowed to happen again elsewhere.
This Bill enables the delivery of a memorial that should be a stark reminder to us all of our duty to ensure the safety of people across the country in their own homes, which should be a long-lasting legacy of this terrible tragedy. I also hope that the memorial, the design of which will be led by the bereaved and the wider community, will be a place of remembrance of those who tragically lost their lives on that dark day in 2017.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, only someone who was there on the night of the Grenfell Tower fire or who experienced the loss of a loved one in that disaster can truly understand what it must have been like to suffer the physical and emotional losses that it caused. Death, injury, mental trauma, the sudden removal from a home, and the incalculable and continuing difficulties and questions for the emergency services and their personnel are just some of the consequences that come to mind, but there will be others. The noble Lord, Lord Roe, powerfully spoke about this, as others have pointed out, and I commend him for what he did with his colleagues on the night of 14 June 2017 and for what he said to us today.
It is right that there should be a memorial to the people whose lives were lost or damaged by this fire. Its design is not a matter for this debate, but I hope that it—in its entirety—will be a thing of beauty and utility that will last as a solace and as a continuing reminder not just of the lives lost but of the need for public authorities and the corporate world to behave with responsibility for and to others. In short, I ask that we do not just look back but that we look forward to the creation of a better regime for government and corporate conduct.
In the compressed procedure that governs the narrow compass of the Bill, there will not be time—indeed, it may not be appropriate—to introduce an amendment to describe the idea that I wish to advance, but it is one I would like the Government seriously to bear in mind. I interrupt myself by making it clear that, although some members of my barristers’ chambers have been involved in the Grenfell Tower inquiry and its related litigation, I am not a construction law practitioner and have played no part in the inquiry, nor in any related cases.
Although a memorial of the type envisaged by this Bill is a fitting way to commemorate what happened on 14 June 2017, that is not all that we should do. What connects the 72 deaths in Grenfell Tower and other cases of corporate decision-making resulting in loss of life are the bereaved families waiting for justice. The 72 Grenfell Tower deaths and others elsewhere caused by corporate failure make it clear that we need to strengthen corporate criminal law.
We may think that corporate crime is only financial: bribery, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, cash in brown envelopes, false accounting and clever schemes that cheat the Revenue. Britain has, to its credit, taken a leading role in tackling those offences. However, where corporate misconduct kills rather than steals, our legal system is failing.
It does not have to be like this. The Bribery Act 2010 introduced a powerful weapon: a company commits a criminal offence if it fails to prevent bribery by those who work for it or on its behalf. Companies can no longer shelter behind ignorance or delegation. If a company benefits from wrongdoing and has not put reasonable procedures in place to stop it, the company itself can be prosecuted. We later extended that model to the failure to prevent tax evasion and fraud offences through, respectively, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The effect of those laws on corporate culture has been profound. Rather than turning a blind eye, companies now invest in procedures to prevent financial crimes.
Without new UK legislation, the same cannot be said about the prevention of death, assault, forced labour and other non-financial crimes from which companies benefit. It is now nearly nine years since the Grenfell Tower fire. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry, so ably and sensitively led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, concluded that the 72 deaths in the 2017 fire were, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, pointed out, “wholly avoidable” and resulted from “decades of failure” by government, industry and regulatory bodies.
The final phase 2 report, published on 4 September 2024, identified a “merry-go-round of buck-passing”, where every party involved in the building’s refurbishment failed to take responsibility for fire safety. Sir Martin revealed that persistent and deliberate prioritisation of commercial interests over human safety played a direct part in causing this tragedy. A cladding company that knew about the safety issues was
“determined to exploit what it saw as weak regulatory regimes”
in the United Kingdom.
By 2023, the financial cost of the Grenfell Tower disaster had reached nearly £1.2 billion; that is 4,000 times the amount that was saved by replacing fire-retardant cladding with a cheaper combustible alternative during the disastrous refurbishment. The bulk of the cost is being met from the public purse, dwarfing the compensation to the bereaved and the survivors paid by companies involved in wrapping the tower block in combustible materials before the fire in June 2017. Although the biggest fire in a residential block, Grenfell was not the first, and there have been others since. So far, no one has been held criminally accountable.
I could cite other examples where corporate decision-making, or the lack of it, both here and overseas, has caused or been alleged to have caused hundreds of people to lose their lives, homes or livelihoods. I will not say more, as at least one of the cases that I have in mind is currently the subject of High Court proceedings here in London. What I can say is that the law of the United Kingdom makes it difficult for cases like these to result in effective accountability, let alone access to justice for those who have suffered.
Jurisdictional arguments aside, holding corporations accountable for criminal activity is complicated, whether it is based on the identification principle or on attribution to a senior manager—an improvement now proposed in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is shortly to receive Royal Assent. Crucially, existing laws do not impose a proactive duty on companies to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm arising from their commercial activities.
The introduction of effective corporate accountability laws here in the United Kingdom is long overdue. I first wrote about the need to plug the gaps in our legal system more than eight years ago, in the Times newspaper. Since then, other countries have moved ahead. Norway, Germany, France and the EU as a whole have all introduced a legal requirement for companies to prevent human rights and environmental abuses in their operations and supply chains.
Now is the time for us to act. The failure to prevent model is an effective British legal innovation. It is pragmatic and it is fair. It does not criminalise accidents. It does not promote meaningless box-ticking. It simply asks whether a company that has benefited from serious wrongdoing took reasonable steps to stop it. If the company can prove to the civil standard that it did, it has a defence. If it did not, it should answer in the criminal courts and compensate its victims.
Calls are growing to extend this model beyond financial crime to discourage harm to human rights, workers’ rights and the environment. They come from campaigners, parliamentary committees, trade unions, investors, businesses themselves and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. The argument is no longer seen as radical. It is not, as others have already said, party political; it is humane and it is orthodox. The Government’s trade strategy proclaims that responsible business conduct is a priority, and a review of the UK’s approach is under way. If Ministers are serious about this and they wish to be taken seriously about this, they should build on what works. A new law cannot bring back the dead of Grenfell, but the failure to prevent model has changed corporate behaviour before and it can do so again. Would not such a reform of our laws be a practical and above all a fitting memorial to the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier.
The late great Martin Amis described the sensation of ageing as feeling like breakfast comes around every 15 minutes. Dare I say it but, for some of us in your Lordships’ House, 2017 feels like yesterday. For the survivors and the bereaved, it must feel like every day. I welcome this Bill to fund a memorial, but I agree with everyone else that the best memorial would add action on culture, governance and regulation in the field of building and fire safety and more generally.
This was no natural disaster, nor one caused by overt acts of terrorism or war as normally understood. Instead, it was a catastrophe—a loss of life caused by public, private, central and local negligence, complacency, cover-up, corruption and greed. Greed in the late 1990s and 2000s was given political voice through the zeal for deregulation and privatising regulation, as we see in the report, and against the so-called health and safety culture that was derided at times by senior politicians, including very distinguished ones and including in your Lordships’ House. This was done with an enthusiasm now reserved for the denigration of human rights alone.
In pursuit of the cutting of red tape, some lives mattered a great deal less—as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord—than corporate profit. These are the profits of architects, builders, manufacturers of building materials and all those who purported to regulate and kitemark all of the above—again, for profit, which is a bit of an oxymoron. It is not so much regulatory capture as regulatory corruption and cancellation. This is so clear from Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s damning inquiry report.
What of the public sector? What of central and local government, which should have been on the side of the poor and the vulnerable—those tenants in the richest borough in one of the richest cities in the world? Sir Martin was appropriately scathing about the negligence of central government.
As for local government, Kensington and Chelsea is consistently rated as our capital’s richest borough in terms of average household income, property prices and the concentration of what are described as “high net worth” residents. Is this what led a so-called royal borough to behave more like a rotten one, via its tenant management body? There is an idea: a tenant management body that, in the years before the fire, and, some would argue, even in the immediate aftermath, treated the repeated concerns of Grenfell residents, even after earlier comparable high-rise fires, with such contempt.
As for the fire brigade, I need say little more than how well represented that service has been today by my noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham. He said that we failed as an institution, but our people, our firefighters, did not. His courage and humility in describing his experience is something that few of us will forget in a hurry. If that approach to public service could be distilled and distributed more widely, our country would be a much better place.
I hope that this draft legislation has already made some contribution by prompting all of us who are attempting to contribute today to reread the findings and urgent recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry report. I know my noble friend to be fierce in her defence of human rights and renters’ rights, and I know that memory without action will be insufficient for her, so can I ask for her view of the implementation to date of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report?
Public sector, if not private sector, obfuscation in the aftermath of disasters would be significantly lanced by the prompt passage of the long-promised Hillsborough legislation. Can the Minister advise the House on the likely timetable for that? Can she also advise, or say anything more, on what my noble friends have alluded to regarding the timetable for relevant criminal prosecutions, given that the report lays considerable breadcrumbs for the police and prosecution authorities to follow?
Is the Minister of the view—this is where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, comes in—that the current criminal law is adequate? I think few that heard him would be reassured that it is. Are the laws of corporate manslaughter and director regulation and disqualification adequate to provide corporate and personal accountability for the kind of unadulterated neglect and corruption that we saw in this and other scandals, including that of the postmasters? In the wake of all sorts of other debates about AI and exciting challenges, will the Government always remember the importance of transparent and effective regulation, not just in housing but in every other aspect of everyday life?
Housing is no mere commodity; it is a fundamental human right. Sir Martin’s report emphasises the importance of safe, private and dignified housing to any quality of life. Perhaps the denigration of human rights might be resigned to the dustbin, like the denigration of health and safety that came before it.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest and draw noble Lords’ attention to my role as a non-executive director at MHCLG, the lead department for this Bill. The Bill, as presented very ably by my noble friend the Minister, is short, tightly drawn and constitutionally straightforward. It is a money Bill and, as such, as many speakers have already said, our role today is limited. However, its significance is anything but limited. This Bill asks Parliament to do something solemn, to authorise public expenditure so that this country can create, maintain and steward a permanent memorial to the 72 people who lost their lives on the night of 14 June 2017.
My noble friend the Minister has explained eloquently what this Bill seeks to do. What it does not do is equally important. It does not determine the design, governance or planning decisions associated with memorial. Those remain rightly with the bereaved, the survivors and the local community, through the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission. This is a deliberate choice on the behalf of the Government. Ministers in the Commons were clear that the narrowness of the Bill is intended to preserve community leadership, which is a profound shift in our British tradition of memorialisation. For most of the last century, national memorials from the Cenotaph to the Commonwealth war grave cemeteries were designed, commissioned and governed by state or national bodies. Grenfell is different; it is community led, because the community has borne the greatest loss and because the state must demonstrate again that it must not impose decisions on people whose voices were ignored for far too long.
We also must be honest about why this memorial is needed. The Grenfell Tower fire was not a natural disaster or an unforeseeable accident. The public inquiry has documented in painful detail what the Government themselves have described as failure after failure, year after year—failures of regulation, of oversight, of enforcement and of listening. Many Members in the Commons debate said plainly that Grenfell was an avoidable tragedy rooted in systemic regulatory failure. The memorial, therefore, is not only a place of remembrance but a form of institutional accountability. It is a public acknowledgement that the state failed in its most important basic duty: to keep people safe in their own homes.
At the time of the fire, I was the leader of Newcastle City Council, and the four weeks that followed were the worst of my time holding that office, because I was not able to give a categorical assurance to residents in my city that every tall building around them was safe. Those buildings in public ownership, where we had clear records of design, building control sign-off, construction materials and usage, were manageable, even when remediation work was needed. But several tall residential buildings were a mystery. We did not know who owned them. We did not know how they had been constructed. We did not know what materials had been used—and there was no mechanism to find this out quickly. That was the direct consequence of a deregulatory zeal that removed safeguards without understanding what those safeguards were there to prevent. It was a failure with profound consequences for public confidence and public safety.
The Grenfell Tower fire has been described by commentators as one of the gravest failures of the British state in modern times. Personally, I would go further and call it the greatest crime committed in this country this century. What is beyond dispute is that the cladding that turned a small kitchen fire into an inferno was not installed for thermal efficiency or structural protection, or for any purpose that served the residents inside the building. It was installed for cosmetic reasons—for those who looked at Grenfell, not for those who lived within it. This was a deliberate attempt to hide a community that some considered inconvenient or unsightly, or somehow less deserving of dignity. At the heart of this tragedy lies a toxic mix of elitism, class prejudice and a disregard for people living in poverty. A memorial cannot put that right, but it can ensure that we do not look away. It can ensure that the lessons of Grenfell are not confined to inquiry reports or regulatory guidance but are embedded in our national memory, and that future Governments, of whatever political persuasion, remain accountable for the long-term stewardship of that memory.
That is why this Bill legislates for expenditure not only today but for the decades ahead. It mirrors the long-term commitments we have made to the maintenance of our war memorials, recognising that remembrance is not a one-off act but a continuing and collective intergenerational responsibility. The Bill may well set a precedent; other tragedies linked to state or institutional failure—Hillsborough, the contaminated blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal—have prompted calls for memorialisation that acknowledges harm and honours those affected. The approach taken here, with community leadership and statutory funding, may shape how Parliament responds in future.
I end on a point raised by many survivors and bereaved families. Community leadership does not mean community responsibility alone. The state cannot outsource remembrance. It cannot say: “This is for you alone to decide and therefore for you alone to carry”. The responsibility for learning, reform and ensuring that nothing like Grenfell ever happens again rests with public bodies, regulators and those of us in positions of authority. A memorial is not a substitute for action. It is a reminder of the cost of inaction. So while I support this Bill and the funding it provides, the true national memorial to Grenfell must be a housing system that is safe, a regulatory system that is robust, a culture that listens to tenants and a state that never again allows people to be treated as though their lives matter less. This Bill enables a physical memorial. It is our duty to ensure that it also builds a moral one.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, for his incredibly powerful speech. We all need a reminder sometimes of the enormity of that night, and his speech certainly did that. While he spoke about the night itself, he did not mention the incredible, painstaking work he has done with the community in the years since. I also acknowledge the work of that community today, in particular the representatives of the memorial commission, because for them the road to get here has been rather less straightforward than the Bill before us today.
We know that, in the days after the fire, the local community pulled together in the most extraordinary way. We all remain in awe of their resilience, but it was inevitable with a tragedy on this scale that people were going to take different views on how to navigate the aftermath. One of the most sensitive and, at times, divisive issues has been the memorial, so it took great courage for the bereaved and survivors to step up and take a place on that commission. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, in co- chairing it alongside Thelma Stober, who has played a brilliant and pivotal role from the very beginning. It really has not been easy and there will undoubtedly be further hurdles ahead, so will the Minister ensure that the Government pay careful attention to the role of the commissioners when taking any decisions related to the site and the memorial? Of all the people involved in this process, they are uniquely exposed and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
This Bill sits alongside the deconstruction process, which continues apace. I know the Government are aware that there is still a lot of distrust, I am afraid, about the way in which the decision was taken. In fairness, it was never going to be an easy decision for anyone to take, but it remains a sensitive issue. Can the Minister assure the House that proper support will continue to be made available to those who need it, because trauma this significant has a long tail? As one former resident of the tower told me,
“we have all given a lot of thought to how people might be affected by the Tower coming down but what about when it’s no longer there? I’m not sure any of us have properly thought that through yet”.
At the same time, as I understand it, some support services are no longer available. On a visit to Al Manaar, Nick Hurd and I were told that they would no longer be receiving funding for their helpline, which is relatively low-cost and has provided a lot of help to many in the local community. So, although I do not expect the Minister to know the details now, could she write with an update on what support is available, be that through helplines, drop-in sessions, specialist support services or GP practices? I think I am right in saying that support will be available until the end of any potential criminal proceedings, but if she could confirm that, I would be grateful.
We are here today to talk about the memorial, but the memorial, those proceedings and the question of justice are inextricably linked. In 2024, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy took the highly unusual step of publicly confirming that the Met would be submitting charging files to the CPS. But as it stands, the investigations are still ongoing and those charging decisions are not expected until the spring of 2027.
In his excellent speech in the other place, the honourable Member for Kensington and Bayswater said that Ministers in the Home Office had told him that the Government’s special grant for Operation Northleigh—the investigation into Grenfell—would continue. Can the Minister confirm that? She said that there was support for the investigation, but I would be grateful for clarification on that point about the grant. He also raised the important point about ensuring that court time is made available. I understand that this is not in the Government’s gift, but families are anxious about the delay, so I think it is worth mentioning. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether there are any representations the Government can make on this.
When the discussions began about the future of the site and the memorial, the Government agreed a set of principles with the community that would govern the process. As has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, one of those principles accepted that work on the site and the memorial would go hand in hand with work to deliver a model 21st-century estate—the Lancaster West estate. Some progress has been made, but I hope the Government will continue to support RBKC in ensuring that the memorial will sit within the model of social housing that I know we would all like to see in the future.
The memorial will honour the memory of all those who lost their lives, and of course it is important. But the Grenfell community has always been clear that, alongside any appropriate memorial, they want Grenfell to be remembered not for what happened on the night but for the positive change it brought about. For groups such as Grenfell United, that should be the real legacy of Grenfell. They have spent years, at great cost to themselves, trying to bring about that change.
One of the most important aspects of that was the professionalisation of social housing. Some of us in this Chamber today will remember that long-running battle, so I will not repeat the arguments other than to say that it put right the anomaly whereby social housing was the only front-line service without any formal qualifications structure. I want to put on record the disappointment that many felt at the Regulator of Social Housing’s decision not to set a stand-alone competence and conduct standard but to instead incorporate the requirements into the existing transparency, influence and accountability standard. This has come as a big and unwelcome surprise to the sector, including the Chartered Institute of Housing. Does the Minister agree that this proposal does not accurately reflect the Government’s original direction to the regulator? If she cannot answer that today, perhaps she could write. I promise that that is my last request of her.
Despite the number of questions, I genuinely welcome today’s Bill and thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced it. But as she said at the outset, it is just one part of a complex landscape in which there is still much to do if we are to do right by the Grenfell community—for all those who survived, and for all those they lost that night.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her introduction and give my strong support to this Bill. I join noble Lords from across the House in thanking my noble friend Lord Roe and his team for their service that night. As others have already said, the Grenfell Tower fire was not only a profound tragedy but an event that exposed deep systemic failures in building safety, governance and the relationship between communities and the state.
The fire, in which 72 individuals lost their lives, was entirely avoidable, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick concluded in the inquiry. It has left a stain on the city of London, which allowed this to happen, and our wider country. It must remain in our national conscience. Recovery from this tragedy has been about more than buildings and regulation. It is about memory, dignity and the recognition of those who were lost and those who continue to live with its consequences.
Grenfell has had a profound impact on me, professionally and personally. I had the privilege—I use that word with great care—of serving as a trustee of the London Emergencies Trust, representing the British Red Cross on its board as a director at that time. I came face to face with Grenfell families when I and some of my colleagues attended a meeting with Grenfell United, which I will never forget. We were confronted not with statistics but with people—families who were grieving, families who were angry and traumatised. They needed to be heard and, most importantly, they needed urgent practical help. Grenfell was a tower, but in the face of that tragedy I could see that the community came together and stood as a tower of strength.
Through the London Emergencies Trust, we distributed £8 million to the bereaved and hospitalised and a further £773,000 to 165 households. We allocated grants for those who had been hospitalised, for pregnant women who suffered due to unimaginable stress, and for families who had lost fathers, mothers and children. Behind every grant application there was a grieving family and a community in huge distress. It was one of the most humbling periods of my life. The British Red Cross provided one of the largest humanitarian responses since World War II, mobilising volunteers from across our country at the start of the fire. It deployed over 630 volunteers, who supported more than 1,700 people. I cannot forget how volunteers arrived from all over the country. It also raised £7.3 million in funds to help those affected by this terrible tragedy. I thank all the volunteers, our psychosocial team for their immediate response at the time, and the senior leadership of the British Red Cross and trustees of the London Emergencies Trust for their service.
As we have heard, the Grenfell tragedy should never have happened. It exposed systemic neglect of the very people the state had a duty to protect. As a doctor I have spent much of my career speaking about health inequalities and helping to tackle them, but Grenfell forced me to confront something even more troubling—an inequality of safety and an inequality of voice in our society. Grenfell Tower stood in one of the most deprived areas in the country, within Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest boroughs in our country. Around 85% of those who died were from Black, Asian and minority-ethnic backgrounds. These two facts are not incidental. For years, residents had raised concerns about fire safety and were consistently ignored. As Leslie Thomas KC, who represented many of the bereaved families, argued:
“Grenfell is inextricably linked with race”.
It was a working-class community tucked, or forgotten, inside one of the richest boroughs of London. The failure to hear, to act, to protect, fell disproportionately on those who already had least. A permanent memorial is an act not of charity but of civic responsibility.
Grenfell must never become just a chapter in our history; it must remain a call to build a society where safety is not determined by race or postcode. A permanent memorial must carry that truth, not just the grief. The Bill’s provision for expenditure on the Grenfell memorial, including an archive and a sacred resting place for elements of the tower, in line with the recommendations of the commission, is therefore vital. A memorial of this significance must be properly maintained, protected and preserved for future generations, not only for them to remember those who were lost and those who lost but to remind us of our duty to tackle inequality and protect the most vulnerable in our society.
Critically, the Bill does not prescribe the design of the memorial. It enables government expenditure, while ensuring that the community shapes the memorial’s design and purpose. Those most affected must remain at its heart. The Bill is a necessary step in honouring our commitment to that community and to our nation, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
Who and what we as a country remember matters. Although many others in your Lordships’ House are clearly far more qualified on this topic and have had direct face-to-face experience of the tragedy, I wanted to speak in this debate because, as somebody who was living in London and has the name of a council estate in my title, this is a debate and a subject that matter very much to me. I remember vividly watching in total disbelief as those events of 14 June 2017 unfolded. It was a day when so many things changed, and this painful event in the city’s history is etched on Londoners’ hearts for ever. Of course, that is incomparable to those who were there and witnessed it with their own eyes and are living with that day, as others have mentioned—a repeated memory.
It is absolutely right that there is a fitting memorial, and it is absolutely right that Governments, institutions, professional organisations and regulatory bodies learn every possible lesson from this appalling tragedy and litany of systemic failures. Both these things can happen, as others have said, only if a relentless focus on the voices of surviving residents and the local community is maintained. The government response to phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, published in March 2026, stated:
“It was clear from events leading up to the tragedy in 2017 that too many voices had gone unheard by too many responsible organisational bodies leading to devastating consequences. This government is determined that we learn from these injustices and ensure that tenants’ voices are not only heard but reliably acted upon”.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for all the reassurances today that that is precisely what is happening, as well as the work that has happened on this in the other place. That is the key here: not just hearing from those voices but learning from and acting on them. It is so important that this memorial is built and well funded to remember those who died and to declare war on “institutional thoughtlessness”, a phrase I borrow today from prison scholarship. These systems and structures that failed so badly were the result of cultures that allowed cost-cutting, regulation to be treated merely as guidance and a lack of rigour in thinking through what might happen in the event of systemic failure and therefore a lack of mitigations in place. There was wide-ranging institutional thoughtlessness.
Systemic failures are far less likely to viscerally impact those in senior roles, who are often cushioned by class, wealth or their whiteness. The systemic failures at Grenfell Tower are no different—failures that resulted in the deaths of people whose lives and stories have been too often marginalised and forgotten. As your Lordships’ House has heard, those who lived in Grenfell Tower and those who died there were disproportionately working class, people who had made their home afresh in the UK, and Black and brown people.
Who and what we remember matters. Black lives matter. That is why this memorial is so important, both for the survivors and for the community, who have expressed their desire for one that includes private space to grieve and one with funding to preserve and sustain it. The memorial is important for our country, to say clearly that those 72 lives mattered—each life of value, each person remembered, each story told. Their lives had huge value, and the systemic failures that brought about these tragic and untimely ends have been devastating to uncover.
The memorial will remind all of us in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, all those in positions of power, that there cannot be a relaxed approach to systemic failures. They are not someone else’s problem. It is not okay to wait for a loss of life to address them. It is repeatedly demonstrated that systemic failures impact some groups of people disproportionately, and this memorial will serve as a reminder that each life is precious and of equal value. Whatever your gender, ethnicity, skin colour or class, the lives of people of all faiths and none have equal value.
I express my gratitude to the survivors, the community and all those who have contributed, who are contributing and will contribute to the memorial. We can hear from the tributes in the House today just how much work and thought has gone into it, but there is still much yet to do. I am grateful for the fact that it will enable the whole of London and the UK to better remember those precious lives and these people’s stories. Who and what we remember really does matter.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to take part in this thoughtful debate. I remember the shock of witnessing the charred husk of Grenfell Tower as I drove across London to do the paper review on Sky News. I remember being on air, and it was incredibly difficult to process what had just happened, in this day and age, in a residential building. It was a moment and a tragedy that none of us, whether we were journalists or anyone else, could really get our heads around—72 people losing their lives, in this day and age. They were not just statistics, as we have heard, but men, women, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, aunties, uncles, and so many children and babies who perished in what must have been unimaginable fear, confusion, bewilderment and pain that night.
