Lords Chamber

Tuesday 14th April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Well, the noble Lady is energy, for this subject is well recognised 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, sadly a friend who's now passed away, was part of the same. She was the second generation from Trinidad. Her family came from Trinidad and so I, I, I knew this lady since junior school. So all through my life I've been hearing these fabulous stories of the Windrush generation and the 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.

And it's a story of resilience, as she said, and contribution reflecting both the hardships people face and the barriers they overcame. In terms of her question about funding, this is a very important question. And of course, the government is looking very carefully at the programme for funding. We need to make sure it is funded properly, but it wouldn't be right to pre-empt the decisions on funding before. We've spoken very carefully to the steering committee that's working on this, and that will be making sure that we mark this in a way that is relevant for the community.

Once we've done that, we'll be able to put some costs against it, and the government is determined to make sure we recognise it properly.
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. Well, so the I was just thinking the Red Tie Club and I stood up there. So the, the serious point that the my noble friend makes is clearly an important one about the ability of us to detect and deter those who would who would threaten us. And I think the importance of the activity that took place in the in the North Atlantic was we were able, through the use. We have nine p-8s at Lossiemouth Air Base there. Of course, not all operational, although many.

Most of them are in able to detect and deter. There are other ways of detecting submarine activity, which is really important. So as I say, I think the ability to deter and to take action when necessary is really important. I can I just say to the to the my noble friend, Lord Robertson, quite rightly pointed out what he felt and the need for the strategic defence review to be implemented and funded. And that debate and discussion will will move forward. But can I also say to my noble friend that he will be particularly interested in that, mentioning submarines? I was in Plymouth recently.

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. And that's true in many of the areas of the country. There is huge and significant investment going in the. The issue for us is what we do now in the interim, to provide the deterrent and the capabilities that we need in order to ensure our armed forces are able to act in the way that they do.

While we wait for some of those new ships, some of those new capabilities to become ready to us. And we're looking to advance that. And the final point, I'm sorry to say to nobles at this and to take this on, but the really important point is that the that the the need for this country to move from where it is to a position of war readiness is crucial. That is not a government effort. That is 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 has to understand the threat that they faced.

We as a government have to talk to them, and all of us have to stand up and say, we will defend our country and the values we stand for. Yeah.
15:20
None Portrait Business of the House
-

My Lord, that concludes our questions for today. House of Lords Commission report. The Senior Deputy Speaker. >> My Lords, I beg to move the fifth report of the House of Lords fifth report of the House of Lords Commission access rights for departing hereditary peers. Be agreed to 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 these hereditary peers should be granted the same access rights as members who retire under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.

My Lords, I beg to move. The question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that this motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that this motion be agreed to. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Procedure and Privileges

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee report. The Senior Deputy Speaker. My Lords, I beg to move the sixth report of the Procedure and sixth report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee be agreed to. This report proposes a new standing order to implement section two of the House of Lords Hereditary Peers Act, 2026 to allow another person to give or sign 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 subcommittee of the Procedure and Privilege Committee, made up of the chief whips of the three main parties, the convenor of the crossbench peers and chaired by the Senior Deputy Speaker, this subcommittee 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 only be permitted 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 two of the act came into force upon Royal Assent. So if agreed by your Lordships House, the standing order will come into force immediately.

And Lords, I commend commend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report to your Lordships. I beg to move. Question is that this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this motion be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not will say, content contrary, not content. The. Standing orders public business. The Senior Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. My Lords, I beg to move the third motion standing in my name on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Order Paper. Question is this motion question is that this motion be agreed to? As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have. It. This may be an opportunity for those who wish to leave the chamber before we to leave the chamber before we
15:25
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
>> Second Reading of >> Second Reading of the >> Second Reading of the Grenfell Tower Memorial expenditure Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be. Now read a second this bill be. Now read a second time. I would like to 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. My Lords, nothing that can be said in this House can diminish the loss they have endured, all 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 and 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, on reform and on 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 focussed 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. My Lords, Grenfell has never been and must never become a matter of party politics.

It is about doing what is right and about 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 is 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 has welcomed the Commission's recommendations and will support it to carry them forward. Community led design work is now underway following the appointment of a design team through a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and members of the local community. My Lords, this is a focussed Bill. It provides statutory authority required for 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 and archive and 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 underway, Parliament must provide the statutory authority required to fund the delivery of this national memorial and to ensure its upkeep over the long term. This bill provides that authority. I want to underline one important point for noble Lords.

The bill is deliberately narrow in scope. It does not determine the design of the memorial. It does not make planning decisions. It does not 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. My Lords 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 also continue to reform the system so that residents voices are heard and safety concerns are never ignored.

The government remains 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. My Lords, this is a modest bill in form, but it carries real weight. As I said, it's not about party politics. It's 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 ensures 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 ensure that Grenfell remains part of our national memory and that its lessons continue to shape a safer and fairer future. On that basis, my Lords, I beg to move the.
15:32
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this bill be read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be read a second time. My Lords, none of us will forget the events of the 14th of June 2017. the events of the 14th of June 2017. The shock we all felt is nothing to the pain the Grenfell community have suffered and we can never fully appreciate the consequence. 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 noble Lords across the House share my hope that that community will soon get some further closure. I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for bringing this bill forward, which represents an essential step forward for the delivery of a lasting memorial for 72 people who tragically lost their lives as a result of the events of the 14th of 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, this memorial is not just for the 72 who died as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire. It's all for. Also for the 74 people who were injured, it is for their friends, their families, of all those affected by the fire. It's also for those who live nearby and who have links to that community.

It is for all of those who have been affected by the fire. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, 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 with me to discuss both this bill, but also the ongoing work to support the entire Grenfell community. My Lords, I'd also like to pay tribute to all those who have supported the Grenfell community since the fire.

Both national and local governments, the MHCLG, in particular the Rbkc and their officers, the NHS, the voluntary sectors, the community groups and indeed the Memorial Trust. Their work, my Lords, has been vital and I know they will continue to support the Grenfell community. Turning 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 covenant, the current government have continued that support.

As the noble Baroness and 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, my Lords, 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. Given government, we had across the governmental committee to ensure the government is supporting a government is supporting the Grenville community.

I'd like to ask the noble Baroness Limb Minister how the government is continuing that cross-government work that we started work we did, for example, was on health. This community has health issues unlike any other community, both mental and physical. Fire, smoke contamination and all those mental issues that come from being involved in such an incident. Children's services are particularly importance to me. When I was the Minister, children that had been in their early primary years were now becoming teenagers.

Many of those children had spent all their childhood in families where Grenfell and the fire were continually there. They saw it day on day going to school, coming back from school, going to the leisure centre. But also their families were were damaged and by by what they had seen and what they had heard and what they had lost. And I think as those young people become teenagers, particularly, that is the time when I hope that across government we are making sure that they are supported, protected and helped.

When I talk to bereaved and survivors, they tell me that there is still no justice. So what is the government going to do to move this on to given this community piece and the ability to move forward with their lives? With that in mind, will the noble Baroness and Minister confirm that Ministers will continue to engage fully with the Grenfell community as work progresses on the memorial? My hon. 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 this tragedy that is a principal Minister should keep in mind whenever they're working on the memorial and the other measures to support this community.

This was a local tragedy, but it was 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 very clear. The government must make good all its commitments on funding. So can the noble Baroness, 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 who are still living there is an essential project to ensure that the estate is fit for the 21st century and also, my Lords is a lasting legacy.

From the bad times to a better time in North Kensington. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, update the House on the progress with the refurbishment? This work is ongoing, but there's still not clarity on the level of further financial support that may come from government. So can the noble Baroness Shah Minister confirm when that final detail will be available? And if she can't, can she at least give your Lordships House a commitment to expediate 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 my Lords Grenfell the Grenfell inquiry in this in your Lordships House on a number of occasions, and we know there are people who bear some responsibility for the fire, who have not yet been held to account, and that is very important to the community. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, please provide the House with an update on progress towards delivering on the recommendations of the inquiry, and how a Minister's furthering efforts to ensure all of those who bear responsibility for the events of the 14th of June 2017 are being held accountable.

My Lords, just 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 more memorial that will serve the entire Grenfell community and indeed the nation as well. 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.
15:41
Lord Roe of West Wickham Portrait Lord Roe of West Wickham (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I start by thanking my noble friend, the Minister, for her words and the continued commitment actually which my noble colleague the Minister is correct to state. We started with the previous government and I welcome her comments that this is not a political matter, but one of moral duty and necessity, to recognise that a tragedy of this scale speaks to the state of our nation, not just our politics, nor of housing, nor of people's class, nor where they come from, but actually the state of the nation.

So I think the sensitivity with which you spoke, my noble friend, the Minister is greatly appreciated, and I hope that those out in the community and those immediate family of those who lost their lives, will recognise that in the intent as spoken, they are to be given the power to determine what the physical manifestation of this memorial should be. In that context, I don't intend to speak to the principal of the memorial that has to exist on that site, because I don't 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. Those conversations, I hope, will continue. And as you have quite clearly expressed, I think in those first two opening statements, the way it progresses has to lie in the control and in the power of those who lost their most loved, dearest loved ones. And I hope we don't rush on that. And I commend my noble friend Lord Boateng, who has led so ably 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, that they can demonstrate an evidence that there has indeed been conversation with those families, 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. And I didn't have any notes because I tried to write something, but I couldn't.

So instead, I would perhaps like to speak to what I think Memorial must mean for the state and for society, because I think they are separate things and sometimes they are conflated, whether in statements around justice or around change. But what we're talking about today in respect of the 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 the night I thought long and hard about what my place was in that tragedy, and what might motivate me to keep going till, I would hope, drive better, change in those spaces.

I might have good effect. And what has motivated me was both the profundity of what I saw that night, but also the courage that is embodied in individuals, both rank and file firefighters particularly, and those who lost their families. And I, perhaps because I have no notes, I couldn't think of something suitably strategic to say. I would like to tell you the story of the night from the eyes of someone who stood there having come in, as expressed at the time, when I got sent in to try and do something to resolve what was a desperate situation on the ground.