I have been thinking about the tragedies that live on in history, the ones that we think change things, the ones that herald a new era of health and safety, and change. I was thinking, for example, about a tragedy that I spend a lot of time thinking about for various reasons: the “Titanic”.
As much as we talk about systemic failures—we will come on to discuss that, as my good friend, my noble friend Lady Hyde, just said in her excellent speech—the staying power of remembrance is about those human stories, people and personalities, such as Raymond Bernard, known as Moses to his friends, who had moved to the UK from Trinidad in 1969. He worked as an electrician and a part-time DJ. His relatives said that he
“had long, flowing locks like the free-thinking lion that he was”.
The wee girls Hania Hassan, aged three, and her sister Fethia, aged four, known as Fou-Fou, died along with their mum, Rania Ibrahim. Their dad and Rania’s husband, Awadh, said his life had “fully stopped” since the fire.
The Choukair family lived on the 22nd floor. Bassem died alongside his wife Nadia and their three girls Zainab, Mierna and Fatima. Bassem worked at Marks & Spencer and was described by his colleagues as a dedicated man who never took a day off, such was his pride in his work. His mother-in-law, Sirria, died alongside them. Sirria had come to this country from Lebanon back in the 1960s. She worked at the Royal Marsden Hospital, where she became close friends with her boss, a lady called Maria Del Pilar Burton, who also lived in Grenfell Tower and who died in hospital six months after the fire.
Anthony Disson, the retired lorry driver, lived on the 22nd floor. His son said of him that he was
“always there to help anyone, no matter who you were or where you came from”.
Ligaya Moore, the Filipino pensioner loved her 21st-floor flat and was so proud of it because, she said, it made her feel like she was
“on top of the world”.
The artist and photographer Khadija Saye lived and died with her mum, Mary Mendy, that night. Khadija was a great talent and her work was displayed at the Venice Biennale and Tate Britain after her death.
Gary Maunders, aged 57, was remembered by his family as a man with a great personality and as a devoted Manchester United football supporter.
Sheila, aged 84, had lived at Grenfell for 34 years. Sheila was full of life and fit as a fiddle, often being seen cycling around or doing yoga daily. She was a keen swimmer at the Kensington Leisure Centre until she was 80 years old.
Steven Power lived on the 15th floor. His daughter said her dad was a keen fisherman and DJ, and had a style which was like a
“West Indies man trapped in an Irish man’s body”.
Steven’s best pals were his three dogs, who also died with him that night in his flat.
These are just a handful of the stories behind that number of 72—the number of people who died that night. As we have all been discussing, we must remember and honour every single one of them. We must also honour what Grenfell Tower represented. In an often toxic, polarised world, we are often told, particularly online, that London, our capital, has been invaded by outsiders; that it is a violent cesspit and a crime-ridden, nasty and unhappy place. But we in this House all know that Grenfell—the Grenfell that we have all got to know though the work we have done—told a very different story. The globe resided there, with people from all over the world who came to London to work very hard, like Bassem, and make a better life for themselves alongside Londoners who lived in that building. They found in that tower block such riches: friendship, kinship and community in life and then, tragically, in death. Grenfell is a reminder of resilience and unity in a very divided climate, of hope and of the best of humanity, particularly in the aftermath and the days afterwards.
I very much welcome this Bill and the many wonderful, thoughtful and really moving contributions that we have heard, particularly from my noble friend Lord Roe. I think we were all extremely humbled by his story, his bravery and his lived experience. He powerfully reminded us of our privileges and responsibilities.
We all agree, though, that this memorial, however it takes shape, must be guided by survivors, families and the local community. As we have been discussing, the legacy must be more than simply memories. It must be about learning the right systemic lessons for the future and about justice, which means prosecutions. Like so many of the big scandals of our generation, including Horizon, nobody senior and very well paid ever seems to be held properly accountable. Every single one of these deaths was avoidable. As the inquiry said, everyone who died in the fire had been failed by those responsible for keeping them safe.
I welcome the words from the Minister and hope that she will have heard many of the questions. I am sure she will agree with us all that these reports and recommendations must not become just dusty tomes on the shelf of history. We must never allow a tragedy like this to happen again.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, following the 2017 general election, I was appointed Housing and Planning Minister on 13 June by the then Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady May. That, of course, was the day before the terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower where 72 people lost their lives—54 adults and 18 children.
As many of your Lordships have noted, this was a tragedy that should never have happened. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has been very clear that those 72 deaths were “entirely avoidable”, and we have to acknowledge that ultimately this was the result of decades of failure by successive Governments, by myriad institutions and of course by the construction industry. A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady Hazarika, pointed out that so far no one has been prosecuted for this disaster. We know that the criminal investigation remains ongoing, but when charges are brought, and I sincerely hope they are, the full force of the law should be thrown at those found to be culpable.
The immediate initial response to the fire was also simply not good enough. As Ministers, we acknowledged that at the time. I did so in the media and in Parliament. We should have moved much more quickly to put our arms around the grieving and shell-shocked families and communities to offer support and reassurance. The Government did pick up the pace, and in the days and weeks following the tragedy, I and other Ministers spent a significant amount of time listening to and engaging with survivors and the wider Grenfell community to offer immediate support but also to discuss what longer-term support might be required. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, set out very eloquently that a lot of what was started then continues today.
I also noted in a parliamentary debate in the other place that hearing the harrowing accounts of the survivors was
“the most humbling and moving experience of my life”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/17; col. 1191.]
That remains the case. If anything, the passage of time has only reinforced to me the real dignity that was maintained by the survivors in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, despite the unimaginable pain and grief that they faced.
I particularly recall speaking to one survivor when I was meeting families individually at the Westway emergency relief centre to talk about their housing needs. One gentleman had waited patiently for hours to speak to me, and in our conversation I learned that at the time, some members of his family were still unaccounted for, but he wanted nothing for himself. All he asked was that I—we—do everything to prioritise and help find accommodation for survivor families with young children. His was a display of the best of humanity at a very dark and testing time for our nation.
I very much welcome this Grenfell Tower memorial Bill, which will allow for the construction of a permanent and fitting memorial. We all owe enormous gratitude to the community-led Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, which has worked so diligently over the past years to recommend how the victims of the fire should be remembered. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Roe, for the work that he did that night and subsequently. I totally agree with him that, of course, it is up to the community to decide what this memorial should be like, but I do think that the commission’s recommendations show great sensitivity and awareness about the type of memorial that should be constructed. I particularly welcome the recommendation that the memorial should be a “sacred place”, designed and built to last, for remembering and reflecting, both individually and communally, on who and what we have lost.
It is also vital, as the commission recommends, that there is a long-term public exhibition, which, together with digital archives, will help ensure that current and future generations can learn about and remember the tragedy, the factors that contributed to it and how the Grenfell community responded to it. We must never forget what happened—and what, through years of inaction, and worse, was in effect allowed to happen—on that fateful day. The noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Nargund, have noted that this tragedy happened in the middle of one of the most prosperous and advanced cities in the world.
As I understand it, the commission has committed to beginning the memorial’s construction in mid-2027, and the passage of the Bill will help ensure that public money is made available. A permanent Grenfell memorial is vital, but there are other ways in which we can honour the memories of those who lost their lives. First—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised this issue, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister on this—I would like to see the Government deliver on their commitments to help fund the refurbishment of the Lancaster West Estate. I know that the Government are having a constructive dialogue with the local council, but, for the sake of local residents, funding decisions need to be concluded now. Secondly, as many of your Lordships have noted, we need to ensure that the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry are implemented in a timely manner, so that a tragedy like Grenfell can never be allowed to happen again. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, the Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy of an unimaginable scale, as many of the contributions have reminded us. The noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, in particular, described the shocking events of that day so movingly.
I am contributing today not only to debate a Bill but to honour the 72 lives that were tragically lost. We do well to remember that each one of those 72 individuals had dreams and a future. They were someone’s child, parent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, for sharing the stories of those individuals who perished. It is so important for us to remember the individuals, but there were also countless others who were injured and who will be impacted for rest of their lives. It was not just them and the local community who were left scarred by the Grenfell Tower fire but the entire country.
Like many others, I vividly recall the day I heard the news; I was in Brussels at the time. The sheer horror I felt as the news sunk in was followed rapidly by questions: how could this happen in the UK, a first-world country, not some poor, developing one with shoddy standards? This is a country that prides itself on being well regulated, with a strong ethos of values, the rule of law and standards. I recall the shame I experienced as a British representative in the EU, fielding questions from other MEPs about this, asking how this could happen—as many have said today—in one of the most prosperous capital cities in the world.
The international standing of “brand Britain” was badly damaged that day. Grenfell was not simply a fire but a national tragedy that exposed deep failures in safety, accountability and the duty that we owe each other as citizens. That includes the combustible cladding, the fire doors that failed and the evacuation procedures that were tragically inadequate, as well as the deeper systemic failures in regulation, oversight and accountability that made such a disaster possible.
Going forward, as someone who has a long history in housing development, I shudder each time I hear the word deregulation in reference to housing, because that means lax enforcement of construction standards and building regulations, which is what we need to be strengthening. Furthermore, residents must have clear and accessible channels to raise their concerns without fear. Unsafe materials must be removed from all buildings, nationwide, identified as a risk. Landlords, building managers and regulators must all face real accountability. I know many of your Lordships have already raised this point, but I ask my noble friend the Minister: when will we ensure that negligence in housing safety carries consequences strong enough to deter future failures?
Grenfell is not a chapter that we can close lightly; it is a stark reminder that safety cannot be optional, that the dignity of residents cannot be compromised and that complacency costs lives. We must act decisively, implement every recommendation in full and monitor progress rigorously to ensure that no community ever endures the pain, the fear and the loss that Grenfell brought. The lives lost and the voices of those who survived demand nothing less, and we must ask ourselves how we will honour them—through action, or will history record that we waited too long? Therefore, a memorial for the victims is wholeheartedly welcome and long overdue.
As we have heard, the Bill is not about politics; it is about remembrance, dignity and responsibility. A permanent memorial is essential, not just as a structure of stone or steel, but as a place of reflection, a space where families can grieve, where communities can gather and where the nation can remember. This will ensure that those we lost are never reduced to statistics but are forever recognised as human beings whose lives really mattered.
But I reiterate that remembrance alone is not enough. This memorial must also stand as a symbol of change, a reminder of the consequences of when safety is compromised and when voices, especially those of vulnerable residents, are ignored. It must call on all of us in this House and beyond to ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again. We owe that to the victims, the families and future generations. Passing the Bill will send a clear message that we remember, we care and we are committed to building a safer and just society. Let this memorial be a promise that Grenfell will never be forgotten and its lesson will never be ignored. I commend the Bill.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill and hope that the memorial will bring some comfort to the friends and families of those who lost lives and the thousands more scarred by this avoidable tragedy.
The root cause of this tragedy is lust for higher profits, performance-related pay, failure of regulators, local authorities and Governments. No memorial will be complete without ending regulatory failures to ensure that there are no more Grenfells. People’s lives and welfare must come before corporate profits. Yet, sadly, deregulation is the mantra of the day, as Governments push for economic growth at almost any human cost.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chairman of the Grenfell inquiry, said that cladding manufacturers Arconic
“deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger of using Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form”.
The inquiry found that Kingspan knowingly made false claims about its insulation’s fire performance and conducted
“long-running internal discussions about what it could get away with”.
The inquiry concluded that Celotex used “dishonest means” to break into the market, presenting its insulation as safe while knowing that it did not meet the required standards. The inquiry found that companies used
“deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market”.
The inquiry identified “persistent indifference” of the tenant management organisation, “systemic dishonesty” of product manufacturers, and decades of government failures as the causes of this tragedy.
The Government have accepted all 58 of the inquiry’s recommendations, but they have not yet been fully implemented. Many buildings still have the same cladding as Grenfell. Despite the evidence, no one has yet been charged or prosecuted over the death of 72 innocent people. No director has been disqualified, the offending companies are not excluded permanently from public procurement, no legislation has been introduced to improve corporate governance or accountability, and directors are not held personally liable for causing grievous harms. Ministers bat away calls for urgent actions by claiming that somebody else, such as the police, is looking into the issues, and prosecutions may follow.
Governments speedily prosecute carers and poor people for minor indiscretions but suddenly lack the necessary backbone for dealing with corporate crimes. Here are just some examples. After 30 years, and despite the 2019 High Court judgment and a landmark inquiry, no one connected with the Post Office or Fujitsu has been charged or prosecuted. Yes, there is the ever-ready excuse that police are looking into this, which may or may not be able to bring any prosecutions.
England’s water companies have over 1,200 criminal prosecutions. Fines on companies are announced but then quietly waived or not collected at all. No company has had its licence to operate withdrawn. Company executives are rewarded for boosting profits by dumping sewage in the rivers. No one is charged or prosecuted for killing marine life, destroying biodiversity and even harming humans.
Then there is the long-running saga of the £1 billion fraud at HBOS, which since 2009 has been part of the Lloyds Banking Group. The FCA, the SFO and the City of London Police, which is partly funded by City institutions, declined to prosecute anyone. In 2017, the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner successfully prosecuted some HBOS managers for fraud. Still, the regulators refused to fully investigate and secure compensation for the victims. Instead, Lloyds Bank was persuaded to appoint Dame Linda Dobbs to investigate and issue a report by 2018. No report has been issued. Some victims of the fraud have since died, and obviously never received any compensation.
I have raised matters relating to HBOS in this House on many occasions, such as 28 January 2021, 14 April 2021, 6 February 2023, 9 February 2023, 22 January 2024, 14 February 2024, 15 May 2025 and 26 March 2026, just to give your Lordships a few examples. The typical response from the Ministers is silence, carefully calculated indifference, or that it is a matter really for somebody else or a failed regulator. This is how the political system incubates tragedies such as Grenfell, because Ministers and Governments are too afraid to upset the corporate lobby.
The most fitting memorial for the victims of the Grenfell fire is effective democracy, regulation, corporate and director accountability, Governments who can be called to account, and speedy justice to ensure that such a tragedy never ever occurs again.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in this debate only in my capacity as co-chair of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission. The commission welcomes this Bill. On behalf of the commission, I thank the Minister and the representative of the Opposition for their support for the Bill, and I thank the whole House for its unanimous support for the Bill. The commission is grateful.
The commission reflected at its last meeting on the Bill and the circumstances that led to its introduction. The commission wrestles with this issue not only at its meetings but for the overwhelming number of its membership, excepting only me and my co-chair, who is a source of inspiration to us all. Deputy Lieutenant Thelma Stober is a survivor of 7/7. She has been with the commission and with the people of the Grenfell community from the outset of this tragedy and its aftermath, and the commission has asked me to thank her publicly for her service over these many years.
Hers is the only name I will mention in my contribution to this debate, save for—they have not asked me to say this, but I am going to—each and every one of the people who have lost and had to bury their nearest and dearest, the people who have lost neighbours and friends, the people who have lost their very homes, and the people who are bereaved, the next of kin, survivors and residents of the immediate community. To have served with them on this commission has been the greatest privilege of my life.
We begin every meeting of the commission with a two-minute silence in memory of the 72 who lost their lives. They have been at the heart of the commission’s work and have to be at the heart of this Bill as it is implemented. We in the commission are in the business of memorialisation; noble Lords will therefore forgive me if I do not address the specific points that individuals have made in this debate, with great force and great acuity, and bringing to bear their enormous, first-hand experience of these matters.
I will address only the issue of memorialisation, save in one matter. Memorialisation is all very well in its built and material form, and, rightly, with this measure, the Government provide the material resources that will enable a memorial to be erected. That is all very well.
The Minister, in her excellent introduction to the Bill, referred to the community’s desire for, and entitlement to, respect. I welcome that. But this community, while appreciating respect, demands justice. They have not had justice and, I have to tell noble Lords, they do not expect it. You may hope for it, and your expressions of hope are appreciated, but this community does not expect justice. They will continue to demand it, but they do not expect it. So the memorialisation has to address wider issues around learning lessons that all noble Lords in this House have expressed. That can be the only memorial.
If we do address those difficult issues, so well articulated by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, that will require legislation. This is an easy Bill to pass: it has passed without opposition. It will not be so easy to pass a Bill that puts in the dock those people who are responsible for this injustice. That will not be so easy to promulgate. It will not be so readily passed, but, if these are to be anything other than empty words, it must be. That is all I am going to say about the content of your Lordships’ debate today.
The rest of what I have to say, in very few words, is simply to mouth, as is my duty as co-chair, the expressions —the ready expressions, the printed expressions, the published expressions—of the aspirations of the commission as to what a future memorial should be like. It is contained in the Grenfell Memorial vision statement. These are its words:
“The Grenfell Memorial will be at its heart a peaceful place. It will provide a space for reflection and remembrance, of those that lost their lives, and of why this tragedy happened and the need for justice.
The memorial will reflect the Grenfell Community and the love within it; evoking a sense of hope and positivity that remembers the past and looks forward to the future.
It will be a place for bereaved, survivors and members of the local community to come together.
A respectful, bold and lasting memorial that honours those that lost their lives and their families, the survivors of the fire and members of the local community”.
That is the vision that, in passing the Bill, we will enable materially, with the resources, to be realised.
I thank noble Lords for their vigilance; I am authorised to say that on behalf of the commission. I thank each and every noble Lord for their vigilance, for their service. I say a particular thank you to my noble friend Lord Roe, and the other men and women of the London Fire Brigade on that night, for their service. We say a huge thank you to the first responders. Noble Lords’ vigilance will be required because—we addressed this at the last meeting of the commission—there are, and will continue to be, obstacles ahead.
I will say only this about those obstacles, and I say it to both Front Benches and to the leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: do not allow any disagreements between the royal borough and the Government of the day. Do not allow any party-political considerations to come into the decisions that must be made to ensure that the Lancaster West Estate is properly developed, so that the memorial is properly encompassed on all sides by an estate that is in itself a worthy place—a place where people who are all too often marginalised and forgotten are respected. Do not allow any party-political disputes or disputes about resources to get in the way of that. Listening to Members of this House, as I listened to Members in the other place, I do not believe that your Lordships will allow them to get away with it. The community, and the commission, expect noble Lords to deliver on the promise, the hope and the expectation that your Lordships’ sentiments and work rightly have aroused.
In that, I hope that noble Lords will be led, as we have been led, by the incredible spiritual power and engagement that the faith communities have marshalled around this tragedy. Immediately on that night and thereafter, the one set of institutions that were able to deliver to that community were institutions of faith: the churches, the mosques, people of faith coming together, being there alongside a community. This is a community which, however marginalised and however disrespected, has been a community of faith—of different faiths, but believing in a God, believing in something greater than ourselves and our individual self-interest.
The meditation that guides us as a commission is there on the very first page of the report:
“Grief, Remembrance, Empathy, Nerve, Fortitude, Energy, Loss and Love”.
Those are the words; that is the title of the meditation. It ends, as I do, with these words:
“We have faith in the truth we all know. We have hope in the very justice of our cause. We have love in our hearts for which there can never be closure. And of all these three, it is in the name of love that we will journey on”.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving debate; in particular, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, who shared his practical experience at some personal cost, I think. The noble Lord has helped us all to understand the context in which we debate this Bill today; I thank him.
Every Member who has spoken fully supports the proposal in the Bill to fund the memorial to the 72 lives lost in the Grenfell Tower tragedy—or scandal, as I sometimes call it—and we on these Benches associate ourselves absolutely with those sentiments. The very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, brings home again the depth of feeling—both positive and that of distrust—that has developed within the community affected by the fire, and how we all have a huge responsibility to do what many Members have said: ensure that there is action as a consequence. The memorial is very important, and I will speak a little bit about that, but part of the memorial has to be how we put right the wrongs that the community has suffered. That will be the lasting legacy, the lasting memorial, as well as the physical one that the Bill will enable.
Remembering Grenfell is a very powerful read. It captures the emotions, memories and reflections of those who survived, and it is their contributions that must be faithfully followed. The memorial is primarily for the families and community affected by that terrible night, but it is my hope that it will also stand as a lesson to our generation, and future generations, of the dreadful consequences of disregarding people.
All the evidence from the tragedy indicates that the views of those who lived in Grenfell Tower were dismissed by those in authority simply because the people who lived there were often poorer economically and from many different cultures and backgrounds. Those differences were sufficient for neglectful as well as criminal decisions to be taken. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said—rightly, I fully support what he said—corporate failures of this scale, which end in loss of life or harm to individuals, have to be addressed. The route is through legislation, and that is what we do.
I hope that the Minister has listened carefully— I am sure she has, because she always does—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and takes that back to the department. What he talked about will not be easy, but it may be one of the ways in which we remember and act upon what happened that dreadful night.
Members across the House have reflected on what should be done. A memorial is very important, as is using the site of the tower, because it is where 72 people’s lives ended. That is what this Bill is about. But surely, as I think all Members have said, it should also be about what lessons we learned and how we can act on those lessons.
One of them has to be that listening carefully to people affected, whoever they are, is vitally important. We often talk in legislation about consultation—and I am beginning to hate that word. Consultation has to be a two-way process; it has to be about asking for views and listening to those views, and then acting together on them, otherwise there is no point at all.
Another lesson has to be that those in authority, including us, must be constantly mindful that cutting corners can cut lives. That is what happened—bodge jobs covered up cost lives. Some people call regulations red tape because they want to dismiss them; they want to say, “We can cut red tape”. We had regulations in place for the building and construction industries when the Grenfell Tower fire occurred, but those regulations were not enforced. Nobody likes all the regulations—they regard them as constraining what they can do—but regulations are there for a purpose. If the regulations had been properly followed at Grenfell, lives would not have been lost. Whenever anybody talks about cutting red tape, let us remember Grenfell.
Another lesson is that perverting regulatory requirements to improve profit margins must never be acceptable in any circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has reminded us of the deliberate acts of perverting regulatory requirements that caused Grenfell.
All institutions provided for the public benefit have hard lessons to learn, which I hope can be reflected in any exhibition element of the memorial. The individuals of the London Fire Brigade were heroic in their efforts, but the institution had not learned from previous incidents. The local authority had demonstrably failed the community it purported to serve. Have fundamental changes been made to the culture and purpose of the local authority and council? The latest reports indicate that that is yet to happen.
Criminal charges must follow what has occurred; if they do not then there is never to be justice for the 72, their families and that community, and the rest of us who are looking for justice. If we do not put that right, it will happen again. I hope that elements of the memorial will include those lessons and how we must not forget them.
Even now, nine years on, 15 buildings more than 18 metres high have not had the work done. Those are the ones most at risk. The department reckons that, of more than 4,000 buildings of 11 metres or more, only 1,500 have been fully remediated. There is work to be done and it should be done. It has been nearly nine years and the people paying the price are those who live in those properties. If they are leaseholders, they are paying sky-high insurance and inflated service charges. But the people and organisations that caused the tragedy are yet to pay, and that has to follow.
There is much to remember and to learn from the appalling and dreadful tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Above all, the memorial must form a fitting remembrance to those who perished.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving, thoughtful and serious debate. I begin by thanking noble Lords across the House. The contributions we have heard reflect the weight of Grenfell’s legacy for bereaved families, survivors, the local community and the country as a whole. I want to reflect on those very precious lives, brought to us so vividly in the testimony of my noble friends Lord Roe and Lady Hazarika.
Today’s debate has shown that, whatever our political differences, there is a shared understanding across the House that this Bill is not about party politics. It is about the lasting impact of Grenfell on our national conscience. It is about doing what is right and about keeping faith with those most directly affected by the tragedy. It is about the collective commitment made by Parliament that Grenfell would be remembered with dignity, truth and permanence.
Before I turn to the points raised during the debate, I want to restate very clearly exactly what this Bill does. It is a simple Bill with a focused purpose. It provides Parliament’s authority for the public spending required to deliver the Grenfell Tower memorial so that it can be constructed, cared for and sustained over the long term. It authorises spending on any site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest, in the peace that the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, so powerfully reminded us of, as well as spending on preservation, an archive, an exhibition and land acquisition in support of those activities where needed and for works to that land.
The Bill does not determine the design or location of the memorial, nor does it set governance arrangements for how it will be run. That is because, as many noble Lords have mentioned, this Bill is not about taking control; it is about supporting the community-led design work that is already under way and ensuring that it has the financial backing it needs, with Parliament’s consent. In doing so, the Bill helps ensure that Grenfell is not forgotten, and that remembrance of the tragedy continues to sit alongside and support the Government’s wider programme of reform following Grenfell. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned my honourable friend in the other place, Minister Dixon. I am so pleased that she has sat patiently in the Gallery all through our debates today to hear what your Lordships had to say.
I will respond to the detailed points raised by noble Lords in a moment. First, I turn to the very powerful testimony of my noble friend Lord Roe, who spoke about the courage of all those involved. I thank him for his service on that dreadful day; I thank all his colleagues in the London fire service and all those who have been involved in supporting the survivors, the families and the community since then. My noble friend put the emphasis on the responsibility to ensure that families, survivors and the community are front and centre of this project. We must honour their memory by ensuring that we continue to strive to move this on in all respects, so that the failure he highlighted is confronted, dealt with and brings justice, safe homes and the lasting legacy that says, “Never again”. I thank my noble friend Lord Roe for his work and testimony.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Nargund, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and my noble friend Lord Forbes and many others, raised concerns surrounding support for the Grenfell community going forward. Supporting remembrance does not detract from supporting bereaved and survivor families and the immediate community. I reassure noble Lords that we are continuing to work through local authorities, health partners and the community to ensure that those families are supported. The memorial forms part of a long-term national commitment, not an alternative to action elsewhere.
My noble friend Lord Forbes spoke about the centrality of the community whose voices have been ignored, leading to this dreadful tragedy. I reassure him, and others who have spoken about this, that the Department for Education and MHCLG have jointly issued additional funding to Grenfell-affected schools to support children, young people and the entire school population throughout the period of works to carefully take the tower down. Likewise, NHS England has confirmed that Grenfell-specific NHS services will continue to be provided as the tower is taken down. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned support for young people involved; that is very important. Departments across government will continue to work together to make sure that we provide the best joined-up service possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me about funding and whether we had a specific amount. The Bill authorises expenditure but does not approve budgets or set spending levels yet. I reassure the House that detailed funding decisions will be taken through the usual scrutiny and controls set out for managing public money. Introducing a fixed amount at this stage would be premature, particularly in the light of the fact that the community-led design work is still under way.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Boateng, raised the issue of the Lancaster West estate. To support the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate, MHCLG has already provided about £25 million in funding. This is in addition to other funding issued to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the Lancaster West estate, including from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Government have no direct management over the refurbishment of the estate, but I am sure that we will continue to work with colleagues in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as they complete the refurbishment works and deliver for their community.
Noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised the national oversight mechanism. We recognise that, in the past, inquiry recommendations have been made and accepted but, as one noble friend mentioned, are then left as dusty tomes on the shelf. That must not happen. The Government are continuing to explore ways to improve the transparency and accountability of recommendations made to them by public inquiries. I reassure the House that we will continue to listen to the views of groups that have been impacted by public inquiries so that the Government’s progress towards implementing inquiry recommendations is properly scrutinised. On the Grenfell Inquiry’s recommendations specifically, we will continue to provide progress updates until all the recommendations have been implemented.
My noble friends Lady Dacres and Lady Hyde raised community engagement. My noble friend Lady Dacres spoke about lessons from a community that had not been listened to, and my noble friend Lady Hyde spoke about a relentless focus on voices that had not been heard. I want to be clear that this Bill does not change who leads the design, vision or decision-making for the Grenfell Tower memorial. The Government’s role in the memorial is to facilitate, support and manage technical delivery of the programme; they will not lead memorial design. On behalf of the independent memorial commission, Freehaus, the appointed design team, is now working with the community to develop the design to honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were for ever changed by the tragedy.
My noble friend Lady Warwick highlighted the housing aspects in relation to the Grenfell tragedy, as well as the avoidable deaths and the need for a change in culture towards transparency. We are committed to continuing to work closely with social landlords and regulators to deliver the joint plan, backed by over £1 billion of investment, to speed up remediation, improve support for residents and maintain momentum against the plan’s target dates, so that unsafe homes are made safe faster and the lessons of Grenfell are never forgotten.
I am doing a specific piece of work around social housing stigma, which sadly still exists. In the case of Grenfell, this was further exacerbated by the racial inequalities powerfully highlighted by my noble friends Lady Nargund and Lady Hyde. We need to work with tenants and the sector to consider how we can tackle this stigma. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, raised qualifications in social housing; that is an issue that we are looking at very closely. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, quite rightly, that housing is a human right. I absolutely agree with her on that. We all have all to pick up the lessons we learned from Grenfell in our action on social housing.
I want to reflect on the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on corporate responsibility. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti also referred to corruption, cover-up, greed and negligence, as did other noble Peers. On accountability for building safety in the specific case of Grenfell, those responsible must be held to account, and the Government fully support the police in carrying out the investigation. I also flag the forthcoming remediation Bill, which will introduce new criminal penalties for people who refuse to remediate similar fire safety defects to those that existed on Grenfell Tower. I will also take up with the relevant Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade the issue of corporate accountability laws raised here today, and I am happy to take part in further discussions with the noble and learned Lord if he feels that would be helpful.
The Government are currently introducing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, usually known as the Hillsborough law, which is about public body accountability. The noble and learned Lord made an important point about the need for accountability in respect of corporate bodies too. While I mention the Hillsborough law, I should acknowledge that tomorrow is the anniversary of Hillsborough; I think we should reflect on that and take the action necessary to deal with the recommendations on that.
In relation to the current investigation, I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that 180 officers and staff are working on this in the Metropolitan Police Service. We want to see the justice that many noble Lords have mentioned during this debate, and I know that that inquiry is being progressed with appropriate resources and as quickly as the Metropolitan Police Service can do it.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Forbes and Lady Gill, mentioned cladding remediation—
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
If the Minister is moving on to cladding, I go back to the police investigation. Does she have an update on the position on the special grant and Operation Northleigh, and whether it has been granted or not? Could she write if she does not know that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will write, and I apologise for missing the noble Baroness’s point on that issue.
On the matter of cladding, a number of noble Lords mentioned failures caused by deregulation and a failure to listen to local voices. I reassure the House that for both me and the Minister and the other place, speeding up remediation is one of our top priorities. We are working to get buildings fixed faster and to allow residents to feel safer in their homes. Nearly nine years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sikka, have raised issues of negligence in building, and over the past year we have taken steps to remove barriers to remediation, strengthen accountability for those responsible for unsafe buildings, and support residents facing delays or uncertainty.
It is not for this Bill to legislate on remediation matters, but that work, as my noble friend Lord Forbes said, remains a moral responsibility for all of us, and the Government will bring forward a remediation Bill, which will drive forward the remediation of historic unsafe cladding by compelling responsible entities to remediate their buildings by clear targets or risk criminal prosecution. We will bring forward that remediation Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.
In respect of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Boateng as co-chair of the commission, and I thank his fellow co-chair, as he rightly said, for incredible service to the commission, and all the commissioners for the work that they have done, which was powerfully outlined in my noble friend’s speech, The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, also mentioned the commission, which is an independent, unincorporated, community-led body. I can confirm that the commission leads on the engagement with the community and the appointed design team is working with the community to determine the design for a lasting and fitting memorial. The Government’s role in the memorial is to facilitate, support and manage the technical delivery of the programme—but I hope that the positive comments made by my noble friend Lord Boateng will be reflected as we go forward with this work, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, mentioned the taking down of the tower—and I know what an incredibly sensitive issue this was. Work has been paused in a particular area of the tower in relation to a recent request to preserve certain elements. Subject to that, work to carefully take down Grenfell Tower is progressing and is due to complete in 2027. This will ensure that it is done respectfully, minimising noise and dust compared with other methods. I reassure all noble Lords that we continue to engage with the bereaved, with survivors and the immediate community during this very sensitive piece of work. I have met the co-ordinator, who is there on site, to discuss this with her. On the particular issue around the helpline, I will confirm the details of that in writing.
A very important matter that has come up during the debate has been the issue of justice. I think nearly all noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned it. I have spoken about the investigation by the Metropolitan Police. Those responsible—and I want to be very clear about this—must be held to account. The Government fully support the police in carrying out the investigation. Of course, it is important that the Government do not take any action that could risk prejudicing those processes, but we must all be focused on the justice that the memory of those lost and the lives of those who survive absolutely demands.
I am so grateful for the very thoughtful scrutiny and contributions offered in this debate. The legacy of Grenfell, the justice, the lessons learned and the memorial must lead us to the light mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boateng—the light of hope for a better future.
Middle East
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in thanking the Government for laying this Statement, I begin by paying tribute to our brave service men and women who are serving in this conflict right now. They are the very best of Britain, and they have this House’s unequivocal support.
I remember well 16 October 1964, the day the murderous regime of Chairman Mao announced that China had exploded a nuclear bomb. I will not forget the shiver this sent round the world. How would we have felt if we had heard a similar announcement that the murderous regime of the IRGC and the ayatollahs, steeped in the blood of their own young people, tens of thousands of them, had exploded a nuclear bomb?
Amid the chorus of attacks we heard in the other place yesterday on the US and Israel, some people are forgetting some uncomfortable realities. For decades, the world has said no to an Iranian bomb, but diplomacy did not prevent those who chant “Death to Israel, death to America” pursuing their unlawful nuclear programme. The Iranian regime had all the weapons that it needed to deal death and destruction to civilians in Israel and in neighbouring Arab countries, as it so shamefully has lately. Why did it need to enrich uranium to 60%? Why did it need intercontinental ballistic missiles? There is only one answer, and the mist of misplaced relativism should not hide that truth. A nuclear-armed Iran intended to offer an existential threat to Europe, the UK and the United States.
We could have had peace last weekend after the helpful intervention of our friends in Pakistan if the Iranian regime had been willing to give up its nuclear weapons programme—but it was not. Let us still hope that renewed efforts at negotiation will succeed, but not peace at any price. Of course, we also fervently hope to see peace in Lebanon, a beautiful land caught in the poisonous grip of Hezbollah. But Israel had the right to defend itself against the violence of Iran’s proxies, who have even now rejected peace talks.
Britain did not start this war, as many have said, but we should be in no doubt whose side we are on: our allies in the Middle East, and the United States. Yesterday, in the other place, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who had not a single word of criticism for the Iranian regime, called the elected United States President “immoral” and a “dangerous and corrupt gangster”. We may deplore the language of others, but we should remember our own tongues. Will the noble Baroness join me in repudiating such language about an allied Head of State?
I thought the Prime Minister was judicious in reminding some in his party of the importance of the relationship with the US, and we welcome his meeting our dearly valued allies in the Gulf, who were disappointed by our initial response. We support his diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region.
The Iranian attacks on shipping and the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz are an outrage against international law. While no one welcomes blockade, it has been a tactic used by belligerent nations for years, including the UK, not least in two world wars. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the US has said it will apply only to ships using Iranian ports and will not affect other traffic in the strait? What proposals will the UK put to the conference that the Prime Minister is convening? What resources we will commit to that effort, and when? The Prime Minister said yesterday that we would act only when conflict ends.
We hear a lot about a reset with Brussels. Would not a good start be for Britain to follow at least one EU regulation and proscribe the brutal IRGC as a terrorist organisation, as the EU already has? What does the IRGC have to do to meet that response from the British Government?
We agree that we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, but can the noble Baroness appreciate that Labour’s deliberate policy of more expensive energy, which is accelerating the destruction of vital heavy industry, is dangerous and irresponsible? Does she agree with the trade unions, as we do, that we must drill for more oil and gas in the North Sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields and rebuild British production and jobs? Will the Government cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty? They talk of more subsidies, but financed from where? Is not the real answer to end the artificial increase in fuel prices by domestic taxation and levies that have given us the highest energy prices in the developed world?
On defence, for too long all parties in politics, including my own, basked—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, rightly warned us—in the complacency of a so-called peace dividend while evil was on the move. Every serious person, including in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. Yesterday, the Prime Minister rejected a call from my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition to seek a joint cross-party plan, which the Liberal Democrats have also spoken of, to address unsustainable welfare spending and commit resources to defence. That was regrettable. We live in a new world of harsh realities and the first and greatest social security is defence security. Yet sometimes this Government have seemed to have a plan for welfare but not for warfare. Where is the long-promised defence investment plan? The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. Surely, we are far better making those choices together, as my right honourable friend suggested.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defense Department. That is how I started my response to the Statement on 2 March. I went on to say that
“the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1080.]
From the Conservative Opposition, the approach was different. We were told that, when Trump called, we should have answered and been in it all the way: a strategic error. Yesterday in the House of Commons, with quite astonishing hubris, the leader of the Conservative Party said:
“I am sure the Prime Minister … will … misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/26; col. 553.]
We all know the truth. It was obvious, given the untruthfulness, unreliability and mendacious approach of the Trump Administration that what they had initially called for—regime change of that homicidal regime in Iran—they are now saying they never claimed should happen in the first place. They said Iran should never have a nuclear programme; now they are saying that there should be a moratorium on the programme. I do not know how that fits with what the noble Lord, Lord True, said.
With regard to the most effective way of reducing the possibility of Iran having nuclear capability for weapons, we supported the Government of the noble Lord, Lord True, when they criticised the Trump Administration and said that withdrawing from the JCPOA was an error. We disagreed with his Government when they denied the case for proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. I hope the Government and the Leader can update us on where we will see the legislative changes with regard to the IRGC that we have been promised.
Now the focus from America is on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which had been open. That will be complex and costly. In his criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yair Lapid summed it up:
“For the thousandth time, it has been proven: military force without a diplomatic plan does not lead to a decisive victory”.
We agree with him.
On 2 March I also said:
“There is likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes and for energy, especially in our key economic areas”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1081.]
I also said there would be economic consequences and costs to the United Kingdom. These were obvious. The impact on the economy requires an immediate response. It is likely that the surge in fuel prices will mean a potential £2 billion in extra tax revenue to the Government. That should be spent on cutting fuel duty by 10p, bringing down prices at the pump by 12p per litre, to bring immediate relief to individuals and businesses. But we will need to do more, because these economic repercussions will last months at the very least.
The Statement is on the Middle East and there are wider consequences that have not been referred to so far. In Gaza, 700,000 displaced people are still living in emergency shelters and being denied the vital food and medical assistance they require. Just in recent weeks, 5,000 children have been screened for malnutrition. In the West Bank, settler and outpost violence against civilians is being conducted with impunity. The UK Government must finally say that there are repercussions for our relationship with the Israeli Government as a result. Continuing restrictions on food and humanitarian assistance is a perpetuation of breaches of international humanitarian law.
On Lebanon, the humanitarian toll is extreme. I have been to Lebanon frequently and have been checking in with friends who are living in extreme worry. It is chilling that 1 million people—one in six of the population—are displaced and the IDF is targeting civilian infrastructure and bombing heavily populated areas without targeted munitions, which is a clear tactic of collective punishment. That is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law. Over the last 15 years, the UK has committed over £100 million, including an extra £17 million under the last year of the previous Government, which I welcomed, to train the Lebanese army. Last autumn, the UK and the Lebanese army opened a training centre in Zahrani, an area now seeing forced evacuation and attacks by the IDF. What is our ongoing relationship with the Lebanese army, especially in areas where we are seeing military action from the IDF?
The fundamental strategic consequence is that the erratic and untruthful US President and his Administration are now a strategic risk to the UK’s interests. All this leads to an undeniable economic, security and social case for working much more closely with our EU allies.
Finally, not mentioned in the Statement or so far today are the wider consequences of what is happening in this region. We are now entering the fourth year of the war in Sudan: the three-year anniversary was just this week. It is three years and one week since I was in Khartoum and it is heartbreaking to see the human toll on a country I love. I am glad that there was a Berlin conference on humanitarian assistance and I would like an update from the Leader on the UK offer for that conference, but we need to do more. We need to restrict the blood gold trade, we need more on protection of civilians and we need to see no-drone zones. For some young civilians from Sudan, the UK could offer hope. They will be wanting to study in the UK, and it is deeply regrettable that a Labour Government have decided to ban visa applications from those young civilians who wish a better life for themselves.
We kept it for Ukraine, but we are banning it for Sudan. Why is that? I hope the Leader will agree with me that the future of Sudan—one Sudan, united—will be one that is led by civilians and protects civilians, especially women and girls, who have suffered far too great a toll. The legitimate future of Sudan is one that is civilian and representative. I hope that the UK, as penholder, will give a clear statement that that is our intention.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I listened to both noble Lords’ speeches. We ended on one note and started on another. It was the appropriate place to end, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did, on the catastrophic and heartbreaking humanitarian issues not only in Sudan, as he mentioned, but across the region, where people’s lives are changed irrevocably in so many different ways and lives are lost. That is something we should never forget when we talk about any of the political and diplomatic efforts. Lives are lost and lives are changed.
The noble Lord, Lord True, was right to praise the work of our Armed Forces and military for what they do. On our behalf and in the national interest, they put themselves in the line of danger. Many of us will know people and have friends and family who are engaged in the Armed Forces. We have nothing but respect and admiration for them.
Does the world feel a safer place today than it did several weeks ago? That is one of the concerning issues here and why it is so important that we focus our efforts on the diplomatic work that has to be done to ensure safety and act in the national interest.
The Prime Minister has been clear and consistent throughout this conflict. His tone and his way of looking at it have been measured. I noted the comments of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis. The leader of the Opposition has not been as consistent. Her own spokesperson said just recently that at the start of this conflict the leader of the Opposition was very clear that she would have let Israel and the US use our bases for their offensive on Iran. Yet yesterday she said:
“I was talking about verbal support”.
That is not really consistent. What has to be consistent are the efforts that we should make as a country towards de-escalation of such a conflict. The priorities have to be de-escalation and getting the Strait of Hormuz open. There are two aspects to this. One is the toll on the civilian populations and the other is the world economic situation, which is getting worse. I will come on to defence spending more widely, but on all these issues it is important that there is the recognition of a national interest that crosses party boundaries more than any other.
The noble Lord, Lord True, asked me a number of questions. On Hezbollah, we completely condemn the attacks on Israel but also think that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we have a very good relationship with the military and the Government in Lebanon. The Lebanese Government have been courageous in trying to stand up against Hezbollah and have condemned Hezbollah, which in this country is fully proscribed as a terrorist organisation. We will continue to support Lebanon’s sovereignty, Government and armed forces. We will work closely with them. That is a good relationship and the place where we should be.
The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the Iranian ports. My understanding is that it is the blockading of the Iranian ports. President Trump made the announcement, and it started today. We always have to see how these things work out in practice. On Friday, the Prime Minister and President Macron will convene and bring together 40 nations in common endeavour. That is a significant achievement. If we are to see peace and the ceasefire holding—a very fragile ceasefire at the moment—it will be done by diplomatic efforts around the world and nations coming together. I commend the Prime Minister on the leadership he has shown in using his convening role.
I agree with both noble Lords that the use of language, wherever it is from, that is careless or deliberately escalating conflict has no place here. How we use our words and what we say will be really important going forward. Friday’s meeting will be important, and I am sure the Prime Minister will report back on that.
Noble Lords asked about the IRGC proscription. I have to gently chide the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I think his party abstained on this issue previously when there was a vote in this House on my noble friend’s amendment. If I am wrong I will check, but that is the impression I was given. He will know that we currently have over 550 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and entities, including the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We recognise the threats posed and we keep this under constant review.
Obviously, we will not comment, just as previous Governments have not, on proscription measures and what action is being taken. But I can tell the House that we are taking forward the recommendations by Jonathan Hall KC, including, as was in his report, developing a proscription-like tool for state threats that may require legislation further down the line. I will come back to the House on that when we have something to report.
I am surprised that I am running out of time in giving my response, but the priorities are de-escalation and opening the Strait of Hormuz. We are working with others on that. We have military capacity as well as political and diplomatic, and we are looking at the logistical arrangements. If I have missed any questions, I will come back to them through the other answers I give on the Statement.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to up to 20 minutes of questions from Back-Bench Members but not speeches. This is set out in chapter 6 of the Companion, paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8, on pages 86 and 87. We will hear from the Conservative Benches first.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and draw attention to my interests in the Middle East and in working with conflict resolution organisations. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending, as my noble friend Lord True did, the role of Pakistan in its convening of the important bridge of diplomacy? I appreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister in convening Friday’s meeting. Pakistan’s chief of army staff—the field-marshal—has played a notable role, as have Foreign Minister Dar and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
My question is specifically about our Gulf partners. In welcoming the Prime Minister’s recent visit, can the Leader of the House give reassurance on the C-SIPA arrangement that we have with key countries such as Bahrain to ensure their long-term security and prosperity? Linked to that is the reassurance that our Gulf partners are seeking on their security for any other future challenge that may come. Also linked to that is the support that we are giving to Gulf nations and to Pakistan in their diplomatic efforts.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. He is absolutely right that Pakistan has done a great service on this, and the role of the Prime Minister and other leaders in Pakistan must be recognised. Our Prime Minister did that and has thanked and praised them for their work in not the easiest of circumstances.
The noble Lord is right about the longer-term partnerships with Bahrain and other Gulf states. The Prime Minister is in regular contact with and recently met various leaders. That is an important relationship, because they are the ones who are also talking to us about the protection of their own safety and security. I can give an assurance that those are long-term relationships that are valued by us and other countries.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the comments of my noble friend Lord Purvis, particularly on the West Bank. To follow up on the point made on Pakistan by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, since the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday there is news now that Donald Trump is hopeful that, potentially in the next 48 hours, there could be a breakthrough. What contact have we had with Pakistan, in particular with Field-Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif? I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to get world leaders here later this week, but if the talks resume in Pakistan, we may have to ensure that we are at least hooked in to the Pakistani Government to make sure that British interests are served during those talks.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
We will fully co-operate with Pakistan and give it support with the valuable work that it is doing. There are different strands of discussion going on in different areas. It was probably optimistic for people to think that in one set of talks a conclusion would be reached that would solve all problems and issues. I remember from my days as a Northern Ireland Minister that you would often have talks about talks before you even had the talks. There were 21 hours of talks. It was an ambitious programme. I hope that we will see further talks—there are optimistic signs that talks could continue. The Pakistani Prime Minister will be crucial in convening and hosting those talks and negotiating. If we can find a way forward where stages of progress can be made, that makes it easier to take the next step. If you are trying to climb a ladder, it is one step before another, one foot in front of another. All of us would want to see every effort made. Those diplomatic efforts for talks would be very supported. Let us just take one step forward and see what changes can be made.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for coming to the House to answer questions on the Statement on the Middle East and to the Prime Minister for his diplomatic efforts in the Gulf. From these Benches, we believe that the initiation of this conflict, the attacks by Iran on its neighbours and the closure of the straits are unjustified. I know from my recent conversation with the Bishop of Cyprus and the Gulf that the peoples of the nine nations in the diocese dearly want peace from the threat and the reality of war. I agree with the Minister that the focus now needs to be desperately on de-escalation.
Does the Lord Privy Seal agree with me that the new-found partnership between the United Kingdom and the Gulf states bolsters the opportunity for diplomacy to resolve a conflict which has otherwise incalculable consequences and which still bears heavily in a very costly way, and with great suffering, on Lebanon? I also raise the severe distress on these Benches at the unprecedented barring of the Latin Patriarch from the Holy Sepulchre on Maundy Thursday, the restricted access to Christians since and the continuing threats to the status quo in Jerusalem, including the al-Aqsa compound.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Across the House, whatever views are held, there is rightly unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian regime and the actions that it has taken against its own people as well as its external actions. It is quite clear that the House is united on that. The right reverend Prelate is right that our relationship with the Gulf states is very important, and it is one that the Prime Minister values. In the House of Commons yesterday, he made it quite clear that it is valued on both sides: they have welcomed the visits that he has made and the engagement that he has had with them. On the final point, yes, the ability to worship as people want to and to recognise that is extremely important in a civilised society. It is something that we should all strive for and support worldwide.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of Hamas refusing to disarm, which was a key plank of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza? Is there not a risk of linking Lebanon to the wider ceasefire, because Lebanon has effectively been invaded by Iran in the form of the terrorist Hezbollah? Every time that Israel tries to defend itself, which it must, Iran will claim that the deal has been violated, close the straits and choke the world economy. Finally, was the Lord Privy Seal as shocked as I was when listening to the Liberal Democrats, who are more critical of our allies in Israel than they are of Iran and, when they speak about Gaza and Hezbollah, are unable to utter a single word of criticism of Hamas or Hezbollah?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is shouting across the Chamber. I will leave him to answer the noble Lord’s point on his views.
It is right that we condemn violence, terrorism and attacks from wherever they come. We feel that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire. This is not a war that the people of Lebanon want. They have been courageous in calling out and condemning Hezbollah’s attacks and actions. We want to see that division between the Government and people of Lebanon and Hezbollah. Israel has the right to defend itself, but we believe that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that we should be proud that our Prime Minister, acting in the national interest, resolutely refused to engage in this illegal war—in marked contrast to Mr Farage and Ms Badenoch?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend is right: the Prime Minister has been consistent throughout this. Defensive action to protect the UK’s interests is vital, and that is the role that we will take. However, there is some confusion about the position of the Official Opposition. The leader of the Opposition said that she was talking about verbal support, so she may have changed her mind and there may be some retreat by both Reform and the Conservative Party from the unequivocal support given to President Trump at the beginning of this. What is important, though, wherever we started, is that we all strive towards de-escalation. Escalation in this conflict serves nobody in the region well. If we want to see peace across the region, when millions are suffering, lives are being changed irrevocably and the world economy is being affected, de-escalation is the only way forward.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that Sir Keir Starmer changed his position and offered President Trump limited support when he said that British lives were at risk in the region. I think that was verbatim. The Jewish community was very shocked by that, because what he meant was British lives in the region of the Gulf. British lives—there are tens of thousands of them in Israel—have been under Iranian rocket attack for months. In the wide-ranging speech which he gave yesterday, which for some reason mentions Brexit and Liz Truss but is not supposed to be political, he says—I have the text here—that
“Diplomacy is the right path”.