Because in telling the story of these two men, I hope it might both bring home to this house the horror of the night. Because we use words like tragedy. We use words like loss of life. But I cannot explain to you the granular horror of the night, perhaps without telling the story of a person of a human, and how the courage that that story embodies in both the family of the young man I'll describe in a moment who lost his life, but in the courage of the rank and file firefighter, I hope we would understand our privilege and those who lead industry and those who build and refurbish houses, that we have something to aspire to and that we should be led by them.

And we shouldn't pretend that we lead them. And in the same way that the power in respect to the memorial must be given to the families, we must let them in. Their courage lead us in a continued journey and endeavour to improve, I think, not just the built environment, but restore our reputation as a country. Because I saw Grenfell as a statement on where the UK had got to. So I'll just tell you the story. Having arrived at Grenfell, I've been recognised that I was confronted by the absolute failure of the building almost immediately.

It was so graphic and profound. It was. It was unbelievable. 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. You know, with all of the investigation that has followed since, completely, understandably, the trauma that that placed on families, all of it. I wanted to go inside the tower to understand what I was sending firefighters into. So I queued to run in because we ran in under the shields of our policing colleagues because of the debris falling, standing behind a firefighter who I'd known for some time.

Actually, I served with him back in the day, back early on in my career. Both of us were scared because of the scale of what we were heading into. And then due to the ferocity of fire, due to the nature of where this poor young man had been trapped, the young man jumped from the building and having jumped from the building, there was a terrible shout. And I will never forget the noise of the impact, nor the shout as it came.

But 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, you know, in a on the ground surrounding me, 100 firefighters waiting to go into the tower. So I asked that the body of the young man be moved with dignity. And I asked that the body of the firefighter be moved. And I went into the town. 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 didn't 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 hadn't witnessed before, and I had seen many awful things in my career, both in the Army and in the fire service.

It became clear to me that I couldn't provide any comfort to my colleagues in terms of what we were ordering them to do. So I came back outside the tower and I briefed 200 of them, and 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. You have places you you might want to go home to. But I believe it is in the best traditions of our service.

And at the end of the day, you know, we've got breathing apparatus, we've got protective kit. This is what we have to do. It is in the best traditions of our service, 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 didn't. And their courage to this day has lifted me.

As I walked away from that briefing, I came across a gentleman who'd been standing in front of me who I believed to be dead. He was sitting on the ground serving his breathing apparatus set, having discharged himself from the back of an ambulance, pulled his drip out. Gathered a breathing apparatus set, and then committed himself into the building to save lives. A month after taking over as the commissioner of the London Fire Brigade, charged with changing the institution, it needed desperate change that had failed that night, along with government, industry, local authority, anyone who should have had any care.

I met the family of the young man who had jumped from the tower, and their courage was shocking. Their courage was as significant as the firefighter who had suffered serious injury and then took himself back in the tower. Their 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 of my colleagues here in the House. We are not there yet because they set clear and straightforward expectations. So I think I'm going to end, and I apologise for the time, simply to say that the physical memorial that must be laid there on the Lancaster West is for the families. It's for those who survived. We have a different job to do, and if you ever doubt the necessity of it, I would ask you to think to my colleague and to the family of that young man, the desperate situation they found themselves in and the courage with which they have lifted themselves since.

And then I thank the Minister for her words. I believe that, and I hope that she would agree with me. That is the duty of this House, along with the other place, to hold ourselves and wider society to account, to make sure those changes are made real.
15:51
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. memory becomes senile. Remembering Grenfell Tower and those who died in the fire, we should have been preventable will save us from becoming senile. The memorial would be a visible reminder. Lest we forget, my Lords, on the first memorial service held at Saint Helen's Church in North Kensington, I was invited to preach at a service by Carey Wendy Mendy. I described the tower as a tall coffin in the air, a symbol of forgotten people or people we constantly will remember.

Clarrie Mendy had lost two members in the fire, and she became a powerful voice in the campaign for justice for those who are affected. She brought in a wide range of community and church leaders from across London. My Lords, if you Google Clarrie Mendy Grenfell, there is a lot there about the impact she made. Sadly, Clarrie died in 2020 of motor neurone disease, but her legacy was somebody in spite of loss, so her work has 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 to that service from Bishopthorpe Palace Gardens for everyone present and focus on. The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. Words taken from the Book of Revelation, chapter 22. I'm glad we took a lot of bay leaves because the church was actually heaving, and everybody again was determined that they will never, never forget what happened to our Grenfell Tower.

And I played a lament on my djembe drum, which went on for some nine minutes, and the silence that followed. We had a community that was determined to make sure that they will not. We will not forget. Saint Hilda's Church was nearest to Grenfell Tower. Its vicar, as Duval and its people did a lot of work to help and I used to visit it regularly in order to ensure that what we committed ourselves to doing will 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 untouched, untouched, and I am very glad that the inquiry left no stone untouched. And the Grenfell Tower Commission has done an excellent job of making sure that we do remember my Lord's. 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 actually is asking, and also what this bill is wanting to enable some financial provision to be provided, and it needs to be done through an Act of Parliament.

I wholeheartedly support the bill. I wholeheartedly want to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, in the way she introduced this particular bill and my other two speakers before me, who also were focusing on the whole question of memory. Memory matters. And when we do not remember, we find ourselves in real deep trouble. So the physical, 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 do remember, because without remembering, we find ourselves sometimes drifting into oblivion or sometimes thinking that the present troubles really are are remember.
15:57
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Portrait Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak in >> My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill, a Memorial (Expenditure) Bill, a piece of legislation that carries with it, as my noble friend Lord Rowe of West Wickham, has said, profound responsibility. 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 not measured 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 his sharing of his experience, his memory. And it really has left a mark on me. Your words today. So thank you for sharing that and really driving home how important this memorial and the lessons and the changes that need has been made as a result of this devastating event.

We need to make sure that we move forward to make sure that there is change and that change is long lasting. So thank you. Lord Roe. Now, this 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 has 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, a place that ensures that those who lost their lives are never forgotten. And that matters because memory is not passive memory 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, their loss, and their resilience must sit at the heart of this process. This is not simply about building a structure. It's about creating a space that carries a meaning of dignity and truth. So while this bill is focussed on funding, it carries the weight of a moral, a wider moral justice.

It is part of our collective duty, a duty to remember, a duty to honour, and a duty 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.

Remembrance, as I said, must never be passive. It must be must shape how we act. My Lords, this bill gives us the means to do what should always have been done to create something lasting, something respectful, and something worthy of those whose lives were taken. My Lords, we cannot undo the past, but we can honour it with purpose and ensure it is never forgotten. I support this bill.
16:02
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, like every other >> My Lords, like every other speaker, I want to start by remembering the 72 lives lost and remembering the 72 lives lost and the countless others the victims, families, friends and the community whose lives were forever changed by the fire. The tragedy that took place at Grenfell Tower in the early hours of the 14th of June 2017 must never be forgotten and I, like others I think, 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.

So, my Lords, 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, it will serve as a lasting reminder of the avoidable actions that must never be repeated. I think it's worth reminding ourselves, my Lords, of the stark words of Sir Martin Moore-bick, the chair of the Grenfell inquiry. When phase two of his report was published and he said 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 I know 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 homes.

It was heartening to hear the commitment across the political spectrum to this legacy, when colleagues in the other place considered the bill last month, and I'm proud that the same commitment is evident in this House today. My Lords, I would 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're 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.

My Lords, I want briefly to focus 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 for them, and I know they're working at pace to remediate the buildings under their care. The collaborative approach of both 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 welcomed. There is now a clear plan of action, which is coupled with sufficient resources to deliver ambitious.

The ambitious numbers planned are planned. The government has given equal access to the social housing sector, including housing associations, to the Cladding Safety Scheme announced at the 2025 Spending Review. This will be a transformative step towards securing the necessary resources. Progress has, as everyone has said, has been far too slow. Now, alongside the package of measures the government has produced, has 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 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's clear that there is much more to be done and we need to see this welcome commitment to securing resident safety from all actors across the wider housing sector. My Lords, it's crucial that the social housing sector has the resources available to continue delivering on its commitment to carry out remediation works at a faster pace as possible, so can I.

In conclusion, ask my noble friend the Minister, 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 the tragedy that took place at Grenfell is not allowed to happen again elsewhere. My Lord. This bill enables the delivery of a memorial that should be a stark reminder to all of us of our duty to ensure the safety of people across the country in their own homes, and that that will be a long lasting legacy of this terrible tragedy.

I also hope the memorial, the design of which will be led by the bereaved and the wider community, will also be a place of remembrance for those who tragically lost their lives on that dark day in 2017.
16:07
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> Only someone. >> Who was there on the night. >> Of the Grenfell Tower fire, or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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 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 in 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, as others have pointed out, already partly spoke about this, and I commend him for what he did with his colleagues on the night of the 14th of June 2017, and what he said to us today.

It's right that there should be a memorial to the people whose lives were lost or damaged by 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, which 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 don't just look back, but that we look forward to the creation of a better regime for government and corporate conduct.

My Lord, in the compressed procedure that governs the narrow compass of this bill, there will not be time, and 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. And may 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 I have played no part in the inquiry, nor in any related cases.

My Lord Low a memorial of the type envisaged by this Bill is a fitting way to commemorate what happened on the 14th of June 2017. That's 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. My Lord, we may think corporate crime is only financial bribery, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, cash in brown envelopes, false accounting, clever schemes that cheat the revenue.

Britain has, to its credit, taken a leading role in tackling those offences. But where corporate misconduct kills rather than steals, our legal system is failing and it doesn't 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 of 2017 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act of 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's 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 Lady, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe pointed out, wholly avoidable and resulted from decades of failure by government, industry and regulatory bodies. The final phase two report, published on the 4th of September 2024, identified, and I quote, 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 that the safety about the safety issues was, and I quote, again, 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's billion with a B, that's 4000 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 and livelihoods.

I will not say more, because at least one of those cases I have in mind is currently the subject of high Court proceedings here in London. But 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's based on the identification principle or by attributing it to a senior manager, an improvement now proposed in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is shortly to receive Royal Assent.