How can we have diplomacy with Hezbollah? Since 2 March, 5,000 rockets have landed in northern Israel; that is about 150 rockets a day. There are something like 25,000 short-range rockets capable of 40-kilometre range, stockpiled south of the Litani River right now. Rather than criticising Israel, is it not time that the Government recognised that Israel has a duty to protect its citizens—and the many British citizens who are living in or visiting Israel—and that the attacks that Israel is making, which are not targeting civilians, need to be understood?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord may have misunderstood the Prime Minister. He has been consistent in saying that British bases could be used for defensive action but not offensive action. The noble Lord is also wrong in that the Prime Minister did not talk about having diplomacy with Hezbollah. We condemn totally Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. They are totally wrong. Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation in this country, and that will remain. I hope that is clear. What we have said is that the Lebanese Government are very clear in their opposition to Hezbollah. There are civilians around the world who are suffering. To equate Hezbollah with the Lebanon Government at this stage, when they are condemning Hezbollah, is not the route that we are taking or should be taking. We think that the ceasefire should affect Lebanon. We want to see peace across the region. We have been very supportive of Israel, the two-state solution and Israel’s right to exist. The Prime Minister has been clear across all those areas.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House rightly condemned attacks that the Iranian regime is perpetrating against its own people and those in surrounding states—in Israel, the Gulf and others. She was being urged by both Front Benches, with whom I fully agree, to proscribe the IRGC, and we keep waiting for news on that. The United States seems to manage to keep channels open, if that is the motivation, while having proscribed the IRGC, so there is an interesting difference in practice there.
The Iranian regime is repressing people across borders, just like China does. I am hearing that it has agents who are abusing our asylum system. People are planted by the Iranian regime to claim asylum in this country and then use that as a platform to repress Iranian human rights defenders who are in this country. Even if members of the regime in Iran are sanctioned, their family members seem to manage to live a life of luxury in the West, including in this country, and to own loads of property. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us what actions are being taken against the transnational repression against Iranians in this country? Will the Government look at the property portfolios of family members of the IRGC?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising a number of important points. I cannot say more about proscription—she will understand why, as I have said it previously. The recommendations in the report by Jonathan Hall KC are important in this regard, and we are taking forward a number of measures. I mentioned one in particular, a state threats tool. I will keep the House informed if there is more information. The noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on details of actions that have been taken, but where there is evidence, given that it is an organisation sanctioned completely in the UK, we will take action wherever we can.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, yesterday’s Statement refers to the fact that Britain needs to be energy independent and that we need to take control of our energy bills. Will the Lord Privy Seal comment on whether His Majesty’s Government are considering increasing gas reserve capacity, which I have found is low compared to the majority of European and Scandinavian countries? In addition, is it time to increase our North Sea oil and gas exploration during the transition to our green agenda?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, because there are two aspects to the energy issue. One is the security of supply and the other is the pricing. We have seen prices increase significantly because we are not self-sufficient. We are therefore dependent on world prices and as they increase, that hits us, not just in fuel prices but in the consequential increases as well. I assure the noble Baroness that oil and gas will remain part of the energy mix for a number of years to come.
On gas storage, I am digging back into my memory. I think that a number of years ago we lost a fair amount of capacity in this country. I will look into that matter, and if I have anything to report, I will come back—although I may not. This shows how important our energy security is and the need to be more self-sufficient in energy. There will be more to be said on this work moving forward. At the moment, we are focused particularly on prices, but security of supply has been a long-term aim of this Government—it was in our manifesto when we were elected—and it is a crucial issue. We have had legislation about GB Energy, and it is certainly a priority of the Government.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I find it rather surprising that we have spent 40 minutes and nobody has spoken about the fact that, as we speak here, the Lebanese and the Israeli ambassadors to the United States are sitting together for the first time in 43 years. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will join me in thanking the US for practical action, in particular Secretary of State Rubio. Perhaps it is an interesting contrast to HMG and other European partners, who issue statements. In the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, he said that Hezbollah must disarm. As we know, and as has been said, Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation. Its 1985 manifesto made its ideology clear: expel Western powers from Lebanon, destroy the State of Israel and pledge allegiance to Iran’s regime. The Prime Minister said yesterday that Hezbollah should disarm. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what the Prime Minister’s plan to disarm Hezbollah is?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right that a monumental and historic meeting is taking place as we speak, and I commend all those who took part to make it happen, because it is diplomacy. That kind of discussion is not easy; it is very difficult, and there is a lot of history in those discussions, but even to start talking about having talks is a major step forward. The Prime Minister is absolutely right, and that is a commitment he has. I do not think he feels he can do it alone. It is one of those issues where it is almost another coalition of the willing to bring countries together to put pressure on Hezbollah and those who would support or fund it. He is absolutely clear on this, and I think the whole House would agree with him that, through discussions, talks and whatever actions are necessary, we should ensure it disarms. Any organisation that declares the annihilation, the ending, of the State of Israel is not an organisation that we would give any support to whatever.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to enter into my normal attacks on the Opposition Front Bench, because at times of international conflict, and this conflict could spread well beyond the Middle East, it is very important that we have cross-party agreement. I hope the Leader of the Opposition recognises that. Does my noble friend agree that resolution of these kinds of conflicts, all of them, can be achieved only by diplomacy and negotiation and not by military means?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
To a large extent, I agree with my noble friend. Unless we have diplomacy and political engagement, we are not going to see a conclusion, but alongside that, we need logistical support and a military engagement for surveillance and intelligence, for example. But my noble friend is absolutely right that we do not resolve conflicts by more wars. We resolve conflicts by de-escalating wars and sensible, adult negotiations and diplomacy.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord opposite for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. It is indeed a shame that nobody from the Foreign Office was available to turn up and accept responsibility for the utter shambles of the policy that it has created. This latest U-turn has been a long time coming, and for those of us who have fought the Government’s appalling Chagos surrender every step of the way, it is, of course, very welcome. The Chagos treaty has been wrong from the start, and it is a relief to see the Bill finally scrapped. It is obvious—it seems to everyone except the FCDO—that this Chagos deal is dead and that Ministers urgently need a plan B. Will the Government look again at the plans considered by a number of previous Governments on the viability and cost of resettlement of the Chagossians on the outer islands? That would be considerably cheaper than the current deal and, thanks to the excellent work by this House’s International Relations Committee, we now know that the vast majority of those Chagossians want to remain British and want nothing to do with Mauritius.
Although Ministers seem to have not yet finally accepted that the treaty with Mauritius is dead, we on this side are unanimous. The Chagos deal cannot now proceed and it is destined to be carefully locked away in a dusty FCDO filing cabinet marked “No further action”. That is as it should be.
As I said, I welcome the news that the Government will not seek to take the Bill any further in this Session or seek to carry it over into the new one. The Times reported last week that the Chagos deal was dead, and that it had been briefed that no Bill relating to the Chagos treaty would be in the King’s Speech. That is welcome, but can the Minister confirm whether that briefing is accurate? Parliament has not yet been told. Can he also confirm that the Government will not introduce any Bill in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory without first securing American agreement to changes to the 1966 treaty?
Taxpayers will, of course, be delighted that the £35 billion that would have been paid to Mauritius is now available to be spent on our own national interests. It should now be allocated to boosting our national security in an increasingly unstable world. Can the Minister confirm that not a penny will be paid to Mauritius now that this deal is dead? His colleague, Minister Doughty, was a little evasive on this point in the Commons yesterday, so can the Minister put an end today to any rumours about possible compensation or other payments to Mauritius, and put it on the record in Parliament now that Mauritius has no legitimate claim on taxpayers’ money without this treaty?
In the other place, my right honourable friend Priti Patel asked Ministers about the purpose of the upcoming UK delegation to Mauritius, but the Minister there failed to answer. Can the noble Lord please tell the House what the purpose of that delegation is? Who is going on that delegation to Mauritius and what, in fact, will they be negotiating?
We know that the Chagos surrender deal is vehemently opposed by political decision-makers in the United States, and it is Opposition Members in this House who brought the importance of the 1966 UK-US treaty to the fore late last year. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will devote no more precious time and resources to this deal now that we know that the US is formally opposed to it?
I turn to the Chagossians themselves, who for too long and too often have been mistreated and ignored throughout this process. Can the Minister give the House an update on the status of those Chagossians who have returned to their homeland on Peros Banhos? What is the UK Government’s view of their status in the light of the ruling of the British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court that the Chagossians have a lawful right of abode? Why are the Government refusing to allow them mosquito nets, bed linen and water purifiers? Their resupply vessel is the only small boat that the Government seem to be interested in stopping in any way whatever.
The Chagossians have been ignored for far too long. The Government’s decision not to proceed with this treaty gives Ministers an opportunity to finally do the right thing by the Chagossian people. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have stood up for the Chagossians, for the British taxpayer and for our national interest in opposing this awful treaty. I cannot thank them all by name at this stage but they know who they are. I am proud to have worked with them, and pleased that the Government have finally listened to the arguments that we were making all along.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this has turned into a very sorry affair. I continue to be sorry for the Chagossian community, which sees that the political turmoil and injustice that it has endured over many years has the potential to continue, because the same international legal position remains, not only in relation to the status of the archipelago but with regard to the rights of the Chagossian community that have been denied by subsequent Governments since their shameful expulsion in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
There has been poor handling from the outset, and the Minister has heard me say so on a number of occasions. I say “the outset” because, in the Statement in November 2022 by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly saying that negotiations would commence on ceding sovereignty, he said they would cover the international legal elements, but in the process of negotiation that then took place the Chagossian community was disregarded far too casually. Indeed, in March 2024, just before the Dissolution of Parliament for the general election, the then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, confirmed to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that negotiations were ongoing but he also restated the Conservative Government’s strong opposition to any right of return, settlement, visits or working on Diego Garcia.
With regard to the UK-US security relationship, which has been the trigger now for the Government’s action of pausing the legislation, the previous Government also failed to take up the extension of the UK-US treaty that was allowed for in that treaty, so we are operating under a rollover element of that treaty. It has not been renewed or updated in a substantive form. Is it the Government’s intent that that process will carry on? We have seen the statements from the State Department that were then contradicted by President Trump, but what is the status of the understanding with regard to the treaty? It has been amended on a number of occasions since it was signed but has not been fundamentally reviewed. That was a choice by the previous Government.
Fundamentally, there has been a continual denial of the right of return, and the Labour Government did not properly consult the community, which would be directly affected. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government are content with the text of the treaty itself—separate from the fact that it cannot be brought into force because the legislation has now been withdrawn in this Session—or will they take the opportunity to look at the treaty again? It is important to be clear on that point but it was not clear in the House of Commons yesterday.
There are opportunities to look at the treaty elements to firm up those areas so that they are not simply permissive with regard to Chagossian rights but will enshrine them. The same goes for the test for value for money, scrutiny and accountability. The Minister knows that those are issues that these Benches have focused on relentlessly. Indeed, our amendments to that effect passed this House with cross-party support.
If there is a long delay then the Chagossians’ rights will be continuously denied. There is an opportunity to operationalise those rights and for the Government to right the wrongs of many of their predecessors by bringing into force the mechanisms to do so under our domestic legislation. That would overturn the statement of the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but while we wait for clarity from the United States Administration, which none of us can guarantee, these Benches would support legislation to ensure that Chagossian rights are not put in limbo. They have been denied those rights, but that can be addressed now.
We can also operationalise the funding elements, with regard not to Mauritius but to the Chagossian community itself. There seems to be a commitment by the Government to support a trust fund for the rights of the Chagossians, and it seems an injustice that that should be paused as a result of President Trump. The Chagossian community should be able to benefit from that level of support. We simply cannot trust the Trump Administration, notwithstanding the previous statements by US State Department officials.
Can the Minister state what US processes we will trust? I have a degree of sympathy for the Government; within the space of two days there was a statement from the State Department of the United States saying that it was supportive of this measure, followed by a White House Truth Social posting by the President. What is the mechanism in America that we will now trust?
Lastly, this is a technical point that was raised by my honourable friend Richard Foord yesterday in the House of Commons about the military relationship with the US. There seems to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether the United States has access to the deep-water port at Diego Garcia, which could potentially be a staging post of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Can the Minister be clear about our understanding of what the US is currently using and can use, and what the UK will allow to be used, when it comes to both the port and the military base at Diego Garcia?
I hope the Minister can take up an offer for there to be—at least at this stage, even though it might be difficult—a degree of cross-party consensus that the Chagossian community’s rights that have been denied for so long should not be put on ice. While we await clarity from the State Department of the United States, we should be operationalising those rights now.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank everyone for their warm welcome and for the opportunity to respond to those questions. It is an important debate. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis, and to everybody contributing—many Members on both sides of the House—that it is an important issue.
Let me say straight away, just to set some context, that the difference between us is not about ensuring that we have a strategic base, which is of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and to our allies, and about doing our best for the Chagossian people. There is a difference of view about how that can be achieved. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has outlined in his remarks and the various speeches he has made from the Dispatch Box over the last few months, supported by many of his colleagues, he has a different view from the Government as to how that can be achieved. He has argued for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others have argued for a sort of middle ground but have also raised the issue, as many Members have done, of the rights of the Chagossians themselves. None of us in the House believes that the way the Chagossians were originally treated was something of which any of us can be proud, but any Government have to deal with the situation that they are confronted with and we are dealing with the situation now.
Let me try to answer directly some of the points that have been made. The noble Lord will know that the Bill will not pass in this particular parliamentary Session. As for the King’s Speech, let us see what is in that, but the Government will continue the discussions on how to take this forward. We will continue discussions with the Americans. We have said all along that it cannot proceed without the support of the Americans. The exchange of notes from 1966, although slightly amended, underpins the treaty, so of course we need US support for that. Although originally given, that support is not forthcoming from the President at the current time. I hope that directly answers him: of course we need US agreement with respect to this, were we to take it forward.
On the issue of the money, there will be no treaty payments at all to Mauritius.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord and I have sparred across the Dispatch Box, but not as much as I would like, if I am honest about it. I just say to him that Mauritius is a country: every now and again, any country in the world that the UK has relationships with will have such arrangements: we will have educational visits, exchanges and all those sorts of things. If the noble Lord was standing where I am, he would not be able to say, “There will be absolutely nothing at all spent by the UK on Mauritius”. What I have said, which is what his question was about, is that, with respect to the treaty, there will be no treaty payments. I hope he understood and accepted that point.
The noble Lord also mentioned the FCDO visit. FCDO officials will be going to Mauritius to speak to the Mauritians. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; FCDO officials go to various countries all over the world. They will be going to discuss the arrangements and where we are at the current time.
There are six people on the particular island which the noble Lord referred to. I asked a question on this, and I am told—and I accept—that there has been no denial of humanitarian provision to the people on the island at all. I am telling the noble Lord what I have been told: unless people are not giving me accurate information, there has been no denial of humanitarian provision to the people on the island. On the situation with respect to the BIOT Supreme Court, the noble Lord will know that the court rejected the right to remove the people from there by BIOT. That was rejected and it has been appealed, so we await the appeal to see what happens as a consequence. I hope that directly answers some of the questions that the noble Lord posed.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is quite right to point out that the negotiations were not started by this Government; they were started by the previous Government. In fact, such was the determination of the previous Government to get some sort of arrangement that there were 11 rounds of negotiation. It was not one round that just fizzled out; there were 11 separate rounds. Now their defence is, “We wouldn’t have done the deal that’s before us now”. All I say is, “Why on earth would a Government have 11 rounds of negotiation? Was it just a pretence? Were they not actually serious about the negotiations?” Just before the last election, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out, the Foreign Secretary of the time talked to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about how the Government were negotiating to come to some agreement and some arrangements for that.
In terms of the UK-US extension, I think the noble Lord was referring to the exchange of notes. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is quite right: the exchange of notes obviously underpins the existing treaty or any change in the future. Of course, that would need to be negotiated and changed for it to be taken forward.
On the treaty delay and what happens to Chagossians outside of the treaty, the arrangements in the treaty cannot be put in place because it is not in force, so we deal with the existing situation. But I give noble Lords one thing that will happen. We seek to resume the heritage visits as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will know that they have not taken place since 2020. We hope that we may be able to restart the heritage visits, including to Diego Garcia, and get them going. As for the £40 million trust fund and the resettlement programme, they await the treaty to be introduced.
I would point out that the treaty that was moving forward and has had to be delayed has a resettlement programme in it that does not exist at the current time. The ability of Chagossians to resettle, not to Diego Garcia but to the wider British Indian Ocean Territory, is enshrined within the treaty that is now not going forward. At the moment, there is no resettlement programme. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, the Foreign Secretary of the time pointed that out to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. There are existing arrangements around education, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and other things that will continue, but the things under the treaty cannot go forward because they do not exist in law at the current time.
The noble Lord talked about the status of the deep-sea port. He will know from his reading of the exchange of notes that the US-UK base is governed by that exchange of notes and that all combat operations from that base are subject to joint decision-making. While no Government are necessarily going to talk about the various permissions that are given on specific operations, I hope that gives some confidence that those things are subject to joint decision-making.
Let me finish by thanking again all noble Lords who are wrestling with a difficult problem. The Government’s view is that the security of that base at Diego Garcia is paramount: it is absolutely fundamental to us. His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, if we simply carry on as we are, the security of that base is maintained. His Majesty’s Government’s view is that we need legal certainty to ensure that that base is maintained and that we protect the integrity of a base that is fundamentally important not only to ourselves but to the US and the security of the whole western alliance. That is why we sought to take this treaty forward.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will now have up to 20 minutes of questions, but not speeches, from Back-Bench Members. This is set out in chapter 6 of the Companion, at pages 86 and 87, in points 6.7 and 6.8. We will have the Conservative Benches first.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, if anyone was left with any lingering doubt about the naivete of losing sovereignty over this base, recent events have emblazoned that folly for all to see. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, arguably one of the most respected defence experts in the world and defence adviser to the Government, today accuses the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of “corrosive complacency” over defence, and vents his frustration and anger at the lack of decisive political leadership in defence. That is an excoriating criticism, so can I ask the Minister two questions?
Given this explosive intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will the Government respond positively by binning this discredited deal now and redirecting the money, say, for immediate investment in defence? Assuming—I am almost tempted to say “knowing”, but let us stick with “assuming”—that the Minister is in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will he, as someone whose reputation rightly stands high, ask his Secretary of State to tell the Prime Minister to remove the Treasury’s decision-making from people who know nothing about military strategy and military planning, and order the Treasury to lay out a new plan for a rapid escalation of defence spend during this Parliament and the next one?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that we are not binning the treaty—I think that was the word she used. We will look to take it forward and discussions will continue; it just will not happen in the current Session, because parliamentary time will not allow it. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, we cannot take this forward without US support, but discussions will carry on.
As for the investment programme, as I have said to the noble Baroness on many occasions, the Government are increasing defence spending and we will continue to do that. There have been various commitments: 3% in the next Parliament, should economic circumstances allow, and then on to 2035, with further investment. As I have said time and again, whatever the argument about the totality of spending, let us recognise that there are significant sums of money being spent on shipbuilding and aircraft, dockyards, and all of our Armed Forces across many parts of our country and indeed abroad. We need to recognise what we are doing, as well as what we are not.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his presentation. I have considerable sympathy for the situation that the Government find themselves in, subject to the capricious decisions of the US President. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the State Department, to be honest.
However, the fact is that the Government have made some missteps, as my noble friend Lord Purvis said. I hope the Minister recognises that, unlike the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats have been constructive and consistent in our position on this issue. If I may, I praise my noble friend—my leader, now—for his role and expertise on this subject. It is a matter of when, not if, this subject comes back—the fundamentals stay the same. Perhaps the Minister might consider whether the Government could be a bit more flexible on the question of Chagossian rights to resettlement and assistance to the community, and help build a sound cross-party basis for the future.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me make one general point. The clash of opinion in this Chamber leads to better policy, done in the way that it is done. I respect challenge from wherever it comes, because that makes for better policy. In that sense, most contributions, even if they are sometimes difficult, are constructive. People could sometimes reflect on the tone in which it is done, but the challenge across the Chamber, from whichever direction, is really helpful.
We will continue to work with the US. We have to update the exchange of notes in order to take anything forward, and, if there are discussions, those discussions have to be about what we can do to bring about an agreement. At the moment, the President and other parts of the US system do not agree with the position of the UK Government. We will continue to discuss with them to see whether we can find a way forward to ensure that the US and the UK can come to an agreement to allow us to move forward.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear next from the Cross Benches. Can we have short, sharp, succinct questions, please, not speeches?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has made it clear that the treaty, as it was, has not been “binned”. If and when there is agreement with the Americans to proceed, will the Government consider also the Maldive interest that has been expressed? If so, have the Government had any formal approach from the Maldivian Government over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This is a treaty between the UK and Mauritius with respect to the future of the BIOT, without the involvement of the Maldivian Government. If that is wrong, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord and put it on the record, but that is my understanding.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is not so much a sparrer as a knocker-outer, which is why we love him on this side and why even that lot have to respect him, but I wonder whether he will respond to a question that the whole House has. While it is perfectly true that there can be no treaty without the agreement of the Americans, should it not also be true that there can be no treaty without at least the involvement of the Chagossians? Has not the time come to establish some form of formal consultation arrangement with the Chagossian people, who have suffered an injustice over the years, in order that they are involved in the future?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. As far as I am aware, numerous Members of your Lordships’ House have met the Chagossian community and numerous ministerial visits have taken place with representatives of the Chagossian community and Chagossians themselves. No doubt those meetings will continue; they are obviously important as we seek a resolution to the issue that we face. At the end of the day, it is about how the Government take this forward to protect not only the rights of the Chagossians as far as we can but the integrity of the base of Diego Garcia.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, in response to a question from the Liberal Democrat spokesman Al Pinkerton in the other House about what the collapse of the treaty means in practice for the long-promised right of return for Chagossians, the Minister replied,
“we believe that this is the best route, under Mauritius’s guidance, leading to resettlement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/26; col. 603.]
Will the Minister now confirm that that was misleading? The treaty does not require the Mauritians to resettle, and if they do allow resettlement, which they are against at present, they could resettle it with Mauritian people and not Chagossians.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My understanding, reading it again in preparing for this Statement, is that there is no right of return as it stands at the present time in the existing arrangements. What is proposed in the treaty allows a right of return for Chagossians to islands other than Diego Garcia. As far as I am concerned, that is what is contained within the treaty.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I fully understand the sensitivities of the status of the islands in the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, but will the Minister confirm that such an opinion does not have the force of law? I impress on the Minister that the view from these Benches is to give priority for consultations to Chagos Islanders and their descendants, for the very important preservation of the current marine protected reserve and to begin a fresh approach to a new settlement for the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said to my noble friend Lord Boateng, discussions with the Chagossians are really important. Numerous meetings have been held with the Chagossians and those will continue in the future. I knew that somebody was going to ask me about the court issue and the binding judgment, so I asked lawyers about it. They tell me that Annex VII of the UNCLOS treaty would be binding were a judgment to be made under that particular provision. If that is wrong then the lawyers who have been advising me are wrong—I asked them because I thought the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was going to ask me that particular question. Let me say again that Annex VII of the UNCLOS treaty is the binding judgment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It has been said that the Americans are against the necessary revision of the 1966 exchange of letters. That is not my understanding. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the text of the revised exchange of letters has been agreed by officials from the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Pentagon and the State Department. The Americans are not against the revision—one American is against the revision. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct? Would he also comment on the possibility that that one American has been moved to the position he has taken up by informal contacts, through his MAGA friends, with people in this country who were opposed to the treaty? Would the Minister say whether he, like me, deprecates such informal contacts behind the Government’s back?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Again, to show my preparation for this, I have the exchange of notes in front of me. The noble Lord is right about the 1966 exchange of notes, but to reflect the change in the treaty that is proposed, the exchange of notes will need to be amended and adapted. He is right to say that officials, both here and in the US, have agreed on the changes to the exchange of notes; however, not all the American system has agreed with those changes. Whatever our view, it is quite an important part of the American system that has not agreed with the changes.