But 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, my Lord, 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 doesn't criminalise accidents. It doesn't promote meaningless box ticking. It simply asks whether a company that has 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. 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, from parliamentary committees, from trade unions, from investors, businesses themselves and the independent anti-slavery commissioner. The argument is no longer seen as radical. It's not, as others 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 underway.

If Ministers are serious about this and they wish to be taken seriously about this, they should build on what works. My Lords, 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?
16:16
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
My pleasure. >> To follow the noble and learned Lord Garnier and my Lords, that the late, great Martin Amis described the sensation of of ageing as feeling like breakfast comes round every 15 minutes. So dare I say it, for some of us? In your Lordships house, 2017 feels like yesterday. But of course for the survivors and the bereaved, it must feel like every day. And so of course, I welcome this bill to fund a memorial. But I agree with with everyone else that the best memorial would add action on culture governance, regulation.

Yet in the field of building and fire safety, but more, but more generally as well. But this was no natural disaster, nor one caused by overt acts of terrorism or war as normally understood. But equally, it was no natural disaster. Instead a catastrophe, a loss of life caused by public and private, central and local negligence,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complacency cover up corruption and greed, my Lords. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. And greed. In the late 1990s and 2000 was given political voice through the through the zeal for through the through the zeal for deregulation and privatising regulation, as we see in the in the regulation, as we see in the in the report and against the so-called health and safety culture that was derided at times by senior politicians, including very distinguished ones, including in your Lordships House. And this was done with an enthusiasm now reserved for the denigration of human rights alone, perhaps, and in pursuit of the cutting of red tape.

Some lives mattered a great deal less, as we've heard from the noble and learned Lord, a great deal less than corporate profit. And these are the profits of architects, builders, manufacturers of building materials. All those who purported to regulate and kitemark all of the all of the above. Again, for profit. A bit of an oxymoron. Not so much regulatory capture as regulatory corruption and cancellation. And this is so clear, my Lords, from Sir Martin Moore-bick damning inquiry report.

And what are the public sector, the central and local government that 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. My Lords. Sir Martin was appropriately scathing about the negligence of central government. And 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's an idea tenant management body, that treated the concerns repeated concerns of Grenfell residents even after earlier comparable high rise fires. With such contempt. That's in the years before the fire and some would argue, even in the immediate aftermath after the fire brigade. I need a little more than how well represented that service has been today by my noble friend Lord Rowe of West Wickham.

And he said we failed as an institution, but our people, our firefighters, didn't. And I think his courage and his humility in in describing his experience is something that that few of us will forget in a hurry if that approach to public service could be distilled and distributed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more widely, our country would be a much a much That's a place I would suggest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a place I would suggest. I hope that this draft legislation has already made some legislation has already made some contribution by prompting all of us who who are attempting to who who are attempting to contribute today to reread those findings and recommendations, urgent recommendations of the of urgent recommendations of the of the Grenfell inquiry report. But 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 may I ask her her view of implementation to date of Sir Martin Moore-bick reports. Public, 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 she advise the House on the likely timetable for that? Can she also advise or or say anything more on what noble friends have have alluded to in in in relation to the timetable of relevant criminal prosecutions, given that the report itself lays considerable breadcrumbs for the police and prosecution authorities to to to follow.

Is she of the view. And this is where the noble Lord noble and learned Lord Garnier comes in. Is she of the view that the current criminal law is adequate? Because I think few that heard him would be would be reassured that it is is the the law of corporate manslaughter and directors regulation and disqualification adequate to provide corporate and personal accountability for the kind of unadulterated neglect and corruption that we saw in this and, and other scandals, including that of the postmasters.

And will the government, in the wake of all sorts of other debates about AI and and all sorts of exciting challenges, will the government always remember the importance of transparent and effective regulation, not just in 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, dignified housing to any quality of life. And perhaps, my Lords, the denigration of human rights might be might be resigned to the dustbin like the denigration of health and safety that came before it.
16:24
Lord Forbes of Newcastle Portrait Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. Yes. >> My Lords, I first declare an interest and draw your attention to my role as a non-executive director my role as a non-executive director at MHCLG, which is the lead department for this bill, and the bill, as presented very ably by my noble friend, the Minister, is short, tightly drawn and constitutionally straightforward. It's 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 the 14th of June, 2017. My noble friend, the Minister has explained so eloquently what this bill seeks to do. What it does not do is equally important. It does not determine the design, the governance or the planning decisions associated with the 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, who are clear that the narrowness of the Bill is intended to preserve community leadership. And that is, my Lords, a profound shift in our British tradition of memorialisation. For most of the last century, national memorials from the stone, 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.

But, my Lords, we also must be honest about why this memorial is needed. The Grenfell Tower fire was not a natural disaster. It was not an unforeseeable accident. The public inquiry has documented in painful detail what the government itself has 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, it is a form of institutional accountability.

It is a public acknowledgement that the state failed its most important basic duty to keep people safe in their own homes. My Lords, 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, of building control, sign off of construction materials and usage, were manageable even when remediation work was needed.

But several tall residential buildings were a mystery. We didn't know who owned them. We didn't know how they'd been constructed. We didn't know what materials had been used, and there was no mechanism, none 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 for 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 don't 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 it can ensure 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. And, my Lords, this bill may well set a precedent for other tragedies linked to state or institutional failure. Hillsborough the contaminated blood scandal, 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. But my Lords, I'd like to end on a point that has been 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, for reform, and for 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, I also say this 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. My Lords, this bill enables a physical memorial.

It is our duty to ensure that it also builds a moral one. pleasure.
16:31
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Portrait Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
To follow the noble Lord Lord Forbes of Newcastle, and I would like to thank Lord Roe of West Wickham for his incredibly powerful speech. I sometimes think that we all maybe need a reminder sometimes of the enormity of that night. And your speech certainly did that. And I just like to say that while while he spoke about the night itself, what he didn't mention is the incredible years of painstaking work that he has done with the community in the years since.

And I would also like to acknowledge the work of that community today, and in particular, the representatives of the Memorial Commission, because for them, the road to get here has been a 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. And we all remain in awe of their resilience. But it was inevitable that with the tragedy on this scale, people were going to take different views on how to navigate the aftermath.

And 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. And 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 hasn't been easy and there will be undoubtedly further hurdles ahead. So could I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to ensure that the government pays careful attention to the role of the commissioners when taking any decisions related to the site and the memorial.

Because of all the people involved in this process, they are uniquely exposed and we do owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Now this bill sits alongside the deconstruction process, which continues apace. And I know the government is aware that there is still a lot of distrust, I'm afraid, about the way the decision was taken. And in fairness, it was never going to be an easy decision for anyone to take. But it does remain a sensitive issue. And so I just wonder if the Minister could assure the House that proper support will continue to be made available to those who need it, because trauma this significant, it has a long tail.

And as one former resident of the tower told me, we've 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, and at the same time, as I understand it, some support services are no longer available. On the visit to Al-Manar, myself and Nick Hurd were told that they would no longer be receiving funding for their helpline, which is relatively relatively low cost and has provided a lot of help to many in the local community.

So while I don't expect the Minister to know the details now, could she perhaps right with an update of what support is available, be that through helplines, drop in sessions, specialist support services and GP practices? And I think I'm right in saying that support will be available until the end of any potential criminal proceedings. But if she could perhaps confirm that, I'd be grateful. And we are here today to talk about the memorial. But the memorial and those proceedings and the question of justice are inextricably linked.

And 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 aren't expected until the spring of 2027. Now, in his excellent speech in the Other place, the hon. 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 operation into Grenfell would continue.

But could the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that that's the case? Because she said that there was support for the investigation, but I'd be grateful for just clarification on that point on the grant. He also raised the important point about ensuring that court time is made available, and 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, and I'd be grateful if the Minister could tell us if there are any representations to the government can make on this.

And then finally, I'd just like to mention a couple of other related issues. 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. And as has been mentioned by Baroness 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, and that is the Lancashire West estate.

Some progress has been made, but I hope that the government will continue to support our Bkc in ensuring that the memorial will sit within that model of social housing that I know we would all like to see in the future. And finally, so the memorial will honour the memory of all those who lost their lives. And of course, it's 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 that it brought about, and for groups such as Grenfell United.

That should be the real legacy of Grenfell, and they have spent years at great cost to themselves trying to bring about that change. And one of the most important aspects of this was the professionalisation of social housing. And some of us in this chamber today will remember that long running battle. So I won't repeat the arguments other than to say it put right the anomaly whereby social housing was the only frontline service without any formal qualifications structure. So I do want to put on record the disappointment many felt at the regulator of social Housing's decision not to set a standalone competence and conduct standard, but instead incorporate the requirements into the existing transparency and accountability standard.

Now this has come as an unwelcome surprise, a big surprise to the sector, including the Chartered Institute of Housing. So could I ask the noble Baroness Limb Minister whether the government agrees that this proposal does not accurately reflect its original direction to the regulator? And if she can't answer that today, perhaps she could write. And I promise that is my last request of her, because despite the number of questions, I genuinely welcome today's bill, and I thank the noble Baroness 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 all those who they lost that night.
16:39
Baroness Nargund Portrait Baroness Nargund (Labour)
-
-
Lord Sewell. >> I thank my noble friend, the Minister, for her introduction and give my strong support to this bill. give my strong support to this bill. I joined the 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, it was 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, as Sir Martin Moore-bick concluded in the inquiry, entirely avoidable. It has left a stain on the City of London which allowed this to happen, and in our wider country it must remain in our national conscience. My Lords, recovery from this tragedy has been about more than buildings and regulation. It's about memory, dignity and recognition of those who were lost and those who continue to live with its consequences.

My Lords, Grenfell has had a profound impact on me professionally and personally. I had the privilege and I used that word with great care of serving as a trustee of the London Emergency 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 attended a meeting with the Grenfell United with some of my colleagues, which I will never forget. We were not confronted with statistics, but with people, families who were grieving, families that 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 Emergency Trust, we distributed £8 million to the bereaved and hospitalised, and a further £773,000 to 165 households. We allocated grants for those hospitalised for pregnant women who suffered due to unimaginable stress, and for families who had lost fathers, mothers, children.

Behind every grant application, there was a family that was grieving. There was a community that was 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 Two, mobilising volunteers from across our country at the start of the fire and deployed over 630 volunteers who supported more than 1700 people. I can't forget how volunteers arrived from all over the country.

And also, it 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 Emergency Trust for their service. My Lord's Grenfell tragedy, as we have heard, 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 health inequalities, but Grenfell forced me to confront something even more troubling an inequality of safety and 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. 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 not an act 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 of the Grenfell memorial, including an archive and a sacred resting place for the elements of the tower, in line with the recommendations of the Commission is therefore vital.

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. My Lords, critically, the Bill does not prescribe the design of the memorial. It enables government expenditure while ensuring the community shapes the memorial's design and purpose. Those most affected must remain at its heart.

My Lords, the Bill is a necessary step in honouring our commitment to that community and to our nation, and I commend it to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who and what we as a country remember matters. My Lords, I remember matters. My Lords, I wanted to speak in this debate, although many others in your Lordships House are clearly far more qualified on this topic and more qualified on this topic and have had direct face to face experience of the tragedy. But as somebody who is living in London somebody who is living in London and has the name of a council estate in my title, this was a debate and a subject that mattered debate and a subject that mattered very much to me.

I remember vividly those events of the 14th of June 2017 unfolding and watching in total disbelief. It was a day where so many things changed, and this painful event in the city's history is etched on Londoners hearts forever. Of course, that is incomparable to those who were there and witnessed it with their own eyes and a 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 of these things can only happen, as others have said, if a relentless focus on the voices of surviving residents and the local community is maintained. Phase two of the Grenfell Tower inquiry government response, 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. The report goes on this government is determined that we learn from these injustices and ensure that tenants voices are not only heard, but reliably acted upon.

And I want to 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. And that really is the key here, not just hearing from those voices, but learning from and acting on. It is so important that this memorial is built and well funded, both to remember those who died and also to
16:48
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton Portrait Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Labour)
-
-
declare war on institutional thoughtlessness, a phrase I borrowed today from prison borrowed today from prison scholarship. These systems and structures that failed so badly were the results of cultures that were the results of cultures that allowed cost cutting regulation to be treated merely as guidance, a lack of rigour in thinking through lack of rigour in thinking through what might happen in the event of systemic failure, and therefore a systemic failure, and therefore a lack of mitigations in place. There was wide ranging institutional thoughtlessness.

Now, systemic failures are far less likely to viscerally impact those in senior roles, often cushioned by class, wealth or their whiteness. The systemic failures at Grenfell Tower are no different. These failures that resulted in the deaths of people whose lives and stories have been too marginalised, too often marginalised and forgotten. And, as your Lordships' House have heard, those that lived in Grenfell Tower and those who died there were disproportionately working class people who had made their home afresh in the UK.

Black and brown people who and what we remember matters. Black lives matter. And this is why this memorial is so important, both for the survivors and the community who have expressed their desire for one one that includes private space to grieve and one with funding to preserve it and sustain it. And the memorial is important for our country to say, clearly 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.

And this. Sorry and this memorial will remind all of us in your Lordships House and in the other place, all of 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 OK to wait for a loss of life to address them repeatedly. It is demonstrated that systemic failures impact some groups of people disproportionately, and this memorial will serve as a reminder. Each life is precious and of equal value.

Whatever your gender, whatever your ethnicity, whatever your skin colour, whatever your class, people of all faiths and none lives of equal value. And I want to express my gratitude to the survivors, the community, and all those who have who are and will contribute to this memorial. We can hear in your Lordships' House tributes today just how much work and thought has gone in, but still so much yet to do. My gratitude for enabling the whole of London and the UK to better remember those precious lives and these people's stories.

My Lords, who and what we remember really does matter.
16:51
Baroness Hazarika Portrait Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it's an enormous privilege to take part in what has privilege to take part in what has been such a thoughtful debate today. I myself remember the shock of witnessing that charred husk of Grenfell Tower as I drove across London to do the paper review on Sky news, and I remember being on air, and it was just incredibly difficult to process what had just happened in this day and age in a residential building. And it was a moment and a tragedy that none of us, whether we were journalists or any of us here, could really get our heads around 72 people losing their lives in this day and age, not just statistics, as we've heard, but men, women, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, aunties, uncles, and so, so many children.

Babies perished in what must have been unimaginable fear, confusion, bewilderment and pain. That night I was thinking about the tragedies that live on in history. The ones that we think change things, the ones that heralded a new era of health and safety and change. I was thinking, for example, about a tragedy. I spent a lot of time thinking about various reasons that the Titanic and as much as we talk about the systemic failure, and we will come on to discuss that.

As my good friend Baroness Hyde just said in her excellent speech, remembrance, and the power of remembrance and the staying power of remembrance is about those human stories, people and personalities like 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 relative said that he had long flowing locks, like the free thinking lion, that he was like those we girls.

Haniya Hassan, aged three, and her sister Fathia, aged four, known as fufu, who died alongside their mum Rania Ibrahim, their dad and Rania's husband Awada said that his life had fully stopped that day since the fire. Or like the Shakira family, who lived on the 22nd floor of Grenfell Tower, Basim died alongside his wife Nadia and their three girls, Zainab Minera and Fatima. Basim worked at Marks and Spencer's, and he was described by his colleagues as a dedicated man who never took a day off.

Such was the pride in his work. His mother in law Syria, also died alongside them. Syria 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. Like the retired lorry driver Anthony Dyson, who lived on the 22nd floor, his son said of him he was always there to help anyone, no matter who you were or where you came from.

Like the Filipino pensioner Ligaya Moore, who loved her 21st floor flat. She was so proud of it because she said it made her feel like she was on top of the world, like the artist and photographer Khadija Seyi, who lived and died with her mum Mary Mendy that night. Khadija was a great, great talent and her work was displayed at the Venice Biennale and the Tate Britain after her death. Like Gary Maunder's, aged 57, who was remembered by his family as a man with a great personality and a devoted Manchester United football supporter.

Sheila, aged 84, who lived at Grenfell for 34 years. She was full of life and fit as a fiddle, often seen around cycling, doing yoga on a daily basis and a keen swimmer at the Kensington Leisure Centre until she was 80 years old. And Stephen Powell, who lived on the 15th floor. Stephen, her dad said of him, was her daughter, said of her dad was a keen fisherman and a DJ and had a style which was like a West Indies man trapped in an Irishman's body.

Stephen's best pals were her three were his three dogs who also died with him that night in his flat. Now these are just a handful of the stories behind that number 72, the number of people who died that night. And as we have all been discussing here, we must remember and honour every single one of them. And 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, that it is a crime ridden and nasty, unhappy place.

But we all know in this House that Grenfell Grenfell that we've all got to know through the work we have done, told a very different story. The globe resided there, people from all over the world who came to work in London to work very hard like Bassem, and make a better life for themselves, alongside Londoners who lived in that building and who 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.

So I very much welcome this bill and the many, many wonderful, thoughtful, really moving contributions that we've heard, particularly from Lord Rohan. I think we were all extremely humbled by his story, his bravery, his lived experience, and he very powerfully reminded us here of our privileges and our responsibilities. We all agree, though, that this memorial, however it takes shape, must be guided by survivors, families and the local community, but have always been discussing the legacy must be more than simply memories.

It must be about learning the right systemic lessons for the future, and it must be 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. And every single one of those deaths were avoidable. As the inquiry said, everyone who died in the fire had been failed by those responsible for keeping them safe. I really welcome the words from the Minister and I hope you know she will have heard many of the questions, and I'm sure she will agree with all of us that these reports and these recommendations must just not become dusty tomes on the shelf of history.

We must never allow a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tragedy like this to happen again. My Lords, following the 2017. General election, I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

General election, I was appointed Housing and Planning Minister on the 13th of June by the then Prime Minister. Now the noble then Prime Minister. Now the noble Baroness May. That, of course, was the day before the terrible tragedy the day before the terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower, where 72 people lost their lives, 54 adults and 18 children. As many of you Lordships have noted, this was a tragedy that should never have happened. And, you know, the Grenfell Tower inquiry has been very clear.

Those 70 deaths were entirely avoidable, and we have to acknowledge that ultimately, this was the result of decades of failure by successive governments, by a myriad of institutions and, of course, the construction industry. A number of
17:00
Lord Sharma Portrait Lord Sharma (Conservative)
-
-
noble Lords, Lord Garnier, Baroness Sanderson, Baroness Hazarika, have Sanderson, Baroness Hazarika, have pointed out that so far no one has been prosecuted for this disaster. been prosecuted for this disaster. Now, we know that the criminal investigation remains ongoing. But when charges are brought, and I when charges are brought, and I sincerely hope they are, the full force of the law should be thrown force of the law should be thrown at those found to be culpable. I also want to say that 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 faster to put our arms around the grieving and shell shocked families and communities to offer support and reassurance. Now 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 the survivors and indeed the wider Grenfell community to offer immediate support, but also to discuss longer term support that may be required.

And Baroness Sanderson has set out very eloquently a lot of what was started then and continues today. I also noted in a parliamentary debate in the in the other place, that hearing the harrowing accounts of the survivors was the most humbling and moving experience of my life. And that, my Lords, remains the case. And if anything, the passage of time has just 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 my Lord's speaking to one survivor when I was meeting with families individually at the Westway Emergency Relief Centre to talk about the housing needs, and this gentleman had waited patiently for hours to speak to me. And in our conversation, I learnt 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. My Lords, I very much welcome this Grenfell Tower Memorial bill which will allow for the construction of a permanent and fitting memorial. We all owe an enormous, 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.

And I agree entirely with Lord Rogan. I pay tribute to him for the work that he did that night and has done so subsequently, but 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 which 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's also vitally important, as the Commission recommends, that there is a long term public exhibition which, together with digital archives, will help to ensure that current and future generations can learn about and remember the tragedy. The fact is that contributed to it and how the Grenfell community responded to it. My Lords, we must never forget what happened through years of inaction and worse, was effectively allowed to happen on that fateful day. Baroness Chakrabarti and Baroness Nargund have have noted that this happened.