We will continue the discussions we are having to try to ensure that we take forward something that we believe is in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the United States and the security alliances on which we depend. That is the important thing. I do not want to sound pompous—although this does sound pompous—but as a UK Government Minister what I am really interested in is how I work with others across government in the interests of the country and the alliances that we represent. I appreciate that there are many others doing this or that, but my interest is in the defence of the country and the protection of Diego Garcia.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Labour Benches, then the Conservative Benches and then the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, thank you very much for letting me get in. My noble friend the Minister is very robust but, from listening to this debate, I find it a bit difficult to imagine the kind of cross-party discussions and sensible debate that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked for. I begin with what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said: he started by accusing the Government of doing a U-turn. I think there have been two U-turns on this: the first was from the President of the United States, who is volatile as always—we have heard just how far the negotiations had already gone between the State Department and the FCDO—and the second was from the Conservative Party. It was absolutely clear that the previous Conservative Government, as my noble friend the Minister said, spent 11 rounds of debate on this, and they produced a proposal for a treaty that is full of all the things that were in the treaty that this Government came up with. I think that there is a bit of a U-turn on the noble Lord’s side. Does my noble friend agree, given what has happened, that it is somewhat hypocritical to hear the Conservative Front Benches making the sort of criticisms they have made when they have been through all this themselves?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. It is in the interests of the country to try to take this forward. It is in all our interests to try to do that, because it is in the interests not only of our country but of the security alliances on which we depend. The point made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—which I gently point out again to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—is that the idea that this started under this Government is simply not the case. There were rounds after rounds of negotiations beforehand, where the previous Government tried to deal with what they regarded as a difficulty that potentially put Diego Garcia under threat. That is what I would like the noble Lord opposite sometimes to recognise, because it is important that it did not start under us.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, why are the Government blocking the delivery of a small fast boat to the Chagossians on the islands? It is much needed in case of a medical emergency that could threaten them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I previously said that I asked directly before this debate whether any humanitarian assistance—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think that medical assistance is humanitarian assistance. I asked whether any humanitarian assistance was prevented from going to the island where those six people are, and I have been reassured that that has not been the case. We do not believe that they should be there—we think that they are there illegally—and there is a current court process going on about that. That is what I have been informed on. I gently say to the noble Lord that if what I have said is wrong, I will correct it. He should understand that I have been reassured by civil servants that humanitarian aid has not been stopped.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I very much welcome the Minister, because he answers very directly. Can he have a word with the Minister in the other place, who said that noble Lords were “game-playing”? Because of the campaigns and work we have done in this House, the public now understand Chagos much more than they did when the Bill was introduced. I think they realise that the people who were torn from their island homes in the 1960s, and those six brave Chagossians there now, should be helped and supported as much as possible. I ask one simple question: does he accept that those loyal British citizens now on the Chagos Islands pose no security threat whatever to Diego Garcia?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her initial comments. The point about the six people on the atoll we are talking about is that they are there illegally. You must have a permit to go there, the BIOT Administration did not grant them a permit, and so they are seeking to remove them from the island. That is what the current court process is about and the legal process must take its course. The BIOT Supreme Court said that the BIOT Administration do not have a right to remove them; that is being appealed and we will see what happens as a result of the judgment of the BIOT Court of Appeal.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says that this is a vital base for Britain as well as for the United States. Just how vital is it for Britain? Nearly 20 years ago, I did some work and published a paper on the special relationship and US and UK bases. I recall that the number of British military personnel in Diego Garcia was in single figures and there were no naval or aerial weapons platforms based there. Has that changed? Do we now have units there? Are the military personnel from Britain in triple figures at least? Alternatively, is this really an American base with which we have some co-operation?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that I will not go into all the detail that he referred to, but the point I am making is that it is a fundamentally important security base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. All across the world, different bases operate under different arrangements and are made up of different armed forces. People do not go into those details because it would draw attention to them and could help our adversaries. The only point I am making is that it is a strategically crucial base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. As such, the Government are seeking to protect that. Others have a different way through which they think they would protect it, but we are seeking to ensure that we have the legal certainty that will provide the security to that base that we think is vital.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but we need to put the record straight on the issue of the 11 rounds of negotiations. I agree with the Minister that the previous Government had discussions with the Government of Mauritius in good faith, but as I have said to him, both inside and outside the Chamber, the issue of the long-term, permanent security of Diego Garcia could not be agreed on. There were peripheral issues too. The Minister alluded to Annex VII of UNCLOS. Its enforcement mechanism is within the jurisdiction of the UN Secretary-General. Ultimately, the only authority carried within the UN structures is within the UN Security Council, on which, of course, the United Kingdom carries a veto.
The previous Government were fully versed with some of these things, so ultimately, it would have come down to a decision on security and political priority. That is important for the record, because this idea that there were 11 rounds of negotiations is a fact. On the fact that they were not concluded, the proof is there for the Minister to see.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord is one of the most esteemed Members of your Lordships’ House. There were 11 rounds of negotiation. On the fact that—to use the noble Lord’s words—they were not concluded, that happens with negotiations, but there was an intent to try to reach a negotiated settlement on what to do about the future of Diego Garcia. I have been in many negotiations that have not been concluded, but that does not mean that you are not trying to negotiate to get to a conclusion. That is the only point I would make on that.
Going back to Annex VII of UNCLOS, because I knew that people were going to ask what the binding judgment that could be made upon the UK Government would be, and people have made much of the fact that many of the legal things that have been referred to have been non-binding judgments, I ask: what would be a binding judgment? Legal people, who understand these matters and advise me—as they will have advised the noble Lord in his Foreign Office ministerial capacity—have told me that Annex VII of UNCLOS would provide a binding judgment.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill is a short but important piece of legislation, which has come to us unamended from the other place. It seeks to amend the statutory limit on the number of ministerial salaries available, currently capped at 109, to 120. The proposed change to 120 reflects the average size of Governments since 2010 and would largely end the practice of unpaid Ministers, which I know has been a source of concern for noble Lords in recent years. It will ensure that the Prime Minister of the day has the flexibility needed to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet modern government demands.
For noble Lords who are not familiar with the current position, it might be helpful to shed some light on it and why the change is required. As noble Lords will be aware, under our constitution, the monarch appoints the Prime Minister as the person most able to command the confidence of the other place and all ministerial appointments thereafter are made by the monarch on the sole advice of the Prime Minister. There is a statutory limit on how many ministerial salaries are available, as set out in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The current limit is 109 salaries. It has not changed since the 1975 Act was introduced over half a century ago.
In addition, there is a separate statutory limit on the number of Ministers who can sit and vote in the other place, whether paid or unpaid, under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. That limit is 95. There is no equivalent limit on the number of your Lordships who are able to serve as Ministers.
The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 also sets out salaries that should be paid to eight other officeholders: the Speakers of both Houses, the Leader of the Opposition in both Houses, the Opposition Chief Whip in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the other place. The Bill does not seek to amend those salaries.
Within the current limit of 109 Ministers, there are 83 salaries that can be allocated at the Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary ranks. A further four salaries are allocated to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Advocate-General for Scotland, and 22 salaries are allocated to Government Whips. I ask noble Lords to bear with me with all these numbers. I just want to give absolute clarity to the House.
The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 sets cumulative limits on the salaries allocated to Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. Within the overall limit of 83, the cumulative limits under the Act are 21 Secretary of State-rank salaries; 50 Secretary of State-rank and Minister of State-rank salaries; and 83 Secretary of State-, Minister of State- and Parliamentary Secretary-rank salaries. These limits were set in 1975, which is over 50 years ago.
As a result of the demands of modern government, all Governments since 2010 have consistently featured a larger ministerial team than the existing Act’s provisions permit to be paid. That has ranged from an average of 108 Ministers in the Cameron and May Governments to 123 in the Sunak Government. There are 122 Ministers in the current Government. This has led to an unsatisfactory position where Governments of all parties have become dependent on Ministers being willing and able to work unpaid. Historically, this has fallen predominantly to Ministers in your Lordships’ House.
I know that this regrettable situation has been a source of frustration for many years. It was also described by one noble Lord as a “humiliation” during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. In Committee, Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and, on Report, Amendments 13 and 13A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, sought to address this by preventing unpaid Ministers being eligible for membership of your Lordships’ House. The subsequent government defeat on Report when the mood of the House was tested showed us the strength of the feeling there was on this issue. The Government rejected the amendment at ping-pong as it did not deliver the change needed and it did not increase the overall number of ministerial salaries available. But, as I said at the time, the amendment itself raised an important principle, and the Government are pleased to bring forward legislation today which will largely end the practice of unpaid Ministers. It remains the case that the Prime Minister will decide on the allocation of ministerial salaries.
I am confident that the whole House supports the notion that Ministers in this place and the other place should be paid for the work they do. Ministers in this House work extremely hard, often managing some of the broadest and most demanding portfolios in government. For a significant number of them to serve in the House unpaid cannot be right. In terms of the business of the House, a Minister in this House from either party could be doing the work of three or four Ministers in the other place.
To summarise, the Bill increases the cap on ministerial salaries from 109 to 120. All additional salaries will be allocated at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank at the request of the Prime Minister. As I have said, they will operate cumulatively. This means that salaries not allocated at a senior rank can be used to pay a Minister at a more junior rank within the limits. The Bill will therefore make provision for one additional salary at the Secretary of State rank—that increases to 22; four additional salaries at Secretary of State or Minister of State rank, increasing the overall number to 54 from 50; and 11 additional salaries at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary level, increasing the overall limit of those from 83 to 94.
If all additional salaries were allocated to the most senior Minister possible, this would result in one extra salary for Secretaries of State, three for Ministers of State and seven for Parliamentary Secretaries. The limits on the Lord Chancellor, Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Advocate-General for Scotland and Government Whips remain unchanged. The limits on other officeholder salaries also remain unchanged.
As I have said, the increase to 120 salaries reflects the average number of Ministers in each Government since 2010. The change is set out in Clause 1. The existing limit of 95 Ministers who could be Members of the other place under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 will be retained. Therefore, 25 salaries will, in effect, be reserved for Lords Ministers.
It is also important to stress that the Bill does not increase the pay of Ministers. Pay in your Lordships’ House increased in 2019 and has been frozen at that level since then. Ministerial pay for Ministers in the other place has not risen since 2008. In addition to the ministerial salary, Ministers in the other place receive a salary for their role as an MP, which of 1 April this year is £98,599. If noble Lords look at the Explanatory Notes, they will see that it looks as though Lords Ministers are paid at a higher salary than Ministers in the House of Commons, yet Ministers in the House of Commons also receive their MP salary, but for Lords Ministers, that is the only payment they receive. The Prime Minister maintained the ministerial salary freeze on entering office, and the Bill does not change that either.
To conclude, this short Bill has a welcome aim: to ensure that the Prime Minister has the flexibility to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern government. It is also right that anyone in this country can aspire to be a Minister in either House, no matter what their background is, rather than relying on personal wealth in lieu of salary, and the burden of unpaid Ministers has disproportionately fallen on Ministers in this House.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, who helpfully indicated his support for the Bill during Third Reading of the hereditary Peers Bill. I am grateful for his support and hope the Bill will receive similar support across the House, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her introduction to this Bill and for her very clear explanation of it; I can confirm that I support it and I can therefore be brief.
As most of the House who have followed this will know—the noble Baroness alluded to this—I have form on the matter. When I became Leader of the House in 2022, I found it absolutely astonishing that in the 21st century we had a statutory position where, practically, in one of our Houses of Parliament in many circumstances people had to have private means to become a Minister. There have always been wealthy people who have been willing to do this signal public service for nothing. They still exist, and I of course salute them for their public spirit in doing that. Some on my side, when I was Leader, made great personal sacrifices, for which I once told the House I was ashamed to ask them, and for which I was beyond appreciation when I saw them ready to make those sacrifices.
However, the converse of that appreciation is that it cannot ever be right that those who do not have the means cannot serve this country as a Minister because a post is unpaid. I said from the Front Bench, both in office and in opposition, that I believe this matter must be addressed. Whenever we discussed it, there was widespread support for the principle, and I think that was found when my predecessors also tried to address the matter. But there was always a reason not to act, and not only in my time but before.
I think I have told the House that, when I tried to get something in a Bill such as this when I was Leader in the 2023-24 Session, I was told by my own very senior colleagues that it would “cause comment”—perhaps we were approaching an election or something. When I tried to address the matter by different means, ensuring at least that senior unpaid figures on both the Government and Opposition Front Benches, such as a Foreign Office Minister and leading shadow spokesman, might be allowed deemed attendance when they were out of London, perhaps on related business, this was disagreed to by senior figures then in the Labour Party on the basis, as I was told, that Labour would have fewer Ministers and so it would not be necessary. It has not quite worked out that way and it was never really going to. As the noble Baroness explained, this position has grown and persisted for decades.
The number of unpaid Lords Front-Benchers, which rose as high as 13—or maybe even 14—in my time is still at least 11, as advertised currently on the GOV.UK list of Ministers. It would be invidious to list those names, but they include some of the most hard-working and respected Members on the Front Bench opposite, just as they did under our Government.
This Bill could bring that inherent unfairness in public life to a close. I hope that, when the noble Baroness responds, she will undertake that it will do precisely that—she said it would largely do it; I understand there may be transitional reasons why that might not be possible. But I affirm that public office in the 21st century must be open to all.
The Bill allows the total number of paid Ministers, as the noble Baroness explained, to rise to 120 against the current 109. The existing limit on the scale of patronage in the other place set by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, as she explained, remains unchanged at 95. So if the Commons end, if I may put it thus—or the other place, or the patronage secretary—still decides that the House of Commons Members should take up all their potential places, the number of Lords Ministers allowed to be paid by statute will rise from 14 under the present system to 25 under the revised system brought in by the Bill.
The noble Baroness alluded to the fact that that is still a ratio of nearly four to one between this House and the other place. I do not wish to disparage anyone, because I had an uphill struggle with my own colleagues, and I make no disparagement of the Government because they are addressing the point, but over the years I have sometimes wondered whether some of our colleagues at the other end actually know the burdens on Ministers in this House, the revising Chamber, and the amount of continuous work that arises, for example, from our less regimented system of organising Questions and the clear and penetrating scrutiny of Bills.
I said I would not name names, but I look at people such as the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, who carries out what I think we would all acknowledge is one of the hardest jobs in government, carrying the Home Office brief in your Lordships’ House, and I remember my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, whom the House was praising not long ago, and who was a truly outstanding Minister of State in the Foreign Office and an indefatigable traveller in service of his country. Those people need to be properly recognised. Many might and could contend that the real answer would of course be to restrain the growing size of the payroll in the other place. It does not need to be 95—it has not always been 95—but that is not on offer currently, and therefore I feel that in the interests of the whole House we should proceed as the noble Baroness suggests in the Bill.
I was very grateful for the support that Members across the House, as the noble Baroness reminded us, gave to an amendment which I moved during the passage of the House of Lords Act earlier this Session. I recognise that it was not actually practical in its explicit effect, but it was designed to allow this House to express a view and perhaps force the other place to consider this issue. That has been done, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that I have had on this with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, both when I was in government and now in opposition. I hope that we can continue to give positive consideration to issues that arise from the burdens on various Front Benches in this House.
However, setting that aside, for the interim I welcome the Bill. It ends a long-standing injustice, it opens doors that should never have been closed, and I ask my colleagues on this side to give it a fair wind in the full spirit of respect and sensible co-operation across this Chamber for which I will always stand.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, as someone relatively new to the House I am very struck by how hard Ministers work in this House, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord True. Having spent 20 or more years working with Governments of different persuasions and seeing Ministers in the Lords, I always think that the Lords Ministers often work harder and get less credit for the work that they do.
I will make three further points in support of this Bill. First, I am honoured to follow both the noble Lord, Lord True, and my noble friend Lady Smith. I congratulate them on the speeches they have made but also on the collaborative approach they have taken to this issue. As a result, I am confident that, should we pass the Bill—I hope we will—it will bring benefits both to this House and to the Government long into the future.
On a previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord True, set out three principles, which I will repeat because each is important. There should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work—and this fits with how hard Ministers in the Lords work. There should be equal treatment of Ministers in both Houses, which is also an important point. Perhaps most importantly, nobody should be prevented by lack of means from taking on the role of a Minister. My noble friend Lady Smith totally supported those three principles and I do too.
Secondly, I emphasise the last of those three points as particularly important. If, regardless of means, we want the younger Members of this House to be able to take on ministerial responsibility, this Bill is essential. Those of us who are—how should I put it?—later in a career are more likely to have a pension or other retirement income than our younger colleagues. I look at the cohort of young noble friends with whom I was privileged to join the Government Benches in January, and see evident competence, commitment, passion and talent. I would not want either the Government or the country to be deprived of the contribution that any one of them might make as Ministers simply because the role was unremunerated. A similar case no doubt has been made in the past, and the noble Lord, Lord True, says he might have made it in relation to all sides of the House in the past and the future.
Thirdly, there is an encouraging precedent. Some noble Lords may be aware that I have a modest sideline in medieval history. In 1406, Henry IV was troubled on many fronts. There was a standoff between his Government and Parliament over both his reform agenda and his tax demands. There was anxiety about religious extremism; at that time, it was not the IRGC but the Lollards. Then, as now, English shipping was under threat in an economically crucial narrow strait, the English Channel rather than Hormuz. Then, as now too, there were expensive wars in two locations that were distracting the Government. Finally, according to the Speaker of the day, Sir John Tiptoft, there were some “rascals” in the King’s Household. To use Barbara Tuchman’s evocative phrase, we sometimes find that we are looking in a “distant mirror”.
As part of his response, Henry IV drew heavily on talent in the Lords. He strengthened his council and decided that all the newly appointed Ministers in his council should be paid. Professor Given-Wilson, one of our most eminent contemporary medieval historians, concluded that this new council was “remarkably successful”. After the introduction of pay for these Ministers, 1408, was, he said,
“financially speaking, the most orderly of the reign”.
The economy was turning a corner.
The principal case set out by both the preceding speakers in favour of this overdue reform is overwhelmingly strong. Meanwhile, with this reform, a glance in that “distant mirror” suggests that, perhaps in spite of everything, we can look forward to positive financial and economic developments in due course. I support the Bill.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord True, I add my support to this Bill. It seeks to rectify situations that, as Leader, I too sought to address but unfortunately did not succeed in doing so. Namely, it amends the law to ensure that Ministers, whether they are here or in the other place, are paid for the work that they do. That may seem common sense and unarguable but, for too long, legislative restrictions on the number of Ministers have led to a situation where Ministers in the other place have taken the bulk of the paid positions, leaving too many Lords Ministers to perform their duties without salaries.
In my time as Leader, I was involved in numerous reshuffles with the infamous whiteboard and Post-it notes that came with it. When it came to deciding Lords ministerial positions, the Chief Whip and I were given considerable discretion about the appointments, but we too often had to argue for paid positions for our Front Bench rather than see them allocated to Members of the other place. Although we managed that with varying degrees of success, there were simply not enough salaries available, so we invariably had to ask some Lords Ministers to take on their roles unpaid. On occasion, as we have heard, this meant that excellent colleagues either were unable to take a job in the first place or, if they could, found themselves unable to continue in unpaid roles indefinitely, depriving the Government of talented individuals. This wholly unsatisfactory situation is what the Bill aims to tackle.
As has already been recognised in the speeches we have heard, noble Lords across the House are well aware of how hard our Ministers work. We see daily the breadth of responsibilities that Lords Ministers have in not just their specific departmental policy areas but their much broader role representing the Government in this House. The challenges of not having a salary are a particular issue for Ministers, as a key part of their role is the requirement to travel frequently to represent our nation, so they cannot attend the House regularly. To expect people to do their jobs for free due to outdated legislation is entirely unreasonable.
The unfairness of the current situation was made particularly stark to me during Covid, when the House agreed to a proposal from the commission that additional payments be made to Opposition Front-Benchers to reflect fairly the additional work that they were undertaking to prepare for debates and legislation, when the House was sitting virtually and in its hybrid form. However, no such recognition could be or was given to unpaid Lords Ministers, who were leading the response to the pandemic in the most challenging of circumstances.
One of the arguments against the Bill made in the other place is that it does nothing to encourage the slimming-down of government; indeed, it increases the cost. While that is true, the Bill is simply dealing with the reality of the size of government today not the one that we may wish it to be. It addresses the unarguable point that the Leader of the House made: that the consistent losers from the current legal restrictions are Lords Ministers. Passing the Bill would not mean that the number of Ministers cannot be reduced; it would mean that people would be paid for the job that they are doing today. A very modest reduction in the size of the Civil Service, for instance, would more than cover the financial implications of the Bill.
If the Government decide not to make such reductions, the Bill will add a modest uplift simply to reflect what should have been happening in any event. Ministers across both Houses should be paid for the job that they are doing.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the excellent speeches by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. I think there needs to be a Lords Minister in every main department. Those jobs can be extremely demanding, and it is the right principle that money should be paid for good work done.
However, this Bill is an opportunity for the Government to think more widely about how the tasks of Ministers can be made a bit easier, how the chances of success can be enhanced and how the public can feel that they are getting more out of their Ministers who are, rightly, being paid for the jobs that they are doing.
When I was the executive chairman of a large quoted company, it would never have occurred to me that it would be good practice to go into the office one day, without having alerted any of my senior colleagues, and tell them that I had decided to swap them all around just for the sake of it; and that I was going to make the sales director the finance director and the engineering director the sales director, and that I was going to sack somebody else, all on the same day. I would not think that that would have a happy result. Successive Prime Ministers have been quite wrong to have these big clear-out days as some assertion of power, because those whom they sack will never like them again and quite a lot of those whom they appoint are given jobs that they do not want or understand, so they also harbour a grudge about the experience of the reshuffle. We need something better than that.
We need senior Ministers mentoring and looking, in private, at the performance of more junior Ministers. Leading Cabinet members should be mentored and their performance reviewed by the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members perhaps by the Deputy Prime Minister; and obviously all Ministers should be mentored by their departmental ministerial heads.
I wonder if it is not time to be a little bolder and change the language. Why do we call most of our Ministers junior Ministers? People think it a privilege, necessity or requirement to see a Minister, so we do need then to undermine the Minister’s authority before the meeting begins. Surely each is either a Minister or a Cabinet Minister, who is a super-Minister with strategic obligations and ultimate responsibility for the departments in which the other Ministers are working. That could be extremely helpful from the point of view of working out the structure, so I think that we need only two main types of Minister: heads of department or Cabinet Ministers paid a higher salary; and Ministers paid the Minister of State salary. I think the Parliamentary Secretary salary is still quite low given the magnitude of many of these jobs and the responsibilities that they entail.
I would strongly recommend that we consider some kind of performance review system. One of the things that made reshuffles so particularly difficult for many of my ministerial colleagues when we were undergoing them was that they had absolutely no idea whether the Prime Minister and the Whips thought they were doing well or badly and whether they were going to be promoted, demoted or shuffled sideways. Sometimes, they were sitting there with their phone for a day or so while the reshuffle agonisingly went on and were not even rung up and told that they were just going to stay put—which might have been good news, a relief or a disappointment. On performance, therefore, we need a system where they are mentored, assessed and allowed to say that they need better resources or more support.
As a general rule, it would be much better if we did not change Ministers so often. Looking at the Governments of the last 25 years—Labour, coalition or Conservative—there has been an in-and-out far too frequently. I would have thought the norm should be that you appoint somebody for a four to five-year Parliament as a Minister. If they then do very well and you want to promote them, that is a bonus; if you have to manage them out because they are so dreadful, you do so only after giving them plenty of chances and trying to help them do a better job, and then you do it in an orderly and sensible way. There would be a bit of movement but you would not have these blow-up days when everybody is put at risk.
This might start to work rather better. It takes four years for a Minister to read their way in, get used to working with their officials, and put in place the laws and the budget programmes they want to and then see the results of their labour—whereas most of us were never allowed to see the results of our labour because we were moved on to some other crisis point or difficulty before we had seen the whole thing through. You would not normally do that in a business.
I make these modest suggestions to the Leader. I hope she will pass them on to the Prime Minister, because I think government would be much better if Ministers were looked after and mentored but also expected to perform, and if we had a more orderly process for appointing and removing. It does seem that, with the current system, in all too many government cases, too many people are still selected who have bad histories that come to meet them in an unfortunate way as soon as they become Ministers. It would be much better if more time were given to the selection, once you had set up an initial Government, and there were more conversations with people to find out what they were good at and wanted to do, and a bit about their background, to avoid embarrassment.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to add my support to this Bill. As with all new arrivals, I have had to learn a great deal from scratch about the workings of this House—right from the first day, when, on the occasion of my introduction, I very nearly forgot to shake the Lord Speaker’s hand on my way out of the Chamber and learned that the way noble Lords help their colleagues from making mistakes is by a sort of insistent murmuring from all sides. Some noble Lords this evening might suggest that I still have not quite got the hang of sitting down quickly enough from time to time. However, I quickly learned just how hard Ministers work.
In my first week, back in March 2024, I had many opportunities to listen to Ministers in the then Conservative Government—and I do mean many. It might be considered invidious to pick individuals out, but I would like to give some real examples to bring the subject to life—with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord True, because some of my examples might be similar to his.