This tragedy happened in the middle of one of the most prosperous and advanced cities in the world. Now, the Commission has committed to beginning the memorial's construction, as I understand, in mid 2027. And the passage of this bill will, of course, help to ensure that public money is made available and a permanent Grenfell memorial is vital. But of course, there are other ways that we can also honour the memories of those who lost their lives first. And Baroness Scott has raised this particular issue, and I'd certainly be interested in hearing from the Minister on this.

We would like I would certainly like to see the government deliver on its commitments to help fund the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate, and I know that the government is having a constructive dialogue with the local council, but for the sake of local residents, funding decisions need to be concluded now. And second, as many of you 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happen again. I commend this bill to the House which. My Lords. The Grenfell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The Grenfell. Tower was a tragedy of an unimaginable scale, as many of the contributions have reminded us, but particularly Lord Roe of West particularly Lord Roe of West Wickham has described the shocking events of that day so movingly. So
17:06
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
events of that day so movingly. So today I rise not only to debate a bill, but to honour 72 lives that were tragically lost. We do well to remember that each one of those 72 individuals had dreams and futures. There was someone's child, a parent, a brother, a sister, an uncle or an aunt. And I thank Baroness Hazarika for sharing the stories of those individuals who perished. I think it's so important for us to remember the individuals, but there were also countless others who were injured and impacted for the rest of their lives.

It wasn't just them and the local community that was left scarred by the Grenfell Tower fire, but the entire country too, was left scarred. I recall vividly, like many others, the day I heard the news, I was in Brussels at the time. The sheer horror 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. A country that prides itself as well regulated with strong ethos of values, 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 and asking how could this happen? As many have said in one of the most prosperous capital cities of the world, the international standing of Bran Britain was badly damaged that day because Grenfell wasn't simply a fire, it was a national tragedy that exposed deep failures in safety, in accountability and in duty that we owe each other as citizens.

The combustible cladding, the fire doors that failed, the evacuation procedures that were tragically inadequate, the deeper systemic failures, failures in regulation, regulation, oversight and accountability that made such a disaster possible going forward. As someone who has also 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 where we need to be strengthening these. 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. They must all face real accountability and I know many of the Lordships have already raised this point. But I ask my friend, the noble Baroness, the Minister, when will we ensure that negligence in housing safety carries consequences strong enough to deter future failures? My Lords, Grenfell is not a chapter we can close lightly. It is a stark reminder that safety cannot be optional, that dignity of residents cannot be compromised, and that complacency costs lives.

We must act decisively, implement every recommendation in full and monitor progress rigorously, and ensure that no community ever endures. The pain, the fear, the loss that Grenfell bought, the lives lost, and the voices of those who survived demand nothing less. And we must ask ourselves, how will we 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. So, as we've heard, this 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 ensures 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 when safety is compromised and when voices, especially those of vulnerable residents, are ignored.

So it must call on all of us in this House and beyond to ensure that such tragedy can never happen again. We owe that to the victims, we owe it to the families, and we owe it to the future generations. Passing this bill sends a clear message that we remember. We care, and we are committed to building a safer and just society. Let this memorial promise a promise that Grenfell will never be forgotten, and that its lesson will never be ignored.

I commend this bill.
17:13
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> That it Memorial will bring. >> Some comfort to friends and families of those who lost lives, and thousands more scarred by this avoidable tragedy. The root cause of this tragic 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 Grenfell Tower 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 manufacturer Arconic and I quote, deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger of Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form. End of quote. The inquiry found that Kingspan knowingly made false claims about his insulation, about his insulations fire performance and conducted, quote, long running internal discussions about what it could get away with, unquote. The inquiry concluded that Celotex used, quote, dishonest means, end of quote, 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, quote, deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. End of quote. The inquiry identified, quote, persistent indifference of the Tenants Management Organisation, systemic dishonesty of product manufacturers, and decades of government failures as the causes of this tragedy, the government has accepted all 58 of the inquiry's recommendations, but they have not yet been fully implemented. Many buildings are still have the same cladding as in Grenfell, despite 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. Directors are not held personally liable for causing grievous harms. Ministers bat away calls for urgent actions by claiming that somebody else, like 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 judgement 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 1200 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 frauds at HBOs, which since 2009 has been part of the Lloyds Banking Group, the FCA, the SFO and the City of London, which is partly funded by city institutions, declined to prosecute anyone. In 2017, the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner successfully prosecuted some eight 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 HMOs in this House on many occasions, such as 28th January 2021, 14th April 2021. 6th February 2023. 9th February 2023.

22nd January 2024. 14th February 2024. 15th May 2025. 26th March 2026. Just to give you a few examples, the typical response from the Ministers is silence. Carefully calculated indifference. All that it is a matter really for somebody else or a failed regulator. This is how the political system, my Lord, incubates tragedies like Grenfell because the Ministers 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, which can be called to account and speedy justice to ensure that such a tragedy never, ever occurs again.
17:19
Lord Boateng Portrait Lord Boateng (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate only in my capacity as co-chair of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission. The Commission welcomes this bill. I can thank on behalf of the commission, the noble Lady, the Minister, the noble Lady, the representative of the opposition for their support for the bill. I can thank on behalf of the Commission, the whole House, the whole House for its unanimous support of the bill.

The Commission is grateful the Commission reflected on the Bill and the circumstances which are. Arise that exist that led to its introduction at its last meeting. The Commission. Wrestles with this issue. Not only at its meetings, but for the overwhelming number of its membership, excepting only myself and my co-chair, who is a source of inspiration to us all, Deputy Lieutenant Thelma Stieber is a survivor of 77.

She has been with the commission and with the people of the Grenfell community from the very outset of this tragedy and its aftermath. And the commission has asked me publicly to thank her for her service over these many years. Hers is the only name I will mention in the course of my contribution to this debate. Safe to say, and they haven't asked me to say this, but I'm going to say it that each and every one of them, each and every one of them, people who have lost their nearest and dearest, who have had to bury their nearest and dearest people who have lost neighbours and friends, people who have lost their very homes, people who are bereaved, next of kin, survivors, residents of the immediate community to have served with them on this commission has been the greatest privilege of my life, the greatest privilege of my life.

But I do have to tell you that at the heart of the Commission's work and we begin every meeting of the Commission with two minutes silence, two minutes silence in memory of the 72 who lost their lives. They have been at the heart of the Commission's work. They have to be at the heart of this bill as it's implemented. We in the Commission are in the business of Memorialisation and therefore you will forgive me, hon.

Members, if I don't address this specific point individually. You have made with great force and with great acuity. In the course of this debate, and bringing to bear your enormous experience at first hand 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, you with this measure, provide the material resources that will enable a memorial to be erected.

That's all very well. The Minister, in her excellent introduction to the bill, referred to the community's desire and the community's entitlement to and the community's entitlement to respect. I welcome that, but this community, whilst appreciating respect, demands justice. They demand justice. They haven't had justice. And I have to tell you. They don't expect it. They don't expect it. You may hope for it and your expressions of hope are appreciated.

This community does not expect justice. They will continue to demand it. They don't expect it. And so. The Memorialisation has to address those wider issues around learning the lessons that you all 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 do require legislation. This is an easy bill to pass.

It is 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 won't be so easy to promulgate, and it won't be so readily passed. But it must be passed. It must be passed. If these are to be anything other than empty words, it must be passed. That's all I'm going to say. That's all I'm going to say about the content of your Lordships debate today.

The rest of what I will have to say in a very few words. Is simply to Mao that it is my duty to Mao 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's contained in the. The Grenfell Memorial Vision statement. These are its words. The Grenfell Memorial. We will be at its heart a peaceful place.

It will provide a space for reflection and remembrance of those that lost their lives, of why this tragedy happened, 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 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's the vision. That's the vision that in passing this bill, you will enable materially with the resources to be realised. Thank you for your vigilance. I'm authorised to say that on behalf of the Commission, thank you to each and every one of you for your vigilance. For your service.

And. I do have to say, well, they have. Of course, they were not to know it. I do have to say a particular thank you to you, my noble friend, the Lord Roe, for his service, and those of the other men and women of the London Fire Brigade. On that night. A huge thank you to you. The first responders. But your vigilance will be required, because I have to tell you in this we addressed at the last meeting of the Commission, there are and going to be obstacles ahead.

And I would only say this about those obstacles, and I say it to both front benches. I said also to the leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Do not allow any disagreements between you, the Royal Borough and you, the government of the day, do not allow any party political considerations to come into the decisions that must be made to ensure that Lancaster West is properly Lancaster West is properly developed.

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 in fact respected. Don't allow any party political disputes or disputes about resources to get in the way of that, because listening to you, members of this House and listening, as I did in the other place, I do not believe that you will allow them to get away with it.

The community, the commission expects you to deliver on the promise and the hope and expectation that your sentiments and your work rightly have aroused. And in that I hope you will be led, as we have been led by the incredible spiritual power and engagement that the faith communities have marshalled around this tragedy. Because immediately on that night and thereafter, the one set of institutions that were able to deliver to that community were institutions of faith, were the churches were the mosques, were people of faith coming together, being there alongside a community, a community which, however marginalised.

However disrespected it has been, has been actually a community of faith. 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. And it's there. The very first page of the report is one that talks of, and I report is one that talks of, and I quote, grief, remembrance, empathy, nerve, fortitude, energy loss, and love. Those are the words.

That is the title of the meditation, and it the title of the meditation, and it ends with these words, as I do. 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 the name of love that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will journey on. Malone's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And this has been an incredibly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And this has been an incredibly moving debate. In particular, the contribution of the noble Lord Roe contribution of the noble Lord Roe of West Wickham, who shared his of West Wickham, who shared his practical experience at some
17:35
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
personal cost, I think. But it has personal cost, I think. But it has helped us all understand the context in which we debate today context in which we debate today this bill. Thank you. Every member this bill. Thank you. Every member this bill. Thank you. Every member who has spoken. Fully supports the proposal in the bill to fund the memorial to the 72 lives lost at the Grenfell Tower tragedy scandal. I sometimes call it.