I start with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, whose expertise and courtesy from the Dispatch Box immediately impressed me. Upon checking parliamentary records while thinking about this speech, I saw that she gave no fewer than 48 spoken answers that week—on the earnings of mothers and fathers, independent schools, special needs, school meals and free childcare—and a speech on gender recognition abroad. The previous week, she gave five speeches, including one on International Women’s Day, in which she said:
“I started with an 1,100-word speech and have finished with 5,000 words of notes and no speech. So I will do my best, but I fear that I will have to write to many of your Lordships at the end of the debate”,—[Official Report, 8/3/24; col. 1794.]
making the point that the work Ministers do in the Chamber is only the tip of the iceberg. Even so, it is a pretty big tip.
That week, I remember being equally impressed by the knowledge and style of the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, to take just two more examples. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, gave 18 spoken answers—nine on cancer staffing and nine on children’s cancer—and a speech on sexual and reproductive healthcare. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, gave 15 answers, on the death penalty and on the execution of Hussein Abu Al-Khair, as well as a Statement on the latter.
Of course, my Labour colleagues have been just as busy since the general election three months later. Rather than listing them all and risking some more of that unnerving, insistent murmuring—but this time, as it is Second Reading, from my Whip if it takes me over my allotted time—let me mention just three: those Ministers who share responsibility for the criminal justice system.
My noble friend Lord Timpson gave no fewer than 51 speeches and two interventions on the Sentencing Bill. Just last month, my noble friend Lord Hanson gave 45 speeches, as well as five interventions and seven answers, on crime and policing, the Golders Green ambulance attack and immigration fees. In particular, on 25 March—a night some of us well remember—he said:
“We have spent over 88 hours in Committee, we have had a full day’s Second Reading and 44 hours on Report … Given that we sat late on a number of occasions, I put on record on behalf of the whole House our thanks to the doorkeepers and staff of the House. There were a few days when I did not know what time I was going home—and neither did they”.—[Official Report, 25/3/26; cols. 1523-24.]
Finally, my noble friend Lady Levitt’s work in the Chamber last month included 13 speeches on the Victims and Courts Bill, nine answers on humanist weddings, and 28 speeches, plus an intervention, on the Crime and Policing Bill. Just to reinforce the point one last time, she and my noble friend Lord Hanson finished at 2.11 am on the morning of 19 March.
What do these six noble Lords have in common, apart from sharing an impressive combination of civility and command of their subjects? The answer, of course, is the fact that they did, or do, all this unpaid as Ministers. This is clearly ridiculous and unacceptable. It is absolutely self-evident that hard-working Ministers should be paid for the vital work they do. I enthusiastically commend the Bill.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. I do not think it is acceptable that we ask Ministers to do their work unpaid, a burden that has fallen disproportionately on Members of this House. As we have heard, former Leaders on these Benches have worked hard to change that, but, sadly, without success. The noble Baroness the Leader is to be congratulated on the Bill we have before us.
I focus my remarks on another aspect of ministerial salaries: the absence of any provision for paternity leave, shared parental leave or adoption leave. Ministers, as officeholders, are not employees and so do not qualify for any of the normal provisions. For many years, the system for taking maternity and other parental leave was managed informally, with a period of leave agreed with the Prime Minister and cover normally provided by other Ministers within a department or a Whip stepping up. Given the limit we have on ministerial salaries, covering a colleague’s maternity leave was normally in addition to someone’s existing duties, as there were not any spare salaries to appoint a replacement.
I was particularly aware of this when I was pregnant with my daughter in 2021 and was also a Government Whip. I worried that any leave I would take would either put a heavy burden on my other colleagues in the Whips’ Office, who were all already covering at least three or four departments each, or involve asking someone to provide cover for me unpaid.
Happily, the problem was solved before Margot was born, as the inadequacies of the previous system were exposed even more clearly when the then Attorney-General, Suella Braverman, needed to take maternity leave. Because the role of Attorney-General comes with specific constitutional responsibilities that can be fulfilled only by the specific officeholder, staying in post while cover was provided by another colleague was not an option. Because of the limit to ministerial salaries, it meant that Suella faced having to resign in order to take maternity leave, which was not a very satisfactory position at all. The Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill was hastily written and passed to create the position of Minister on leave for Ministers who wished to take a period of maternity leave, the salary for which did not count towards the formal cap for salaries, freeing up the ability to appoint a replacement for that period of leave.
I was the second Minister to take up that provision, and used it again when I had my son Max in 2024. It was a very welcome step forward but it was acknowledged at the time that there were areas that the Act failed to address. There is still no formal provision for paternity leave, shared parental leave or adoption leave, with these still being handled through informal agreement and cover.
It could be argued that this is less of an issue for paternity leave, given that the statutory entitlement is only two weeks, so easier to cover informally. Those who followed the Employment Rights Act through this House will know that I am of the view that two weeks is woefully inadequate and something that I hope the Government’s ongoing review of parental leave will address. Nevertheless, even at two weeks, the current system does not address the fact that if you are an officeholder with formal constitutional responsibilities attached, it simply is not possible for someone else to cover them, even for a short period. The current system also does not address the fact that, even though take-up across the country is low, other fathers have the opportunity to take a longer period of leave via shared parental leave.
Another quirk of the system is that even a Minister who is a new mother, with the ability to be appointed as Minister on leave, does not have the ability for their partner to take up any shared parental leave. Given the demands of a ministerial role, including, as we have heard, long days and—often in this place—very late nights, this is a particularly impactful oversight. The ability to succeed in these roles is often down to the long-suffering and unseen partners who support Ministers. Under the current system, unlike for other couples, a Minister’s partner does not have the ability to take any more time to care for their new baby than the existing two weeks of paternity leave. That is due simply to the fact that their partner is a Minister and therefore an officeholder rather than an employee. I think most people would see that as an unintended consequence rather than a deliberate policy choice.
There is also no provision equivalent to adoption leave, which, unlike paternity leave, is available in ordinary circumstances for up to a year to one parent in an adoptive couple. Finally, there is an important omission when it comes to the provision of sick leave. This was something that affected my friend and former colleague James Brokenshire when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and was diagnosed with lung cancer.
The areas that I have highlighted were unfinished business from the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act five years ago. After the passage of that Act, the Government committed to returning to this at a later date. I had hoped that this Bill was that date but, as it is a money Bill, we cannot address the gaps in today’s debate in our House. I appreciate the noble Baroness the Leader of the House finding time to discuss these issues with me yesterday. I know she is committed to ensuring that we can benefit from the talents of all Members in this House in ministerial office, regardless of background or family circumstance. I would appreciate hearing from her what plans the Government have to address the gaps I have spoken of today.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I have been struck by the cross-party tone of this debate. I continue this tone with a short intervention on the closely related matter of how ministerial pay is determined.
In January, Peter Kyle, the Business Secretary, proposed a change to IPSA’s pay setting, with which I heartily agree; I think it very worthy of consideration. He told the Financial Times that he
“would really love for IPSA to peg MPs and ministerial pay to our growth rates as a country, as opposed to what it is at the moment, which is a slightly byzantine formula”.
His thinking was that such a move would help the Government, and other parties in Parliament, to prioritise economic growth at every level. I am pleased to say that the Business Secretary’s excellent proposal was received positively by other MPs.
There are few MPs more on the pulse of public opinion than Chris Curtis, the Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes North and co-chair of the Labour Growth Group. As the former head of political polling at Opinium, Curtis has a strong handle on what the public are thinking. He argued:
“It’s the right thing to restore trust in politics for the public to see MPs linking their pay to the improvements in the economy we are aiming to deliver”.
The Business Secretary’s proposal to peg the pay of MPs and Ministers to economic growth has international precedent. Singapore has used various forms of this model for the past 20 years. Between 2000 and 2011, Ministers and MPs in Singapore received a “GDP bonus”, which was explicitly tied to economic growth. No bonus was awarded if real GDP growth was under 2%, with the potential for an extra eight months of pay if it exceeded 10%. In 2012, the scheme developed into a slightly more flexible “national bonus”, which bundled four elements together, giving each equal weighting: the real GDP growth rate, the real median income growth rate, the unemployment rate and the real growth rate for the bottom 20% of Singaporean citizens. This seems a very sensible approach as it makes the link far more explicitly to GDP per capita rather than GDP—a far closer reflection of people’s everyday living standards. It should be noted that, in the years since the scheme was introduced, the average growth rate in Singapore has been 4.6% as opposed to the average growth rate in the UK of 1.7%. These growth figures suggest that the scheme is a useful tool to boost economic growth.
I therefore hope that we can unite around the Business Secretary’s very practical suggestion to link the pay of Ministers and MPs to our national prosperity, properly incentivising and rewarding them for growing the economy and people’s standard of living. I for one would be delighted for our elected representatives and Lords Ministers to receive a bonus of eight months’ pay if economic growth hit 10%. Frankly, I would be happy to award them the eight-month bonus if growth hit 3%—something it has not done since 2000. This would incentivise all parties to make growth their number one priority.
I very much hope the Government will include a Bill on Peter Kyle’s excellent proposal in the King’s Speech. I do not expect the Lord Privy Seal to reveal the contents of the King’s Speech in her winding up, but perhaps she might tell us whether the Business Secretary’s proposal is under consideration by the Government. At a time when politicians often struggle to agree and the country is divided, I hope this is a sensible proposal that the whole House and the whole country can unite around.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, this House is often confronted by issues of great complexity, but happily today we are dealing with a rather straightforward single issue on which I hope we will be united.
Like others, I am a relative newcomer to this place. Since my arrival, I have come to understand a little the range of demands placed on Front-Benchers on all sides of the Chamber, but particularly on government Ministers. The demands placed on Ministers in the Chamber are considerable: being required to respond to questions from noble Lords on aspects of every policy covered by the Minister’s department.
The challenge of steering a major Bill through this House is enormous, requiring a mastery of detail and, incidentally, endless patience and bottomless stamina. I have recognised that the courtesies and conventions of this House also require many hours of patient engagement outside the Chamber with noble Lords who wish to pursue a particular interest in a Bill or some other aspect of public policy handled by the department concerned.
I recognise of course that for a Minister there are countless other commitments to be met outside the duties in this House. I recall asking my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury on one occasion how he had enjoyed a recess, which I had certainly appreciated when it arrived. He explained that he had spent the entire time on ministerial visits to five or six capital cities in Africa. No rest for the wicked.
For too long, as the party opposite has testified so compellingly after their long period in office, the ministerial responsibilities in this House have been met only by persuading some good colleagues to accept all those responsibilities without receiving any remuneration. This has been wrong and unfair. The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. I could similarly refer to receiving the rate for the job.
Over the years, I have found myself involved in many complicated negotiations about pay and reward. Sometimes I have been asked to defend robustly ambitious pay claims that have been lodged. But this is one occasion where I find no difficulty in supporting the pay claim that this Bill deals with. When the starting point is zero, the only way is up.
This is about simple justice, but it is also about ensuring that people of talent, dedication and a strong sense of public service who have no supplementary private means are not deterred from accepting a call to office by the denial of a fair and reasonable salary. The Bill seems to be long overdue and I strongly support it.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, in so far as this Bill rectifies an anomaly, it is to be welcomed. I very much endorse what others have said: of course Ministers should be paid. It has been a disgrace that Ministers, particularly in the Lords, have given sterling service without remuneration. I take that as given and I endorse what everybody has said about Ministers in this House.
What I wish to question is the premise of the Bill that the number of Ministers is appropriate. I refer especially to Ministers in the other place. The Explanatory Notes list the number of Ministers in recent Parliaments. The notes do not go further back. Over time, the number of Ministers has grown. Ministers will doubtless concede that this is a consequence of the growth of government responsibilities. There is another explanation, which is more plausible, given that the responsibilities of Governments in times of world war and running an empire were substantial. It is that the growth in the number of Ministers is a consequence of creeping prime ministerial power.
Ministerial posts are an important tool of prime ministerial patronage. The more Ministers, the greater the grip of the Executive through an expanding payroll vote. The term “payroll vote” is demonstrably a misnomer in that it encompasses not only Ministers who are not paid but Parliamentary Private Secretaries who, through a tightening of the language of the Ministerial Code, are now expected to vote loyally with the Government, even though they are neither being paid nor are formally part of the Government.
The subject was addressed in 2011 by the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons in a report entitled Smaller Government: What Do Ministers Do? I gave evidence to the committee. When asked how many Ministers there should be, I argued that one should start by identifying the responsibilities of government and then determining how many Ministers are necessary to fulfil them. Instead, Ministers are appointed to tighten the Prime Minister’s grip on power, to reward loyalty and, on occasion, to ensure that critics are inside the tent rather than outside. Jonathan Powell told the committee on an earlier occasion:
“If the Prime Minister had his way, he would appoint every single backbencher in his party to a ministerial job to ensure their vote”.
A previous report by the committee, Too Many Ministers?, found that the United Kingdom was an outlier in the number of Ministers appointed, and that the ratio of Ministers to MPs was 1:8, compared with 1:14 in Spain and Germany, 1:16 in Italy, and 1:29 in France. It also noted the growth in the number of Ministers since 1900, with the increase marked in Ministers below Cabinet level. The earlier report concluded that this trend had several detrimental effects, not least placing a burden on the public purse and harming the interests of good government due to too many Ministers clogging up the decision-making process and blurring lines of responsibility.
In short, the appointment power is wielded for political benefit and not for the purpose of good—and certainly not for the purposes of efficient—government. As the 2011 report noted,
“activity needs to be distinguished from achievement. Effectiveness … needs to be distinguished from efficiency”.
It goes on to say:
“The accounts we have received give the impression that ministers are too involved in the day-to-day running of their departments; take too many relatively minor decisions; and engage in numerous activities that could be delegated to others. This draws their focus and energy away from their primary objective, providing leadership and setting the overall policy of their departments … Having fewer ministers, who gave priority to their core responsibilities, could help bring about this change in culture”.
We need government characterised by leadership and not management. Related to that, we need not only fewer but better trained Ministers. This is a subject that I have pursued for some years.
This Bill is necessary, but it is not sufficient. It ignores the wider and more serious issue of the quantity, and indeed the quality, of Ministers. It should, following a review of government responsibilities, be replaced by a Bill that repeals the current measures dealing with numbers and salaries, caps the number of Ministers below the current maximum, and provides that no one may be appointed to a ministerial post, paid or unpaid, above that cap. That is but one step; another is ramping up the training of Ministers. We are promised a national school of government, but we have been here before. In September 2021, I initiated a debate on the case for introducing training in core leadership skills for Ministers and civil servants, but there is still some way to go.
It is in the interests of good government to make the changes that I have outlined, but it would take a brave Prime Minister to implement them. That, I fear, is why we are left with the tidying-up Bill that is before us. It is a lost opportunity.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill. However, I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, as we have an opportunity to debate issues about payments to unpaid Ministers. Let me say at the beginning that it is understandable that, due to the complexities of the social world and related workload, the number of Ministers needs to be increased, but that does not necessarily mean that we will have better or more accountable government.
I like the idea of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work and fully support ending the practice of unpaid Ministers. I am sure that the Minister would now like to extend that principle to the entire population. We have nearly 6 million, predominantly female, unpaid carers who provide vital support for the old, sick, disabled and unfortunate. Their labour reduces pressure on public services. When will they be paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? Some 1.4 million carers receive carer’s allowance of £86.45 a week, which adds up to £12.35 a day. Can the Minister explain when the principle of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work will apply to carers? It is vital that it applies to everybody, not just to Ministers.
We also need transparency about the income and wealth of all Ministers. Disclosures in the Register of Members’ Interests are very limited. Over the years, there have been numerous scandals about the tax affairs of Government and shadow Ministers. One way of instilling public confidence in the institutions of government is to require Ministers to publish their tax returns. In recent years, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister have published their tax returns, but that needs to be on a statutory rather than voluntary basis. It should apply to all Government and shadow Ministers and be extended to Members of this House and the other place.
There was a glimmer of hope in Labour’s Fair Tax Programme in 2019, which promised:
“Public filing of tax returns of wealthy individuals”,
but that pledge seems to have been ditched. In Norway, everyone’s tax return has been publicly available since 1814, which is a major reason why it has fewer tax and political scandals. The extension of tax transparency can help to avoid scandals and enhance confidence in the political system. I hope that the Minister will commit to introducing a Bill in Parliament that will facilitate tax transparency of ministerial incomes and wealth.
All too often, Government and shadow Ministers argue that worker salaries and salary increases should be related to increases in productivity. Of course, the allocation of productivity to each individual worker is highly problematic and very difficult to calculate, but that has not stopped Ministers pushing the idea. Can the Minister explain how the productivity of the newly paid or already paid Ministers is actually measured? Is there a mechanism? Can she share it with this House and the public at large? Can she publish the results so that people can then comment when they are asked to increase their productivity?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to the Whips for allowing me to speak in the gap and apologise for not registering in time.
I have a few quick points to make after hearing what I already know, which is how hard-working and truly valuable Lords Ministers are. By the way, I exclude myself from that group. The idea that we should not pay Government Ministers anything is frankly absurd. In fact, this is an anomaly in our history, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I add that if you go back to the 1790s, William Pitt was paid £5,000 a year to be Prime Minister and another £5,000 to be Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, which equates to nearly £2 million a year in today’s money. Unfortunately, he then had to borrow a further £2 million from George III to cover his debts, putting some of our more recent profligate Prime Ministers into perspective.
The point is that if we want great statesmen running our country, we need to pay them properly. We can almost draw a geometric line from the salaries of our Ministers from the late 18th century to the zero rate today, and plot our general economic and national decline along it. In no other area of the world would we not pay for expert leadership. If I need to see a medical expert—I am going through my usual middle-aged checks at the moment—my GP does not say, “I’m so pleased. We’ve managed to track down a brain specialist who is the cheapest in the country. In fact, he’s completely free”. No, we would want the best, and actually we would want the most expensive.
I was appointed a Government Minister without any experience of the job or any formal training—and no salary. Indeed, often when asked, normally incredulously, how I got appointed a Lords Minister, I used to reply that I competed on price. Indeed, on the departmental website it said in bold letters after my name “unpaid”, and one visiting dignitary asked me about this with a clear tone that he would rather speak to someone who was paid rather than to a volunteer. I was then fired after two weeks and reinstated two weeks after that, with great dignity, by our leader—a victim, I may say, of fire and rehire. I was asked whether I got my redundancy bonus, and I said that I took 100% of it, which for those of your Lordships who were not listening carefully, was £0. My children kept telling me to resign and go and make some money.
The fact is that we are being dishonest with ourselves and our citizens, with this pretence that we are somehow careful with public money. This really is nonsense. We should pay Ministers far more than we already do. By the way, as we have heard from some noble Lords, we should expect far more from them in terms of outcomes. To say otherwise—and I am afraid my own party was guilty of this—is derogating our nation and is against all the laws of society and economics.
I end, if I may, with an additional plea. Again, under the pretence of good management, Ministers have precious few direct expenses, particularly for those who are unpaid. It is actually quite a costly business being a Minister. On my first day as a Minister, I asked whether there was a car to take me to see an ambassador. “No, Minister”, came the reply, “but we do have the number of a local taxi firm”. One high-level investment summit I had to leave by bus, with all the Saudi delegation looking rather surprised as I waved embarrassedly out of the window of the number 14. Global superpower Britain we were not.
In my last few days in office, we knew what the outcome would be so I was preparing for the worst. A slightly meek official came into my office and said, “Minister, I am afraid you owe us £39.50”. “What for?”, I asked. “For the hotel you stayed at when you visited our ambassador in Germany. It was over the threshold for Ministers’ expenses, so you need to pay the difference”. My last act as a Minister was literally to write out a cheque to His Majesty’s Government, effectively for doing my job. At least Ministers will now have a salary to meet their expenses when they represent their country abroad.
I support this Bill, but in my view it does not go far enough. The issue needs to be debated further. Please can we start by being honest with the people of this country that good politics is not free? We want the best leaders in the world, and we should be prepared to pay reasonably for them. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. This Bill is welcome, but it is only one step in the right direction.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support this modest improvement. In the late 19th century, the Liberal Party spent a great deal of time campaigning for MPs to be paid, against strong Conservative opposition, on the grounds that we wanted anyone to be able to take part in public life and not limit it to those who could afford it.
I declare a strong personal interest. I was appointed to this House when the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, then Lord Bonham-Carter, died suddenly, so I was appointed straight on to my group’s Front Bench. I have spent 29 years as an unpaid Front-Bench spokesman, including five years as a Lords Whip and Minister, mainly in the Foreign Office. I am very conscious of the difficulties that causes, although, as it happens, my wife and I both had professorial pensions—you can live pretty well on that and do not need too much else.
I mildly minded it when I was sent abroad and thus could not claim my Lords allowance. To add to the anecdote from the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, I remember that in the first two years of the coalition the Foreign Office was trying to demonstrate how economical we were being. Having represented Her Majesty’s Government at a conference on the Balkans in Dubrovnik, I was collected by a Croatian Government official car, delivered to the airport and deposited at the front of the easyJet queue to come home. When I was swapping stories with other Ministers about which airlines we had been booked on to, David Lidington won because he had been on Wizz Air.
We all have attempts to save money. I strongly agree with those who have said that we need to pay our Ministers here and in the Commons well, because we have a problem with political recruitment and we want to have good Ministers and good opposition politicians to improve the quality of our Government.
This Bill is a small step forward in the very slow process of reforming our second Chamber. There is a very long way to go. The hereditary Peers Act, which is just about to come into effect, has taken us a bit further, but there is a lot further to go. After the election, the Conservative group was by far the largest in the House, but it has been given several dozen additional appointments since then, which has meant that the Government have also wished to add to their Benches. We are expanding towards 900. Thinking about the future, it is highly likely that in three years’ time we may find ourselves without a single-party majority and with some sort of coalition Government, quite possibly with one coalition partner that has few or no Members in the House of Lords. The question of how we adjust our numbers when Governments change is one that we cannot duck for much longer.
I support a time limit for appointments and a different system for them. I certainly support an age limit. I should explain to the Lord Privy Seal that, for that reason, I am at last stepping down from being on the Front Bench now that we have a younger colleague on our Benches at least as expert in the portfolio for which I stand as I am. I shall be a Back-Bencher from now on, but will occasionally be awkward and interfering as ever.
The Lords has changed enormously since I joined. The Lord Privy Seal rightly reprimanded me some weeks ago for suggesting that we are still a part-time House. I have been thinking about that correct reprimand. The 200 to 300 of us who do most of the work are now full-time. We work far harder than we used to and that is partly because the Commons does much less of the detailed legislative scrutiny it used to do some 15 or 20 years ago. This House is now the place where amendments are made to government Bills. But that leaves us with a great deal further to go in defining what it means to be a full-time House, because half of our Members are still part-time with outside interests. If we are to be a full-time second Chamber, it requires quite a lot more thinking through.
Others mentioned the quality of Ministers in the Lords. We are extremely lucky to have this quality of Ministers, many of them unpaid. I asked one of our Ministers last night whether she was paid or not and was surprised to learn that, compared to what she must have been earning before she took office, she is doing astonishingly well.
We have expert Ministers here. We also want expert Ministers in the Commons. We know, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, that the quality of Ministers in the Commons and the length of time they spend in each office is a matter of some contention. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that Ministers should stay longer in post. I say in passing that the last coalition Government had Ministers staying in post for a great deal longer than any single-party Government have had since 2015. There are advantages in coalition government, as well as some disadvantages.
Ministerial patronage and using reshuffles as party management are part of the way in which the Commons is managed, and that is unfortunate. We would do better if government patronage were reduced and the tail of Ministers, PPSs and trade envoys was shrunk. The Commons would then rightly criticise the Government more, be more independent and do more of the work that this House has now begun to take on.
Lastly, if we want to have good governance in this country, we have to pay Ministers well. I regret, and we on these Benches do not accept, the long-term freeze in ministerial salaries. I saw the report from the Taxpayers’ Alliance that remarked that there are now a large number of local council executives who are paid more than the Prime Minister. That is partly because the Prime Minister is paid so remarkably little. If we want to hold on to good people and attract good people into politics, we have to accept that we must pay them well. We have been lucky that we have had enough people here who have already made a lot of money and were therefore able to come and work for nothing in the Lords, but that was not a proper thing to do. I therefore repeat that we on these Benches support the Bill while saying that we have a lot more work to do to reform this House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It has gone rather wide of the subject in many ways, but that has not been unhelpful.
We are fortunate in that we have a number of very experienced Ministers in this House. A number of us had ministerial lives before coming to this place. I can say on a personal level that having experience as a Minister and taking on a different job makes it easier. For Ministers coming in for the first time and taking on a ministerial role, the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Norton of Louth, and others made valid points about the support available for training. There is no other job like being a Minister.
The work that has to be undertaken in this place is extensive. I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsey for the example that she gave to identify how ministerial brains in the House of Lords have to bounce around so many subjects and absorb so much information. Whether I am sitting on that side of the Chamber or this side, I am consistently impressed by the work that they do.