And we on these benches associate ourselves absolutely fully with those sentiments. The very powerful speech from the noble Lord Boateng. Just brings home again. How the depth of. Feeling both positive and that of distrust that has developed within the community affected by the fire and how we all here have that huge responsibility to do what many members have said, which is to ensure there is action as a consequence, not 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 that community suffered. That will be the lasting legacy, the lasting memorial, as well as the physical one that this bill enables. So Remembering Grenfell is a is a very powerful read. And. It captures the emotions and memories of reflections of of those who survived. And it is their contributions that must be faithfully followed. And of the memorial is primarily for those families and that community of that terrible night.

But it is my hope that it will also stand as a lesson to our hours 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 live there were often poorer economically and from many different cultures, cultures and backgrounds. Those differences were sufficient for neglectful as well as criminal decisions being taken.

And as a noble Lord Garnier noble and learned Lord Garnier has said, rightly said, and fully support. What he has said is that corporate failures of this scale. That end in loss of life or harm to individuals, have to be addressed and. The route is through legislation, and that's what we do. So I hope that the noble Baroness Minister has listened carefully to what I'm sure she has, because she always does to the noble and learned Lord Garnier and take that back to the department in the hope that that will not be easy.

But it may be one of the ways in which we we we really remember and act upon we we really remember and act upon what happened that dreadful night. Members across the House have have reflected on, you know, what should what should be done. The memorial is important and memorial is very important. And using the site of the tower is very important because it is where 72 people ended their lives. So that's what this bill is about.

But surely as many members, I think all members have said, it is also about what lessons we learned and what how we can act on those lessons. One of them has got to be that listening carefully to people affected, whoever they are, whoever they are, is vitally important. And we often talk in in legislation of consultation and beginning to hate that word. Consultation has to be a two way process. It has to be about asking for views, listening to those views, and then together acting on them.

Otherwise, there's no point, in my view, no point at all. Another lesson has got to be that those in authority, including ourselves, must be constantly mindful that must be constantly mindful that cutting corners can also cut lives. Because that's what happened. No bodge jobs, covered up cost, lives that regulations red tape, some people call it because they want to dismiss it. They want to say, we can cut red tape now.

We had regulations in place for the building industry in and building construction in when the Grenfell Tower fire occurred, but those regulations weren't enforced. So I think when all of us. Everybody, nobody likes all the regulations because they regard them as constraining what they can do. But regulations. Are there for a purpose. And if if the regulations had been properly followed and Grenfell lives would not have been lost. And so whenever anybody talks about, let's cut the red tape.

Well, let's remember Grenfell. Another lesson is that perverting regulatory requirements to improve profit margins must never, ever be acceptable in any circumstances. And the noble Lord Sikka has reminded us of the deliberate, deliberate acts of perverting regulatory requirements that caused Grenfell. Now, 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 Service were heroic in their efforts, but the institution had not learnt from previous incidents.

The local authority had demonstrably failed the community it's purported to serve. And had the fundamental changes been made to the culture and purpose of the local authority and council, has it, the latest reports indicate that is the latest reports indicate that is yet really to happen. And. Criminal charges must follow what has occurred, because if we don't, then there is never to be justice for the 72 and the families and that community.

And actually the rest of us are looking for justice. Because if you don't put that right, it will happen again. So I'm hoping that. Elements of the memorial will include those lessons and how we must not forget those lessons. You know, even now, nine years on, there's 15 buildings more than 18m high that have not had their work done. Those are the most risk. And there's. 4000 that the department written a bit more than 4000 buildings of 11m or more, and of those, only 1500 have been fully remediated.

You know, there's work to be done and it should be done. It's nine years nearly. And people who are paying the price, those who live there in those properties. If they're leaseholders, they're paying sky high insurance, they're paying inflated service charges. So but yet the people who. And. Organisations who cause the tragedy and are yet to pay. And that has got to follow that has got to follow. So, my Lord, there is much to remember, much to learn from the appalling and dreadful tragedy of Grenfell Tower.

But above all, the memorial must form a fitting remembrance to those who perished.
17:47
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this has been an >> My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving, thoughtful and serious debate, and I would like to begin by thanking noble Lords from across the House. The contributions we have heard reflect the weight of Grenfell's legacy for bereaved families, for survivors, for the local community and for the country as a whole. I did want to just reflect on those very precious lives brought to us so vividly in the testimony of my noble friends, Lord Roe and Baroness Hazarika.

As today's debate has shown, whatever our political differences, there is a shared understanding across the House that this bill is not about party politics. It's about the lasting impact of Grenfell on our national conscience. It's about doing what is right and about keeping faith with those most directly affected by the tragedy. And it's also about the collective commitment made by Parliament that Grenfell would be remembered with dignity, with truth and with permanence. Before I turn to the points raised by noble Lords during the debate, I want to restate very clearly exactly what this bill does.

It's a simple bill with a focussed purpose. As I said, it provides Parliament's authority for public spending required to deliver the Grenfell Tower Memorial so it can be constructed, it can be cared for, and it can be sustained over the long term. And it also authorises spending on any site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest in the peace that the noble Lord Boateng so powerfully reminded us, as well as on preservation. An archive and an exhibition, and on 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 on how it will be run. And that is because, as so many Lords have noble Lords have mentioned, this bill is not about taking control. It's about supporting the community led design work that is already underway 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 and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott mentioned my hon. Friend in the other place, the Minister, Minister Dixon, and I'm so pleased that she's 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, but let me turn first to the very powerful testimony of my noble friend Lord Roe. Lord Rose spoke about the courage of all those involved. I want to thank him for his service on that dreadful day.

I want to thank all his colleagues in the London Fire Service, and I want to thank all those who have been involved in supporting survivors and the families since, 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 we continue to serve. We continue to strive to move this on in all respects, so that the failure he highlighted is confronted and dealt with and brings the justice, the safe homes and the lasting legacy that says never again can I thank you, Lord Roe for your work and your testimony.

A number of noble Lords, including Baroness Scott, the noble Lord Sentamu, Baroness Nargund, noble Lord Forbes and many others have 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 want to reassure noble Lords we are continuing to work through local authorities, health partners and the community to ensure 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. Well, can I reassure him and the others that have spoken about this, the Department for Education and MHCLG have jointly issued additional funding to Grenfell affected schools to support children, young people and entire school population throughout the period of works to carefully take the tower down. And likewise, NHS England have confirmed that Grenfell specific NHS services will continue to be provided as the tower is taken down, and I think the support the noble Baroness Boycott mentioned support for young people involved.

I think that's very important and the departments across government will continue to work together to make sure we do. We do provide the best joined up service possible. Noble Baroness Lady Scott asked me about funding and whether we had a specific amount. The bill authorised expenditure but doesn't approve budgets or set spending levels yet, and I would like to reassure the House that detailed funding decisions will be taken through the usual scrutiny and the controls set out in managing public money.

Introducing a fixed amount at this stage would be premature, particularly in light of the fact that the community led design work is still underway. A number of noble Lords have raised the issue of the Lancaster West estate, including Baroness Boycott Baroness Sanderson, the noble Lord Sharma, Lord Boateng, noble Lords concerns on this. I would just say that to support the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate, MHCLG has already provided about £25 million in funding and 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 of Energy, Security and Net Zero.

The government has no direct management over the refurbishment of the estate, but I can. I'm sure 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. And noble Lords, including Baroness Boycott and noble Lord Sikka, have raised the matter of national oversight mechanism and we recognise that in the past inquiry recommendations have been made and accepted. But as one noble friend mentioned, left as dusty tomes on the shelf, that must not happen, and the government is continuing to explore ways to improve transparency and accountability of recommendations made to it by public inquiries.

I can reassure the House that we will continue to listen to the views of groups which have been impacted by public inquiries, so the government's progress towards implementing of inquiry recommendations is properly scrutinised and for Grenfell inquiry recommendations specifically, we will continue to provide progress updates until all the recommendations have been implemented on community engagement and a particular issue raised by my noble friends Baroness Dacres and Baroness Hyde Baroness Dacres, talking about lessons from a community that had not been listened to and Baroness Hyde talking 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 program. It doesn't lead memorial design free house, the appointed design team, on behalf of the Independent Memorial Commission, is now working with the community to develop the design to honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were forever changed by the tragedy.

My noble friend Baroness Warwick highlighted some issues around the the the housing aspects in relation to the Grenfell tragedy and the avoidable deaths and the need for a change in culture towards transparency. And we're 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 plans target dates so that unsafe homes are made safe faster and the lessons of Grenfell are never forgotten.

And I would just say I'm doing a specific piece of work around social housing stigma, a social housing stigma that sadly still exists. And for those in particular instance of Grenfell was further exacerbated by the racial inequalities so powerfully highlighted by my noble friend Baroness Nargund and Baroness Hyde. And we need to work with tenants and the sector to consider how we can tackle this stigma. Baroness Sanderson raised the issue of qualifications in social housing and that is an issue we are looking at very closely.

And my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti said, quite rightly, that housing is a human right. I absolutely agree with her on that. We've all got to pick up the lessons we learned from Grenfell in our action on social housing. I do want to reflect on the points made by the noble Lord Garnier about the matter of corporate responsibility, and also my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti referred to corruption, cover up, greed and negligence, and other noble peers mentioned this issue with respect to accountability for building safety and the specific case of Grenfell.

Those responsible must be held to account and the government fully supports the police in carrying out the investigation. I would also like to flag the forthcoming remediation bill. This will introduce new criminal penalties for people who refuse to remediate similar fire safety defects that existed on Grenfell Tower. I will also take up with the relevant Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade to flag the issue raised here today regarding corporate accountability laws, and I am happy to take part in further discussions with the noble Lord.