I will try to address some of the points that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True. We have discussed this issue over a number of years, not just since we have been in Government, and he is right that it is a long-overdue measure. The noble Lord always talks about ending the freeze on ministerial salaries. That freeze on ministerial salaries is not addressed in this Bill, but, when it was introduced by Gordon Brown and then reduced by David Cameron, people did not think about the House of Lords. A Member of Parliament in the other place on a ministerial salary also gets an index-linked salary. However, I think I am right in saying that I am paid less in cash terms than my noble friend Lady Royall was when she did this job many years ago. Therefore, for Members of this House it has had a disproportionate effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that a number of Members who have made lots of money take on ministerial jobs. However, many who take on unpaid ministerial jobs do not have lots of money, but make a decision and a choice to serve. We should be very grateful to them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, it particularly affects those Ministers who have to travel as part of their job. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and my noble friend Lord Hanson were mentioned. Ministers who are not being paid a ministerial salary can claim the daily allowance if they are in the House. But we expect our Ministers not to be tied to Parliament. We expect them to go out, to engage with people, to see some of the things that they are talking about, to have meetings in other places and to travel overseas, so they have been greatly disadvantaged.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Barber of Chittlehampton as new Members seeing the work done by Ministers in this House. That was really helpful. My noble friend Lord Barber of Chittlehampton made a comment about it being of greater benefit to the House and the Government. I think having paid Ministers is probably of less advantage to the Government, because the Government must fork out the salaries rather than the House. But it is of enormous value to your Lordships’ House as a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, talked about the whiteboard of ministerial shuffles. My first reshuffle was done on pieces of paper stuck on with Blu Tack. It is now interactive. It sometimes seems that Lords Ministers are thought about afterwards when other ministerial positions are taken, yet Members of the House of Commons whom I have spoken to who have seen the work of Lords Ministers and others in the ministerial team all comment on the work that our Ministers do. I think the noble Baroness was right.
I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on whether there are too many Ministers, but this has been the reality of government for some time. He is right to ask whether we get efficient government, but the pace of government and the pace of communication these days is a pressure that we do not always realise. I was reading some political diaries, I think by Duff Cooper, before the Second World War, and Chips Channon. The pace they were working at was significantly different from what we are doing now. If they had to travel somewhere, they were talking about several days to get there—journeys that now take a few hours. The pace of ministerial life and the pace of public life are significantly different.
I thought the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Elliott, on ministerial training were interesting. I was thinking back to when I was first a Minister and the support and training that I got. There is some degree of mentoring, but it is more difficult when a new Government comes in after a period in opposition. All Ministers need time to find their feet. Across the House, we see Ministers grow in confidence and ability into their positions. That experience does count, so I do take that on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, made an interesting suggestion about economic growth and tying ministerial salaries to it. I would be significantly better off if that was the case, after the complete ministerial freeze for many years. It is very unlikely to be in the King’s Speech. I cannot give away any confidences about what might be in it, but MPs’ salaries are determined by IPSA, an independent body, and I wish the noble Lord luck in trying to persuade IPSA of that. The ministerial pay freeze remains in place. However, there is a point about members of the public understanding the formula by which decisions are taken on that, so I am grateful to him for making that point on growth.
The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, made some interesting comments. I was thinking back through my ministerial life as he was speaking. My sense is that most Prime Ministers do not like big reshuffles, but, once you start, one thing happens and then another. There is something about having experience in a department and getting knowledge, but there is also something about bringing a fresh perspective on something. He raised an important point about longevity in office and also the ability to show leadership and decision-making. Those two qualities are hard to learn, but for Ministers they are essential.
I shall tell just one anecdote, so as not delay the House. On one occasion in a new post as Northern Ireland Minister, I was given a cheque and a letter to sign. It was to reimburse a mother whose son had forgotten his bus pass on the way to school. He sent in a form to be reimbursed for his bus fare, and I was being asked to sign the letter and the cheque. I sent it back and said, “I don’t intend to sign this. This is not a matter for me”. I was told, “But our previous Minister did that”. I said, “Yeah, he had one department, I’ve got three, I’m not doing it”. It is up to Ministers to set the boundaries of where they think it is appropriate that there is ministerial intervention. His point on that was really welcome.
This has been a helpful debate. There are a number of points to take note of. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, mentioned other issues around maternity pay. They are not the subject of this Bill. I take the point she makes about unfairness. I think she was probably the first Member of this House to take maternity leave as a Minister. I remember some very nerve-wracking moments in that July before she gave birth when she was rather large and it was a very hot day and we were all hoping that she would last to the end of the debate before giving birth.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, it is probably a sign of how the House of Lords has changed. It was probably never anticipated that Members of the House of Lords would be giving birth and being young mothers. That just shows that society is changing. We are not a House of people who can afford to do the job for nothing. If we want Ministers to be recompensed in terms of the status of the role to recognise the work they do and to be fair in how we treat them, they should be paid. I will take the points away that she has made, and I am grateful for the time she gave me in discussing these things. They are not something that I was familiar with, and I found that extremely helpful.
I am grateful for the comments that have been made. I think this Bill is the right thing to do for this House. I end by saying that across both parties we are grateful for the efforts those in ministerial roles make and the time they take. I think there is significant support for this legislation across the House. There may be demands to go further and to look at other issues, and I understand that, but I am a great believer in incremental change.
Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
That this House regrets that the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1691), published on 5 March, fails to provide a credible plan for bringing down the asylum backlog and closing asylum hotels, including the provision of safe routes for refugees to enter the UK; risks increasing the bureaucratic burden on the Home Office and costs for taxpayers; further disincentivises proper integration of refugees; will force vulnerable asylum seekers into destitution and rough sleeping; and will place significant financial and operational burdens onto already overstretched local authorities.
Relevant document: 56th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I must declare my interest: I am supported by RAMP. That has always been a mystery to some people. It is the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy, so that Members can understand.
This regret Motion concerns a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules laid before the House on 5 March. I do not expect that this debate will be quite as well-natured as the previous one because this piece of secondary legislation has resulted in one of the most excoriating reports from our Select Committee that I have ever seen. Its 15 pages can be summed up in a few words: piecemeal, ill thought-out and lacking in evidence. Add to that the financial assertions made by the Government that have now been blown out of the water and we have a policy for which we will surely pay a sad and unnerving price in both financial and human capital terms.
The Government may have pushed back implementation, but the start date of 2 March in this legislation and the retrospective laws that lie behind it are already on the statute book. The statement of changes represents a fundamental shift in the way that this country provides sanctuary to people in need, yet it has been introduced without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. It risks placing additional strain on an already overburdened Home Office system but, critically, at the same time it takes a less humane approach to protection.
These changes, by a piece of secondary legislation under the negative procedure, will affect more than 1 million people in this country, and I must say that that is a conservative estimate. Many of these are working people contributing to the economy of our country and many are children, yet, despite the scale of these changes, the statement offers no credible plan for tackling the asylum backlog or preventing dangerous journeys. The changes do not expand safe routes for refugees. They also undermine integration by denying those granted protection the certainty needed to rebuild their lives.
Our Select Committee and others have warned that, in making these changes to the Immigration Rules, the Home Office is introducing measures before their impact can be known, so avoiding a more complex legislative process and the scrutiny that comes with it. Changes of this scale deserve proper debate and examination by Parliament, particularly where they affect the security and stability of individuals who have been recognised as being in need of refuge. These Motions are a poor substitute for scrutiny, especially as key information is either being withheld or not available. If the Government are serious about clearing the asylum backlog, the focus should be on improving decision-making capacity, reducing unnecessary procedural barriers and ensuring that claims are processed quickly and fairly. What we are seeing here, though, risks achieving the opposite.
I begin with the change to the length of protection granted to refugees, reduced from five years to two and a half. Sadly, the reality is that warfare is often protracted. The brutal civil war in Sudan is now in its third year, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is in its fifth and the war in Syria lasted more than 13. Conflicts rarely end after 13 months, and it can take many more years before infrastructure and capacity allow for large-scale voluntary returns.
Introducing temporary protection for refugees would therefore leave families in a state of fear and limbo, with worrying consequences for being able to integrate. Temporary protection is likely to have an acute impact on the well-being of refugee children, who need stability as they recover and rebuild their lives. Repeated reviews will disrupt educational attainment and the ability to secure home tuition fee status. Temporary protection is also likely to delay family reunion. This could push more families towards dangerous journeys, given that 90% of refugee family reunion visas were previously granted to women and children.
This uncertainty has tangible effects. Although the United Kingdom rightly provided a vital lifeline to those fleeing the war in Ukraine, evidence from the British Red Cross found that the temporary nature of their status meant that Ukrainians were turned down for jobs, even when they were well qualified, because employers were concerned about the short duration of their visas. Landlords were reluctant to offer longer-term tenancies and displaced Ukrainians have remained significantly more likely to become homeless than the general population. Significantly, tightening the settlement rules in Denmark—the Government have taken some view on the success of that—has in fact reduced refugees’ employment levels.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the various organisations that have sent us enormously helpful briefings and, of course, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has produced a pretty devastating report on the whole process.
I was very surprised when I learned that there is no ability in the House of Commons to have a debate on this issue. Frankly, I could not believe it, but I have discussed it with various MPs, who said there is no possibility for the elected House to debate this issue. These are not trivial changes; they are quite fundamental to the way in which we deal with asylum seekers and refugees, and they are too complicated as changes for the procedure that is open even to us in this House. At least we can have a debate, but we have to have a Second Reading debate and a debate on detailed changes all in one go, which is really not very satisfactory. If we had a proper Bill, we could have probing amendments to test the strength of the arguments. As it is, the only option is a Motion of this sort to enable any debate to take place at all. I would have welcomed a chance to table probing amendments on a whole range of these issues. We are dealing with what is the material for an important Bill. So, I shall not be asking for the opinion of the House, but I hope that our comments today will influence government thinking. I think that is the best we can do with the procedure that is open to us.
Of course, we are dealing with an issue that is going to be with us for many years to come, because with the turmoil in the Middle East and in other countries as well, we must expect more people to be on the move. It is important that we manage the results of such movements in a dignified way, consistent with our international obligations and commitments, and that we do it in such a way that we do not forget that human rights matter.
I will avoid speaking as if we were now in Committee or on Report; instead, I will mention just a few of the issues. I welcome the extension to the Ukrainian scheme—that is good. Many of us have been arguing for that for some time, and it is very welcome that the Government are doing it.
My sense of what we have before us is that we are dealing with a lot of piecemeal changes—not a total, whole approach to a difficult issue. I have the impression that the issues have not been all that well considered. Indeed, in saying that, I am supported by the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which stated that
“we found the answers unhelpful”
and that the Home Office has
“not fully thought through the implications of the policy”.
That is a serious criticism, not from a party point of view but from the point of view of good governance and how subordinate legislation should be handled.
I have also read the reports from NGOs and other organisations, which clearly regret that there was not enough consultation for them to have an input into the whole process. The belief is that, if they had had more input, the changes proposed would have been better thought out and more substantially based. For example, to review asylum applications regularly will need more overall capacity in the Home Office. We have heard over the years, throughout successive Governments, that the Home Office has not, until now, had that capacity. I welcome the changes that have taken place in the Home Office—it is making asylum decisions much quicker than before and the backlog is being dealt with—but now we will have proposals that will move the whole process the other way and will put extra pressure on it. It is difficult to believe that a two-and-a-half-year assessment can happen without additional resource needs. What assessment have the Government made of the needs that will stem from the proposals we have before us?
Under the current system, the Home Office usually makes one further decision on refugee status after someone is initially granted protection, but under these proposals, there could be many decisions. One opinion is that it could happen as many as eight different times. The problem is that this will impose burdens on legal aid, if there is any legal aid available. The Government could be reasonably asked to identify what legal aid needs there will be, to ensure that those granted refugee status will be able to access legal aid during the review period, because every review period will challenge the right of people to stay in this country and their whole futures will depend on it. Frequent housing moves can have a very disruptive effect on education and on children who are trying to be settled in a new country, which will all lead to instability. People living in this country, who are feeling unstable and uncertain about their futures, cannot make the sort of contribution to our society that we would like them to make.
The result is that there will be tensions with the refugee convention, under which the United Kingdom has agreed to facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees—we are going against that part of the refugee convention. I know that there are other challenges to the refugee convention, but I hope that we will firmly stand by it. Has any assessment been made by the Government of the impact of the reduced length of leave on integration outcomes? What we really need is an overall integration policy. Integration is a difficult thing to achieve, so we need a policy for the integration of people in our society.
Finally, I will talk about family reunions and children. Family reunion applications were paused from September last year. We had the understanding that they would be resumed early this year. Can the Minister say when those family reunion applications will be restarted? Have the Government assessed the impact of the pause, given that nine out of 10 visas granted before the pause went to women and children? How many refugees have applied under other family visa routes since the pause, and how many were successful?
I feel that we are turning our backs on refugee children and family reunion. They are not covered here. I would like the Government to come back and give us an idea of what policies there are going to be on family reunion, which this House has debated with a lot of emotion over the years.
I am conscious that what we do has to have public support. On the one hand, we cannot introduce policies on refugees and asylum and just ignore the concerns of the general public; on the other hand, many of the things that we have talked about in earlier speeches and now could have public support if presented sensibly. We cannot proceed with policies on asylum and refugees without public support, but we have to gain public support. That means having calm, balanced debates explaining the terrible situations that people have fled from and why it is right that we, among other countries, should provide safety for people whose human rights have been so severely prejudiced.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is daunting to follow two such experts on the subject. I cannot match their eloquence, but, like them, I feel strongly that these rule changes are wrong. Some of them, we have to admit, we were warned of in the White Paper, which we discussed on 17 November. Even so, there are some surprises.
Refusing to issue visas to enable Sudanese and Afghan students to come here is new and startlingly insensitive, given that Afghan women aged 12 and over are barred from any form of education back home and that in Sudan there is the world’s worst current humanitarian crisis. It is catastrophic and heartbreaking, as the Leader of the House correctly described it earlier this afternoon. Refusing even skilled worker visas to Afghans looks very like washing our hands of a mess that is partly of our making.
In November, the Home Secretary said,
“we will create a new … visa route, solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement”.
Where is that new route? It is not there. It is not in today’s ragbag of changes. Instead, the door is slammed shut on students from Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Cameroon.
Undoubtably the most significant change—and it was foreshadowed—is the new requirement for reassessments of refugee status for all refugees every 30 months for up to 20 years. This will do huge damage. It will hurt the people concerned, making their integration much harder. It will make it harder for them to get accommodation, it will make their children’s education harder and it will be harder for them to look for a job, which we allow a refugee to do only if the asylum application has been outstanding for over 12 months through no fault of their own. It will make it harder for them to progress in work, because employers will not invest in training workers whose right to remain here is so temporary and transitory.
In another of today’s changes, we twist the knife by imposing a new ban on refugees taking low-paid jobs, precisely the jobs in construction, social care, farming and nursing where the real shortages are. Why do we have to be so cruel, and at such cost to ourselves? Apart from the Exchequer costs discussed by the noble Lord, Lord German, of putting refugees through up to eight or nine reassessments, think of the economic activity foregone and the taxes foregone. It is an own goal. It is bad for the country, as well as being bad for the refugees. I hope it is true that some in government are urging the Home Secretary to reconsider.
For me, the most striking feature of the Paisley debate among the Scottish party leaders the other night was the huge critical audience reaction to the anti-immigrant stance of the two right-wingers. The Scottish people clearly do not feel that immigrants are a threat. Of course, the population of Scotland would decline but for immigration. Immigrants seem to be welcomed in Scotland. I hope that the Labour Party will think very hard about whether the stance that has been taken by the Home Office now is a wise one. I do not think it is wise for the country and I suspect it may not be wise for the party—although that is not my business.
Finally, I will say a word about process. I am privileged to serve on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is skilfully chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. The noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, both referred to our report on the rule changes, which drew attention, in fairly scathing terms, to the undesirability of piecemeal changes, to the absence of impact assessments for all but two of these many changes, to the lack of any consultation with outside expertise and, most surprisingly to me, to the baffling inability of Home Office officials to explain how the new rules will work and to answer our questions. Some of the questions were quite basic but we got no answers. It would be very good if the Minister, who I greatly admire, or one of his Home Office colleagues, would go through the report that the committee has produced and let it have answers to the questions that officials ducked when we raised them, and which remain open. Some sort of response to our report would be very much welcomed.
We concluded, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, noted, that
“the Home Office has not fully thought through the implications of the policy”,
and that
“the lack of an assessment of the effects of, in particular, the reduction in the duration of refugees’ permission to stay and the changes to the occupations in which they may be permitted to work makes full scrutiny of these changes impossible”.
That is our conclusion. We concluded that we could not do our job and advise the House properly on these changes. We could not do our job and so Parliament cannot do its job. Therefore, I support both regret Motions, for reasons both substantive and procedural.
We know that primary legislation is pending. It would have been so much better to wait for the primary legislation. If these changes have to happen, we must be allowed the chance to debate them properly in primary legislation, to think it through and let Parliament think it through, or, better still, to let the Home Office think again.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I too declare an interest as a RAMP associate.
The changes to asylum law, triggered by the statement of changes, was heralded by the Home Secretary as
“the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 509.]
This is echoed in the Explanatory Memorandum’s explanation that this
“marks the start of introducing a new regime”.
Yet without these regret Motions, which I very much welcome, we would not even be debating this fundamental change from what the EM describes as
“an assumption of offering permanent protection … towards a more basic, and temporary protection”.
Surely, as has already been said, in the name of democratic accountability, such a significant change merits primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses.
It is the change to the basic asylum protection that will be my main focus, but I echo my noble friend’s welcome to the extension of the Ukraine scheme and his Motion’s concern about the visa brake’s prevention of educational opportunities, including for Chevening scholars. I will leave it to colleagues to say more about this, but I simply wish to raise the question of the lack of a published equality impact assessment.
The response to my Written Question about vulnerable women from Sudan and Afghanistan who had already been selected for scholarships completely ignored the gender dimension mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The cursory treatment of equalities in the general impact assessment displayed total ignorance of the position of women and our responsibilities under the UN’s women, peace and security agenda, for which we are penholders.
This raises a more general question about the lack of impact assessments for key measures, which, as we have heard, the Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee advises makes full scrutiny impossible. The committee is somewhat dismissive of Minister Tapp’s assurance that the Home Office takes the provision of IAs “extremely seriously” and concludes that the Home Office may not have
“fully thought through the implications”
of the change in asylum protection.
I add my disappointment that we have not yet seen a child rights impact assessment. In response to an Oral Question, my noble friend the Minister assured me that such assessments
“will be conducted throughout the policy development process”.—[Official Report, 27/1/26; col. 763.]
But, in answer to a more recent Written Question, he emphasised:
“There is no legal requirement to publish Child Impact Assessments and to commit to do so would be premature given that for many of the measures, policy development is ongoing”.
So this new regime starts without parliamentarians and others having the necessary information to assess its effect on children and other asylum seekers. This is among the wider process concerns raised by the SLSC, including the total lack of consultation.
When asked about this, the Home Office responded:
“Given the pace of change”—
which surely the Home Office itself has set—
“it is not always possible to consult ahead of all policy reform”.
While the significance of some of the changes was accepted, the Home Office later stated that
“it is important to put that meaning into context for the change in question as those factors on their own do not always result in a justification for a public consultation”.
What on earth does that mean? I am not surprised that the SLSC was not convinced by the Home Office responses, and I sympathise with my noble friend the Minister, who has to defend the very poor case made by his department.
I turn to the substantive impact of the move towards temporary protection for refugees. The SLSC is similarly sceptical about the Home Office’s responses to its questions on employment and suggested that we might want to press further on this. Can my noble friend tell us what the evidential basis is for assuming that temporary protection status will improve refugees’ employment prospects, when organisations such as the Refugee Council, Freedom from Torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation argue the opposite in their submissions to the SLSC? Please could the Minister not respond that the expectation is that refugees will be able to switch to the new bespoke work and study route, which offers a speedier route to indefinite leave to remain, given that the Government still cannot say what the criteria for joining it will be or even when it will be introduced?
The mention of a fee and the possession of skills, together with changes to the occupations in which asylum seekers can seek work after 12 months, suggests that the work lane of this route might be open only to those who are able to access more skilled and better-paid jobs. That should be irrelevant to refugee status and would create a two-class system of refugees. If my noble friend cannot give us any details now about the work and study route, can he at least say when the Home Office hopes to make those details available?
On the related question of the permitted occupations open to asylum seekers after 12 months, while it is welcome that the number of available occupations will be increased, it is not clear why this cannot be in addition to the current rules rather than instead of them. As it is, and as the SLSC warns, it could mean that fewer asylum seekers are able to find work and, as we have heard, it also closes off the social care sector to them, which could have significant effects. Its report says that the Home Office has not engaged with this point, so I hope my noble friend will do so now and will also commit to monitoring the effects of the change, as called for by the SLSC.
Employment is an important element of integration, which we have heard about, which the EM, echoing Ministers, states is a key aim of this and related reforms, in line with the recently published, and welcome, social cohesion action plan. But I have not yet seen an explanation of how making refugees’ data so insecure is conducive to integration, from the point of view either of refugees themselves or of employers and landlords who might think twice, as we have heard, before taking them on. This is certainly not the view of organisations that work with refugees, including the International Rescue Committee and the UNHCR. The latter warns:
“Providing refugees with only 30 months of leave at a time is likely to be detrimental to refugees’ sense of security, belonging and stability, factors critical to positive engagement and participation in society. Status of such a temporary nature may impact on a person’s ability to find housing, seek employment, learn English and develop skills, and risks undermining the Government’s intention to enhance refugees’ ability to contribute to their new communities”.
Baroness Teather (LD)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. I am hugely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, for providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the Government’s changes to the asylum, refugee and settlement system.
I should begin with some context. After I left the other place, I spent nearly a decade working for the Jesuit Refugee Service, first internationally, supporting projects in the Middle East and South Sudan, and then running the UK office for nine years until early last year. JRS UK supports asylum seekers and refugees facing destitution or detention, providing legal advice, accommodation and much more besides. It is this perspective that I bring to this debate.
There is much to regret in the raft of changes announced by the Government to the asylum system, as many other noble Lords have already pointed out in this debate, and of course—as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out—a huge amount that remains profoundly unclear. In the interests of brevity, I will focus my remarks tonight on the one change that I fear will create the most human misery for refugees and will be deeply counterproductive to integration and social cohesion. That is the reduction in the duration of leave to remain for refugees to 30 months and the requirement to reapply repeatedly for up to 20 years before achieving permanent settlement.
My experience of working alongside asylum seekers and refugees suggests that offering only temporary protection, coupled with the requirement to endure regular cycles of jeopardy to apply for renewal, will leave refugees in a near-permanent state of precarity and vulnerability. It is very likely to undermine refugees’ ability to settle, to integrate, to get work, to keep work—as the noble Lord, Lord German, remarked in relation to the Ukrainian scheme—to engage in education and to lay down roots. It is likely to affect their ability to rent housing, to leave them more vulnerable to exploitation and to damage personal relationships.
Children and young people in refugee households will grow up in this instability, which could potentially last the whole of their lives. How will that affect their schooling and educational choices? Concern about the impact of reducing the duration of leave is shared by every refugee charity that has spoken publicly about the changes. It is laid out in detail in submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee by, for example, the Helen Bamber Foundation, Freedom from Torture, ILPA and the Refugee Council. All are also asking why this change has been introduced before making clear other elements of the core protection system and work and study route.
The Jesuit Refugee Service works closely with people with insecure immigration status over many years, giving a window into the likely impacts of temporary forms of protection for refugees. That experience suggests that uncertainty and insecurity over immigration status has a profound and lasting impact on people’s mental health. Indeed, the agony of enduring enforced limbo was an issue that came up repeatedly in JRS research documenting asylum seekers’ experiences of waiting for decisions, with many describing it as wasting their life. The Government are now proposing to extend this misery even beyond the point of grant of status.
Refugees have often experienced significant trauma, including torture and trafficking. Uncertainty and prolonged limbo are not conditions that facilitate healing and recovery. I recall vividly refugees who had attended the JRS UK drop-in for years but felt able to begin trauma counselling and to grieve for what they had lost only once they had papers and knew that they would be safe. This is a point echoed in the evidence submitted by the Helen Bamber Foundation and Freedom from Torture to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Government’s stated aim for this policy change is
“to change perceptions of what the refugee offer is in the UK”.
The pull factors argument is often employed by Ministers as an explanation for making the process more unpleasant, but it has never been shown in practice to make much difference. Furthermore, these rules will be applied to people who are already here, as it is applied retrospectively to anyone who made an asylum application or submitted further submissions to an asylum claim on or after 2 March 2026.