If he feels that would be helpful. The government is currently introducing the Public Office Accountability Law, which is usually known as the Hillsborough Law, and the Noble Law makes an important point about the need for. That's about public accountability, public accountability. The noble Lord made an important point about the need for accountability in respect of corporate bodies, too. While I'm mentioning the Hillsborough law, though, I should also acknowledge that it is the anniversary for Hillsborough tomorrow. So I think we should reflect on that as well.

And we need to make sure we take the action that's necessary to deal with the the recommendations on that. My noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti in relation to the current investigation, there are 180 officers and staff working in the Metropolitan Police Service on this. We do want to see the justice that many noble Lords have mentioned during this debate, and I know that inquiry is being progressed with appropriate resources and as quickly as the Metropolitan Police Service can do it.

A number of Lords have mentioned the matter of cladding remediation, including the noble Lord Forbes, my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Gill. Oh, sorry. Just to go back, if you're moving on to cladding regarding the moving on to cladding regarding the police investigation, do you have an update on the position on the special grant and operation special grant and operation Northleigh and whether that has been granted or not? And if not, could you write if you don't know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could you write if you don't know it as yet? Thank you. Thank you. I apologise for missing her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise for missing her point on that. On the matter of cladding failures caused, a number of noble Lords have mentioned failures caused by deregulation and a failure to listen to local voices. I can reassure the House that both for myself 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 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've taken steps to remove barriers to remediation, strengthen accountability for those responsible for unsafe buildings, and support residents facing delays or uncertainty. It's 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 be bringing 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.

And we will bring forward that remediation bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. In respect of the Grenfell Tower. Memorial Commission, can I first of all, thank my noble friend Lord Boateng, as chair of the Commission, thank his fellow co-chair, as he rightly said, for incredible service to the Commission and all of the commissioners which were so powerfully outlined in terms of the work they've done during the noble Lords speech, the noble Baroness Sanderson and noble Lord Sharma also mentioned the Commission.

The Commission is an independent, unincorporated, community led body, and 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 and the government's role in the memorials. To facilitate, support and manage the technical delivery of the program. But I hope the positive comments made by the noble Lord Boateng are will be reflected as we go forward with this work, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.

The noble Baroness Sanderson mentioned the taking down of the tower, and I know what an incredibly sensitive issue this was. Work has been currently 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 it's done respectfully, minimising noise and dust compared to other methods, and I want to 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.

And I have met with the coordinator who's there on site to discuss this with her. And on the particular issue around the helpline, I will confirm the details of that in writing. A very important matter that's come up during these debates. This debate today has been the matter of justice. I think nearly all noble Lords that have spoken have mentioned it. I've spoken about the investigation by the Metropolitan Police, those responsible. I want to be very clear about this must be held to account.

The government fully supports the police in carrying out the investigation. Of course, it's important that the government doesn't take any action that could risk prejudicing those processes. But we must all be focussed on the justice that the memory of those lost and the lives of those who survive absolutely demands. My Lords, I'm so grateful for the very thoughtful scrutiny and contributions offered in this debate. The legacy of Grenfell, the justice, the lessons learned. The memorial must lead us to the light mentioned by the noble Lord Boateng the light of hope for a better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future. I beg to move here. The question is this bill be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this bill be. Now read a second time. As many as our opinion will say content our opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. So I beg to move that this bill be not committed. Commissioner, is that the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commissioner, is that the bill be not committed. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content Of the contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. the contents have it. Lords, I beg to move that this bill be. Now read a third time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill be. Now read a third time. The question is that this bill be. Now read a third time. As many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be. Now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. The question is, would this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, would this bill do now pass? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content. Content, content. The contents have it. Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons
18:06
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to. In thanking. The government for laying this statement to begin by paying tribute to our brave servicemen and women who are serving in this women who are serving in this conflict right now. They are the very best of Britain, and they have very best of Britain, and they have this house's unequivocal support. My Lords, I remember well the 16th of October 1964. It was the day the murderous regime of Chairman Mao announced that China had exploded a nuclear bomb.

And I won't forget the shiver this sent round the world. How would we have felt, my Lords, 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. And I do think, amidst 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 didn't prevent those who chant Death to Israel, death to America from pursuing their unlawful nuclear program. The Iranian regime had all the weapons 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's only one answer, my Lords, 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. Now, 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 program. But it was not. Let us still hope that renewed efforts at negotiation will succeed, but not peace at any price, my Lords. And 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. My Lords, Britain didn't start this war, as many have said, but we should be in no doubt whose side we're on. Our allies in the Middle East and the United States. Yesterday and the other place, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who had not a single word of criticism of the Iranian regime, called the elected United States president, I quote, an immoral, dangerous and corrupt gangster.

We may deplore the language of others, but we should remember our own tongues. And my Lord's 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 own party of the importance of the relationship with the US, and we also welcome the Prime Minister meeting our dearly valued allies in the Gulf, who were disappointed by our initial response that we support his diplomatic efforts and we support 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 is a tactic used by belligerent nations, including the UK for years, not least in two world wars. Can the noble Baroness confirm to the House? The US has said that it will only apply to ships using Iranian ports, and will not affect other traffic in the strait? And can the noble Baroness tell the House what proposals the UK will be putting to the conference? The Prime Minister is convening what resources we will be committing to that effort.

And when Prime Minister said yesterday we would only act when conflict ends, my Lords, we hear a lot about a reset with Brussels. Wouldn't a good start be for Britain to follow at least one EU regulation and prescribe the brutal IRGC as a terrorist organisation, as the EU already has? What does the IRGC actually have to do to meet that response from the British government? We agree we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down.

But can the noble, 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? But isn't the real answer to end the artificial increase of fuel prices by domestic taxation and levies that have given us the highest energy prices in the developed world on defence, where 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 on defence,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every serious person, including in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence and by the end of this Parliament yesterday, the Prime Minister yesterday, the Prime Minister rejected a call from my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, to seek a joint Opposition, to seek a joint cross-party plan. Something also the Liberal Democrats have spoken of to address unsustainable welfare spending and commit resources to defence.

That I think was regrettable. We live in a new world of harsh realities and the first and greatest social Security, my Lords, is defence security. Yet sometimes this government has 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. It is what tough choices we must make to do so. Surely, my Lords, we are far better making those choices together.

As my right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Friend suggested here. My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defence Department. That is how I started my response to the statement on the 2nd of March. I statement on the 2nd of March. I went on to say the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of
18:13
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable for the conservative opposition. The approach was different. We were told when Trump called. We should have answered and we should have been in it all the way. A strategic error yesterday in the House of Commons and 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 the initial strikes. We all know the truth.

It was obvious, given the untruthfulness unreliability and the mendacious approach of the Trump administration, that what they had initially called for, which was regime change, of that homicidal regime in Iran. Now they're saying that they don't they never claimed that there would be regime change in the first place. They said that Iran should never have a nuclear program. Now, they are saying that there should be a moratorium on the program. I don't know how that fits the noble Lord Lord True, with regards to the most effective way of reducing the possibility of Iran having nuclear capability for weapons.

We supported Lord Trees government when he criticised the Trump administration that withdrawing from the JCPoA was an error. And when it comes to tackling the IRGC, we disagreed with the previous government Lord Trees government when it denied the case for prescribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. I hope that the government and the leader can bring us an update with regards to where we will see the legislative changes with regard to the IRGC, which we have been promised.

Now from America, the focus is reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which had been open, and that will be complex and costly. In his criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yair Lapid summed it up. He said 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 the 2nd of March, I also said it was likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes for energy, especially in our key economic areas.

And I also said that there were economic consequences and costs to the United Kingdom. These were obvious consequences. The impact on the economy does require an immediate response. However, it is likely that the surge in fuel prices will mean a potential £2 billion in extra tax revenue to the government, and that money should be spent to cut fuel duty by £0.10, bringing down prices at the pump by 12 per litre to bring immediate relief to individuals and to 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, so the wider consequences, which have not been referred to so far in Gaza, we still see 700,000 people displaced, are still living in emergency shelters and still being denied the vital food and medical assistance that they required. And just in recent weeks, 5000 children have been screened for malnutrition in the West Bank settler and outpost.

Violence against civilians has been conducted with impunity, and the UK government must finally say that there are repercussions in 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've been to Lebanon frequently and have been checking in with friends who are living in extreme worry, and it is chilling that 1 million people, 1 in 6 of the population, are displaced, and the IDF are targeting civilian infrastructure and bombing heavily populated areas without targeted munitions, which is a clear tactic of collective punishment, 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 welcome to train the Lebanese army. Last autumn, the UK and the Lebanese army opened a training centre in Zahrani, an area now seen forced evacuation and attacked by the IDF. Can the leader update what our ongoing relationship is with the Lebanese army, especially in the areas where we are seeing the. The military action of the IDF.

The fundamental strategic consequence of the erratic and untruthful US president and his administration is now a strategic risk to UK's interests. And all this leads to undeniable economic security and a social case for working much closer with our EU allies. Finally, we are now something that's not been mentioned either by the government in the statement or so far today. The consequences of what's happening in this region are also wider. We are now entering the fourth year of the war in Sudan.

This is three years anniversary. Just this week it is three years and one week where I was in Khartoum. And the heartbreaking to see the human toll and the country that I love. I'm glad that there was a Berlin conference on the humanitarian assistance, and I would like an update from the leader as to what our UK offer is for the Berlin conference, but we do need to do more. We need to restrict the blood gold trade. We need more on protection of civilians.

We need to see no drone zones. And I will say to the leader, for some young civilians, the UK could offer hope these young civilians from Sudan would be wanting to study in the UK. It is deeply regrettable that a Labour government has taken the decision to ban visa applications from those young people, civilians in Sudan who wish a better life for themselves. We've kept it for Ukraine, but we're banning it from Sudan. Why is that? I hope that the leader will agree with me that the future of Sudan, one Sudan United, will be one which is led by the civilians and particularly protection of civilians, especially for the women and girls who've taken far too suffered far too great a toll.