Lastly, I heard the Minister’s answer to my question and to other noble Lords in the Chamber earlier today that renewing leave would be a straightforward process, with reviews supported by AI. I gently suggest that, from all my dealings with the Home Office over a 23-year period, first as a constituency MP responding to immigration casework in my advice surgery in Brent, and then as director of JRS UK, the idea that the Home Office is likely to manage a huge additional volume of decision-making without delays, muddle and error does not bear any contact with reality.
What happens to people’s lives when renewal decisions start to take months to resolve? What will be the ramifications of delay for individuals’ personal decisions on whether to marry or take work or study, invest in volunteering or build relationships in their local community? If people lose work when the bureaucracy slows or because the anxiety makes sustaining that work difficult, will that be held against them in the new work and study route? It is an intolerable burden to place on the shoulders of people who have already suffered enough at the hands of their own country, in the journey to get here and in our byzantine asylum process. We risk crushing often highly gifted individuals, denying them the chance to begin their life again and contribute to Britain, as they are desperate to do. I urge the Minister to think again.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that the Government wish to reduce migration and that this requires public support. However, like all others who have spoken this evening, I am very concerned about some of the changes to the Immigration Rules, including the reduction in time for refugee status from five years to 30 months, for all the reasons that have been given this evening.
I will focus on the visa ban for students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. I am utterly dismayed that brilliant students who were hoping to come to our universities, following rigorous selection procedures and on fully funded scholarships, have had their hopes, dreams and futures shattered. This has a profound effect on the individuals but also on their countries, on our universities and on our reputation.
The Written Ministerial Statement said of the ban:
“Its key aim is to reduce the strain on the asylum system. It will also strengthen public confidence in the immigration system”.
I believe that the ban poorly serves both purposes. The Home Secretary has spoken of a “surge” of people from the four countries claiming asylum in the UK. There has been a large percentage increase in recent asylum claims from these countries, but the actual numbers of students who have claimed asylum from those four countries is minuscule in the context of overall immigration. This ban is a monumental sledgehammer to crack a nut, which has a disproportionate impact on hugely talented individuals from the most difficult and dangerous parts of the world—young people whose talents are desperately needed to bring about change in our world. As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, all four of these countries are on the International Rescue Committee’s emergency watch list. This means that they are among the 20 most fragile and conflict-affected places on earth, with humanitarian emergencies that are likely to worsen in the next 12 months.
The visa brake will have a specific impact, as has been said, on women and girls from Afghanistan, who suffer such severe restrictions on access to education. I firmly believe that we have a duty to give opportunities to outstanding students from these countries. They would in future make outstanding contributions to democratic renewal, peace, institution building and economic and social reform in their own countries. Importantly, they would also make a fantastic contribution to our own universities. I know this to be the case because at Oxford I have worked with many students from the four countries—courageous young people and leaders of tomorrow, who have come through so much to come to our country. They have had to study so much in their own countries. They are quite extraordinary young people. They are sanctuary students. The concept of sanctuary is one that I firmly espouse. It is a principle that defines our humanity. I believe that the visa ban undermines that principle.
There are countless examples of exceptional young people from the four countries who come to this country on student visas. They excel in their studies, and some of them are now doing stellar research that will literally change the world in, for example, medicine, climate change and environmental policies.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow noble Members of this House speaking with wisdom, compassion and conviction. I understand that, in the current polarised climate, the Government want an immigration policy that is not only capable of exercising control over migration into this country but is demonstrably seen to be doing so. In that endeavour, the recent summary of immigration statistics, published for the year ending 31 December 2025, indicates a marked reduction in inward migration in most categories, although that of illegal channel crossings—itself not the largest category by some margin—remains stubbornly immune to downward pressure.
I wish to offer some observations from these Benches that, while sympathetic to where Ministers find themselves, none the less owe a debt of gratitude to the regret Motions from the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, for making it possible to have this debate—for which I express thanks.
First, my episcopal colleagues and I do not dispute the function of the Executive in exercising immigration control. However, we assert the contribution that migration has made to the United Kingdom. With a declining birth rate and rising economic inactivity, it is likely to play a continuing, vital part. Secondly, we deplore rhetoric that creates images of the “other” and imputes images of rampant criminality on migrants and asylum seekers. That is utterly reprehensible and disgraceful.
Thirdly, I understand the point made about visa pauses because of the switch from various nationalities from visa routes to asylum applications, but apart from the very modest numbers involved, given that the grant of asylum is given in most such cases, what is the point that the Government are trying to make? Is it that the criteria in the refugee convention are no longer adequate for the task, or is it that the Government think that Home Office staff are applying them incorrectly and with too great a liberality, so all possibility of getting anywhere near the United Kingdom must be denied to these people?
Fourthly, we have heard the concerns about the 30-month leave to remain and the anxiety that this imports into a category of people who dearly wish to put anxiety behind them, and the inhibition this puts on integration. I would rather hear about the expansion of in-person English classes.
Finally, the denial of family reunion to those given refugee status is a major concern. For most of us, family means the nurture, happiness and support which enables us to face the trials of life. This is true for refugees, and I find references to family reunion under other routes unsupported by any evidence and difficult to comprehend. I call on the Minister to announce the recommencement of family reunion in this category. I support the regret Motions in the names of the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)
My Lords, it pains me to intervene to say that I think Ministers have got these changes wrong. It pains me even more to say that this is an all too common feature of Home Office decisions at the moment. I want to focus, as my noble friend Lady Royall did, on the provisions in these changes for students, and I do so, of course, as chancellor of the University of Cambridge.
The total ban brought in on students from four countries, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, not only removes opportunities from students severely affected by war and regimes in those nations—and let us not forget the impact on Afghan women students particularly—but diminishes the experience and opportunity to learn for British students too. Overseas students bring life and cultural difference to our universities, and we are infinitely the richer for it. Welcoming international students also represents a rather crucial bit of British soft power, and we should not forget that advantage either.
Why on earth is the Home Office deciding to remove any possibility for students from those countries to come here to the UK, even Chevening scholars, simply because a small number of those who have been here in the recent past have asked to stay? While I am at it, can I ask, as I have done before, why students cannot be removed entirely from the immigration figures? Students, by definition, are not immigrating—they are here for a temporary, defined period. The statistics are there to record permanent immigration. It is high time for the Home Office to think seriously about that change, and not the changes in front of us this evening.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said this evening. I do not remember a debate where that has been quite so true. I will jump from international students to the EU settlement scheme, quite briefly, as I know that the bulk of this debate has been on other matters.
First, however, the Immigration Rules represent an astonishing degree of executive power over substantive policy changes, surely not envisaged in the Immigration Act 1971, which conferred those powers. I am grateful to the Hansard Society podcast, which I listened to, about how this has grown. It is an incredible imperial edifice that is largely immune to parliamentary control or even scrutiny. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who reminded us that the other place has no scope to debate them at all, so this is the only place they get any airing. They are even below the level of secondary legislation, because all we can ask the Minister and the Home Office to do is think again—we can only regret, not negative these changes.
I want to raise the proposed changes to the Immigration Rules Appendix EU and ask a series of questions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regretted the lack of impact assessments. I think there were only two on the page on GOV.UK—there certainly is not one on the changes to Appendix EU—and I must admit that I find them difficult to understand.
In paragraph 5.54 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government suggest that they need to tackle
“identified abuse by EEA citizens sponsoring EUSS applications by those falsely claiming to be eligible family members”,
and that they will
“enable an EUSS application to be refused where it is more likely than not that … the person has assisted another person fraudulently to obtain … entry clearance”.
No assessment is available of this identified abuse or its scope, why these powers are necessary or how they will be exercised. If the Minister does not have time tonight then maybe he can write to me on this, but the Government say they want to extend
“the current provision allowing a non-EEA national applicant to use an expired biometric residence card as proof of their identity”.
I do not understand why the point about a “non-EEA national applicant” is in Appendix EU. Does it mean to the EU settlement scheme? It is not very clear.
There is the assertion in paragraph 5.55 that
“we continue to see attempted abuse of the EUSS family permit route”
and the Government want to bring in additional validity requirements. What is this attempted abuse? Can we have some evidence of what it is and what the scope is? The Government say they will
“require the applicant to provide evidence of the sponsor’s EUSS status”.
I am surprised that that is not already required. I do not understand why an applicant applying essentially for family reunion does not already have to provide evidence of the status of the person they want to join—the sponsor. That is really weird. They will also require the applicant to provide evidence or information to attest to the family relationship. I do not understand how anyone could make an application of this kind without already providing such evidence. Those are some of the issues raised for me by page 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which are pretty unclear and seem to provide lots of scope to the Government to do things on rather unclear grounds.
Finally, I highlight the fact that the organisation the3million, with which the Minister and I have had a lot of contact in the past few years, is sadly having to take legal action because the Government do not allow people who have applied for status under the EU settlement scheme and are waiting for a decision to come to the UK while that application is pending. There are probably about 75,000 people waiting for a decision on their application whom that is affecting, of whom 9,000 have been waiting for more than four years. Some are waiting for an administrative review; some are waiting for the outcome of an appeal. All together, we are talking about a not inconsiderable number of people.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of the case made by my noble friend Lady Royall. I regret that we are having this debate in this way this evening but it has been extremely powerful.
I thank the Minister for his personal response to my letter. When I raised the issue of the Chevening scholars some weeks ago, I had a very thoughtful and generous response from him in which he pointed out that the four countries targeted for the ban have seen a spike of 470% in the number of applicants. We may question how that came about—there are many different reasons—but it does not dent the problem created by a blanket ban, which creates enormous, perverse, inhumane and unjust consequences for a very small number of people. The people I want to focus on are a lightning rod, and an exemplar of what happens when people become collateral damage in policies that may have the best intentions but have the most profound and serious consequences for individuals who are, as has been said across the House in different circumstances, already extremely vulnerable and likely to be made more vulnerable by the situation they are placed in.
In that respect, I refer to the case that I know well: the University of Sussex, which, like LSE, is one of the two universities that have taken the majority of Chevening scholars. Noble Lords will know about the reputation of its Institute of Development Studies. I declare an interest as I have a PhD from the University of Sussex and was on its council for many years. Sussex had an extraordinary reputation for developing leaders of the third world. A prime example of this was South Africa. So many leaders from post-apartheid South Africa went to the Institute of Development Studies and then went back to South Africa to create the foundations of democracy. That is what Sussex has been doing with the Chevening scholars over many years.
The numbers of these Chevening scholars are tiny: in the six years to 2024, there were 119 Afghan recipients, 58 from Cameroon, 65 from Myanmar and 101 from the Sudan. What the vice-chancellor has said is that, because of our reputation for development studies and as a global university, many Chevening alumni have, as we would expect and as so brilliantly described by my noble friend Lady Royall, gone on to hold senior positions in government and in political service and public service. They have been the leaders on which the future of these countries has depended, and we look now in some terror at how those countries will build their futures if they do not have these brave, principled women as well as men—we have already been given some idea of the implications for women, and we wish there had been an impact statement on how women will be disadvantaged by this.
What I found most difficult to understand, alongside why no exception could be made for the Chevening scholars, was that these young people had gone through all the hoops, they were at their final stage and they were scheduled for interview when the scheme was declared closed, with no appeal and no way back. I feel that it is a dishonourable position to have put the country in, to have put the universities in and to have put the FCDO in, frankly, as the funder and organiser of the scheme. It sends an extraordinarily bad signal because these people not only take the soft power, the skills, the huge generosity and intelligence back with them and the knowledge of what Britain can offer but contribute so much.
My simple question to the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, as we all do around this House, is this: if this is not a permanent arrangement, can there not be, even at this stage, some flexibility for a clearly identifiable group of people to whom we owe so much? Can we have a more generous appreciation, perhaps even in the language of the Home Office, of the implications and an acknowledgement of what this signals to the rest of the world as well as to people in this country?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I know what a lonely place the Government Dispatch Box can be when one is introducing a firm bit of immigration legislation. One notes immediately the surreal disconnection between the Overton window of the views in this House and the views in the country at large. I am afraid that the Minister’s evening is not going to get any better because I have to declare that I entirely support the Government’s position in relation to these rule changes.
The short point is that these are changes that are necessary to reduce the abuse of the immigration system. They are a sensible and proportionate use of the power to make changes in the Immigration Rules. I particularly support the measures in relation to the reduction of the period granted for asylum claims, to allow the review to occur after two and a half years and, furthermore, to allow a review prior to the grant of indefinite leave to remain. Under the present scheme, the situation in the United Kingdom is much more generous than that of our colleagues across the channel. This is a sensible rebalancing, and I congratulate the Home Office on bringing forward these measures.
Furthermore, in relation to the visa brake, which has been the topic of a good deal of conversation in the speeches that we have heard this evening, these are sensible measures in my submission. One can see from the statistics that the abuse of student visas in order to allow people to claim asylum had become completely apparent. Between 2021 and the year ending September 2025, the proportion of Afghan asylum claims to study visas was 95%, while applications by students from Myanmar soared sixteenfold over the same period. Claims in the year ending September 2025 by students from Cameroon and Sudan rose by more than 330% in 2021, posing an unsustainable threat to the UK’s asylum system. Faced with that, the Government had little choice, I submit, but to address the question that these people applying for student visas intended to come here to claim asylum. It was a backdoor route into the country, and the Government have rightly taken steps to stop it until that problem can be resolved.
The only regret that I have is that the opposition appears to come from the Government’s Back Benches in both this House and the other place, and it is reportedly present even in their senior ranks. So I say to the noble Lord the Minister: keep at it, you are doing well and do not be put off by the siren voices behind you.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This is an important debate on an important issue. The case has been made by every speaker so far making detailed points on the policies and the problems that they create. I want to put on record my concern and my support for the comments that have been made by my noble friends and other Members of the House.
Although much of the debate has focused on specific problems and the specifics of the proposal, I think a view should be taken of the proposals as a whole. There are some necessary changes, and we know what they are, but taken as a whole we have to ask ourselves whether this the sort of country we want to be. To me, the answer is no. I just want to make that general point and put it on record.
The second issue—and I think this has come out clearly from the debate, particularly from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—is that the whole process of us being here at 10.10 pm on a Tuesday night with unwhipped business means that this debate has not had the significance that it should have done. It is only those who have strong feelings about this issue who have come. The whole process, the fact that there was no debate in the Commons, and this archaic process we have landed ourselves with—I know it is only from 1971—is totally inappropriate to the task at hand. The review of immigration laws, which is a big political issue in this country, should not have been handled in this way.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not expect that my first point will gain overwhelming sympathy, but the challenge of following the detail of changes in Immigration Rules—it is not particular to this Statement of Changes—about what is in effect, whether there is a discretion in the hands of the Home Secretary and all of that is considerable. The impact on people directly affected, or who believe they are affected, or who are anxious about becoming affected in the future, is also considerable. There can be no doubt about the level of anxiety—our inboxes bear witness to that.
There is also—this is a point that may not gain sympathy—the impact on professionals, as well as on the organisations working in the immigration and refugee fields. It is not just support and assistance for which they are relied on. My guess is that the complexity, indeed the near impenetrability, of the rules current at any given time—to which one adds the decisions of tribunals and the higher courts—is a deterrent to lawyers entering into this area of work, and then of course there are the legal aid rates. All that makes it the more difficult for applicants to access support and representation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, for bringing forward these regret Motions. Both Motions relate to issues that concern the effectiveness and fairness of our immigration system. I reiterate at the outset that the Conservatives broadly support the direction of travel reflected in these changes to the Immigration Rules: we have long argued for a firmer and more controlled system. We therefore welcome elements of these changes, including the move towards temporary refugee status and the increase in requirements for settlement. These are steps in the right direction and reflect arguments that have been consistently made by the Conservative Party. However, there are details which require further scrutiny, and the key question is whether these measures can deliver a system that is effective and sustainable.
Several concerns raised in these regret Motions merit serious consideration. Regarding the asylum backlog and continued use of hotels, it remains unclear how the proposed changes alone will achieve the Government’s stated aims. Despite a range of reforms, the number of individuals in receipt of asylum support remains high and pressures on accommodation persist. More than 30,000 individuals remain housed in asylum hotels, at significant cost to the taxpayer, and it would therefore be helpful if the Minister could set out how these specific changes will contribute to reducing the backlog and ending the use of hotels.
Similarly, we share concerns raised regarding the potential for increased bureaucracy in relation to the move towards shorter periods of refugee leave and more frequent reassessments. While we support the principle of temporary status, there is a legitimate question as to whether the system has the capacity to manage repeated reviews efficiently, without adding further strain to an already stretched Home Office.
On integration, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raises topical points. It is essential that those who are granted protection can integrate effectively into British society. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that status is not automatically permanent and providing sufficient stability for individuals to build their lives and integrate. I would be grateful if the Minister could address how the Government intend to maintain that balance in practice.
On the concerns raised about the absence of impact assessments, particularly in relation to children and equality considerations, it would be helpful for the Minister to tell the House what analysis the Government have undertaken in these areas.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Dubs for tabling their regret Motions. It is always a pleasure to discuss matters in the House, even at 10.32 pm. Important issues have been raised, and I will try to respond to them as best I can—even with my croaky voice, on which I hope the House will bear with me.
I will start by giving some context on why we are here. This Government were elected in July 2024, and they inherited a considerable series of challenges that they have been trying to address. After the election, there was a high backlog of asylum claims not being processed by the previous Government. There was a level of abuse that is higher than it is now. There was a high level of hotel use of some 400 hotels that were paid for by the Government of the day, costing the taxpayer a fortune. There was no real control over the level of migration and indeed those abuses. There was no safe and legal route defined to the extent that it is defined now. I start with that for the simple reason that that is the background on which the Government have tried to take some action. I welcome the support tonight from the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Davies, but that is the inheritance that we have had to try to deal with.
The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord German, says that the Government
“fails to provide a credible plan for bringing down the asylum backlog”.
Let me start with that. The Government have put in place around 1,000 extra staff—paid for by the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme—to improve the performance of the asylum system and the review of asylum backlogs.
There is a plan, because the Government have produced an immigration White Paper, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, indicated, was trailed by the Government. The Government have an immigration White Paper and have made statements on how we intend to deal with those issues. The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, talks about failing to bring down the asylum backlog. I will come to that in a moment. It refers to “closing asylum hotels”. I will come to that in a moment. Indeed, it refers to
“increasing the bureaucratic burden on the Home Office”.
Well, I will come to that in a moment.
My noble friend Lord Dubs’s Motion makes a valid point about the equality impact assessment, which I will come to in a moment.
The noble Lords who have spoken today—my noble friends Lady Royall, Lord Dubs, Lady Lister, Lady Andrews, Lord Smith of Finsbury and Lord Davies of Brixton, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Ludford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark have all challenged some of the points that are here today, and I will try and respond to those issues.
The Immigration Rules changes were laid on 5 March. They were trailed in the White Paper. Three statutory instruments were laid concurrently: the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations, the asylum regulations on failed asylum seekers and the Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations. Some of those were SIs, and the immigration changes set out in the new approach to refugee and humanitarian protection include a new core protection offer.
The position that we find ourselves in now is that there have been changes in some of the very areas that the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord German, is critical of. For example, there has been an asylum decision issue, where the number of people waiting for an asylum decision has fallen by 48% in the past year. That is positive, but it is not reflected in the Motion. We have returned 58,538 people in the past 12 months who had no right to remain, including foreign national offenders who should not have been here.
On the issue of asylum hotels, which he mentioned, there was a high of 400 asylum hotels in the summer of 2023. Today, there are fewer than 200 operating, and there will be announcements in the near future on how we can reduce that number still further. We have a commitment to close asylum hotels before the end of this Parliament. We also have, as laid out in the statements that have been made, plans to ensure that in that new reform we improve safe and legal routes, provide more structured and targeted support for refugees, speed up decisions through simpler appeals procedures and tackle exploitation through illegal working and visa abuse, which harm both vulnerable people and local communities. So, there is a plan.
I challenge the claim in the Motion of regret from the noble Lord, Lord German, that there is no plan. There is a plan to speed up asylum claims, provide targeted support and ensure that we meet our international obligations, ensure that we reduce hotel use and ensure that we do that in a fair and appropriate way.
The Home Secretary has set out—yes—the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in a generation. Yes, the Immigration Rules changes mark a major step towards a fundamental reset of the system. Yes, there is a new core protection offer for refugees. Yes, there are changes planned to ensure that new asylum claims made after 2 March will be for 30 months rather than for five years. It does not mean that those asylum claims are not going to be maintained if there is still a need for the asylum claim after 30 months, but it is important that we make those changes, because we have to improve the performance of the system. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we have to do that.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, the equality considerations are at the front and centre of our work. As required through the public sector equality duty, Home Office officials are currently considering wider equality impacts, and the impacts that asylum reforms will have on those with protected characteristics is no exception.
In our modern and complex world, we must recognise that changes are required; countries of origin can and do change, and refugee status should be reviewed accordingly to reflect that. I think that is fair.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the visa brake and Chevening. The Government have introduced a visa brake on student visa applications from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. The reason they have done that is that those nationalities present some of the highest proportion of asylum claims to visas issued, and the number of claims is consistently high—again, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, made. By introducing these temporary changes, the Government hope to reduce the strain on the asylum system and strengthen public confidence in the immigration system as a whole.
I must stress that these immigration changes are part of that wider programme of work. We are looking to work with local authorities for their support in delivering supported accommodation for asylum seekers. We are looking to maintain and develop further safe and legal routes, such as the Hong Kong British national route and the Homes for Ukraine route that are here today. On the suspension of family reunion, we are keeping that under review as a whole.
A lot of issues and concerns have been raised today by individual Members. I will go through Hansard tomorrow with a fine-toothed comb; we will pick out all the points that have been made by noble Lords; we will respond to those points, having consulted my colleague Ministers who have a direct responsibility for these areas in the Home Office; and I will make sure that those points are answered.
There will be opportunities to address other issues in legislation, undoubtedly post the potential King’s Speech —there will be other areas. However, the Government have to deal with the issue of getting asylum under control, meeting our international obligations, reducing hotel use, and trying to stop that pull factor which noble Lords have mentioned. This is a series of measures which the Home Secretary has brought forward and which I believe are an appropriate start on these issues.
I understand the concerns that have been raised; they were raised in the House of Commons also. The Government will continue to keep these matters under review, but I say to noble Lords today that the regret Motion does not address the issues that I believe the Government are trying to achieve. It does not give credit to the Government for the challenges they face and does not acknowledge the strong efforts that we are making to reduce some of the real challenges that are a cost in our system. We are trying to reduce asylum backlogs and reduce hotel use, and we are trying to look at where there is abuse, to make sure that we still meet our international obligations but at the same time ensure that we have a tighter system to restrict that abuse. I know there are concerns and sensitivities, and I will look at the points made in the debate today, but I ask the noble Lord not to press his regret Motion. I say to my noble friend Lord Dubs as well that the equality issues are central to what the Government are trying to examine in the processes that we are looking at. We will keep those equality issues under review, and I am open to challenge in this Chamber about how the system is developing in due course.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me because my throat and the winter pressures are catching up on me, but I will look at those points and respond accordingly. I thank the noble Lord for his contributions today.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for his remarks—not that I agree with them, as your Lordships would expect, but to persevere through a croaky voice is not easy at the best of times. All I can say to him is that the Chief Whip has arrived; I think he has something special in his cupboard which he can help the Minister out with at the end, and if he does not, I ask him to please let me know because we can make that very public.
Seriously, however, at this point in the evening, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate; everyone has spoken with passion and with conviction, and most people have also spoken with great concern. If this were to be a scoreboard for a football match or whatever, the score would be 13-3. I say to the Minister, “Be aware of who your friends are in this matter”, because it seems that the alliance between the Labour Government and the Conservative Party and what lies beyond them is somewhat frightening for those of us who believe in a more humane society.
One of the things that has come out of this debate, from all my colleagues and everyone else who has spoken, is that somewhere we have got the narrative wrong about what migration is about. Your Lordships must remember that the OECD says of the United Kingdom that properly managed migration is a benefit to our economy. If that is the case, we need to say something positive about the people who are with us and doing things with us. The concern that I generally pick up is that we are not respectful enough or giving enough sense of humanity about the society in which we want to live.
Lord Dubs
10.48 pmMotion to RegretTabled by That this House regrets that the Statement of Changes to Immigration Rules (HC1691), published on 5 March, while making a welcome extension to the Ukraine Permission Scheme, will make it harder for refugees to successfully integrate; provides no equality impact assessment or children’s impact assessment for the reduction in leave granted to refugees; risks creating additional burdens on the Home Office by requiring refugee status to be reviewed every two and a half years; fails to restart the process for refugees to be reunited with their family members; and prevents some students, including Chevening scholars, from taking up educational opportunities in the UK. Relevant document: 56th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I thank all Members of the House who spoke, particularly those in support of the regret Motion, and my noble friend the Minister. He has handled this extremely well. He has one of the most difficult jobs in government, and I very much appreciate the sensitive way in which he responds to debates such as this.