The legitimate future of Sudan is one which is civilian and representative, and I hope that the UK is Penholder will give a clear statement that that is our intention here.
18:20
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> Listened to both noble Lords speeches. Can I just say I think we ended on one note and started on ended on one note and started on another, which was the appropriate place to end. As the noble Lord Purvis did on the catastrophic and heartbreaking humanitarian issues, he mentioned Sudan, but it goes across the region where people's lives are changed irrevocably in so many different ways, and lives are lost is something we should never forget when we're talking about any of this.

Of the political efforts and diplomatic efforts. Lives are lost and lives are changed. I also think that the noble truths right at the beginning to praise the work of our armed forces and our military for what they do on our behalf and on the national interest. They put themselves in the line of danger. And many of us will know people have friends and family who are engaged in the armed forces, and I think we have nothing but our respect and our admiration.

My Lords, does the world feel a safer place today than it did several weeks ago? And that is, I think, one of the concerning issues here and why it's so important that we focus our efforts on the diplomatic work that has to be done in order to ensure the safety and to act in the national interest. And I think the Prime Minister has been clear and consistent throughout this conflict, and his tone and his way of looking at it has been measured.

And I noted the comments of the noble Lord True and noble Purvis. I think the Leader of the Opposition hasn't been as consistent now, her own spokesperson said just recently, at the start of this conflict, the Leader of the Opposition was very clear she would have let Israel and the US use our bases for their offensive on Iran. And yet yesterday, she said, I was talking about verbal support. That is not really consistent. What has to be consistent is the efforts that we should make as a country towards de-escalation of such a conflict, and the priority has to be de-escalation, but also getting the Straits of Hormuz open because the there's two aspects of this.

One is the toll on the civilian populations, and one is the world economic situation as well, which is getting worse. So on all these issues, I think it is important. I want to come on with the defence spending, that there is the recognition of a national interest that crosses, I think, party boundaries more than any other. The noble Lord True asked me a number of questions. First of all, can I say that Hezbollah, we completely condemn the attacks on Israel, but we also think that the Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire.

And if you look at the what has happened in Lebanon and how the Lebanese government. And we have to answer the point Purvis made, we have a very good relationship with the military and the government in Lebanon, and I think they've been courageous in how they are trying to stand up against. Hezbollah. Condemned Hezbollah because in this country, it is fully described as a terrorist organisation, and we're going to continue to support Lebanon's sovereignty. Lebanon's government and their armed forces, and we will work closely with them.

I think that's a good relationship and a place where we should be. The number. Lord True asked two questions, one about the Iranian ports. My understanding is the blockading of the Iranian ports, but only President Trump made the announcement. It started today. We always have to see how these things work out in practice. But on Friday, the Prime Minister and President Macron will be convening and bringing together 40 nations in common. Endeavour, I think, is a significant achievement.

And if we are going to see peace or the ceasefire hold, it is very fragile ceasefire at the moment. If that is to hold, it's going to be done by diplomatic efforts around the world and nations coming together. And I actually commend the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown of using his convening role. I think escalating language wherever it's from. And I agree with both Lord Phillips point, wherever it is from language is used that is careless or deliberately escalating.

Conflict has no place here. I think how we use our words and what we say is going to be really important going forward. So Friday's meeting is going to be important. I'm sure the Prime Minister will report back on that one. Nobles asked about the IRGC prescription. I'd have to gently chide the noble 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'm wrong, I'll check that, sir, I was given.

But he will know on this one that we currently have over 550 sanctions against Iranian linked individuals and entities, including the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We do recognise the threats that are posed. We keep this under constant review. We're not going to obviously comment, as previous governments haven't, on prescription measures, what action is being taken. But I can tell the House that we are taking forward the recommendations by Jonathan Hall Casey, including, as was in his report, developing a prescription like tool for state threats that may require legislation further down the line.

I'll come back to the House on that when we have something to report. My Lord, I appreciate I'm running out of time in giving my response. I'm surprised by. But I might just say the the priorities are de-escalation. The priorities are open rates for news. We're working with others on that. We have both military capacity. We have the political and diplomatic and looking at logistical arrangements. And I if I've missed any questions out, I will come back to them through other answers that I give during the statement.

Backbench members but not speeches. This is set out in the companion chapter six, pages 86 and 87.6 .76.8. And here first, the conservative benches. My Lords.
18:27
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)
-
-
The statement and I draw attention to my interest both in the Middle East and working with the Middle East and working with organisation conflict resolution. Will the noble Lord lady, the Will the noble Lord lady, the Minister Leader of the House, join me in. Also commending the role as the. My noble friend Lord True of Pakistan in its convening of the important bridge of diplomacy and therefore I do appreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister in convening the meeting on Friday. The Chief of Army Staff, the Field Marshal in Pakistan, has played a very notable role, as has Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

But my question is specific to our Gulf partners in welcoming the Prime Minister's recent visit. Can the noble Lady, the Leader of the House, give a reassurance on the CCP arrangement that we have with key countries such as Bahrain, in ensuring their long term security and prosperity? And linked to that, the reassurance that our Gulf partners are seeking on their security for any other future challenge that may come, and also link to that, the support we're giving both to Gulf nations and to Pakistan in their diplomatic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

efforts. He's absolutely right. I think Pakistan has done a great service Pakistan has done a great service on this, and the role of the Prime Minister and other leaders in Pakistan must be recognised. And I think the Prime Minister has as well, and has thanked them and praised them for the work in not the easiest of circumstances to do. He's right about the longer term partnerships with other Gulf states, partnerships with other Gulf states, and the Prime Minister is in regular contact.

And recently he was he met with various leaders as well. And I think that's an important relationship because they're the ones who are also talking to us about the protection of their own safety and their security, so I can give them assurance. Those are long term relationships that are valued by us and by those other countries.
18:28
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lib Dems. >> Wholeheartedly support the comments of my noble Lord and friend Lord Purvis, particularly about the West Bank. But can I just about the West Bank. But can I just follow up on the the point that Lord Ahmed made, particularly around Pakistan? Because since the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, there's news now that Donald Trump is hopeful that potentially in the next 48 hours, there could be a breakthrough. So my question to you is, what contact have we had with Pakistan, in particular with the Field Marshal ACM and the Prime Minister, Shahbaz Sharif, because I welcome the Prime Minister's efforts to get world leaders here later this week.

But if the talks resume in Pakistan, we may well have to ensure that we are at least hooked into the Pakistani government to make sure that British interests are served during those talks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Flight will fully cooperate with Pakistan and give them support with Pakistan and give them support because the valuable work they are doing. There are different strands of discussions going on on of discussions going on on different areas. I think it was probably optimistic for people to think that in one set of talks, a think that in one set of talks, a conclusion would be reached that would solve all problems and issues. And I remember from my days as a Northern Ireland Minister, you'd often have talks about talks before you even had the talks.

And I think it is a case that there were 21 hours of talks took place. It was an ambitious program. They had. I would hope that we would see further talks, and that is optimistic signs that we're seeing that talks could continue. Pakistani Prime Minister will be crucial in that, in convening those talks and hosting those talks and negotiating if they can, if we can find a way forward, that there are stages of which progress can be made.

Making progress makes it easier to take the next step. If you're trying to climb a ladder one step before another. One foot in front of another. So I would hope that all of us would want to see every effort made, that those diplomatic efforts for talks would be very clear, very supported. But let's just take one step forward and see what changes can be made.
18:31
Lord Bishop of Southwark Portrait The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)
-
-
My, my Lords, my Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for coming to the House to answer 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 and 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 threat and reality of war.

And I agree with the noble Baroness that the focus now does need to be desperately on de-escalation with the noble Baroness Shah 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 great suffering in Lebanon. May I also raise with the government the severe distress on these benches at the unprecedented barring of the Latin Patriarch from the Holy Sepulchre on Maundy Thursday, and the restricted access to Christian saints and the continuing threats to the status quo in Jerusalem,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including the Al-Aqsa compound. I'm grateful to the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the right reverend Prelate, and I think what is clear that across the House, whatever views are held, there is whatever views are held, there is rightly unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian regime and the actions they have taken against their own they have taken against their own people, as well as external actions. So it's quite clear the House is So it's quite clear the House is united on that. Yes, he's absolutely right. I do think the relationship that we have with the Gulf states is very important.

It's one that the Prime Minister values. And if you heard his statement in the House of Commons yesterday, he made it quite clear that that value is on both sides and they have welcomed the visits he's made and the engagement he has had with them. On his final point, yes, of course, the ability to worship in a way that people want to and to recognise that is extremely important in a civilised society. It's something that we should strive for and support worldwide.
18:33
Lord Austin of Dudley Portrait Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords, what assessment has the government made of the impact of Hamas refusing to of the impact of Hamas refusing to disarm, which was a key plank of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza? And isn't the 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 Israel tries to defend itself, which it must, Iran will claim the deal has been violated, close the straits and choke the world economy.

And finally, was the Lord Privy Seal as shocked as I was 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble, the noble Lord Purvis council across the chamber. I will leave him to answer the noble's leave him to answer the noble's point on his views. But it is right that we condemn violence, terrorism, that we condemn violence, terrorism, attacks from wherever they come. And we do feel that Lebanon should And we do feel that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire. And I think this is not a war that the think this is not a war that the people of Lebanon want.

And I think they've been courageous in calling out and taking and taking, condemning Hezbollah's attacks and the actions of Hezbollah. So I think we want to see that division quite clearly and support that between the government of Lebanon and the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah. And Israel does, of course, have the right to defend itself. But we do believe that the Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire.
18:35
18:35
18:36
18:37
18:39
18:40
18:41
18:42
18:43
18:45
18:46
18:47
18:47
18:48
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
obvious, it seems, to everyone except the FCDO, that this Chagos deal is dead and Ministers urgently deal is dead and Ministers urgently need a plan B. So let me ask the noble Lord will the government look again at the plans considered by a again at the plans considered by a number of previous governments on the viability and cost of resettlement of Chagossians on the resettlement of Chagossians on the outer islands? This would be considerably cheaper than the current deal, and thanks to the excellent work by this House's excellent work by this House's International Relations Committee, we now know that the vast majority of those Chagossians, of course, want to remain British and want nothing to do with Mauritius, although Ministers seem to have not yet finally accepted that this 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. This is as it should be, my Lords. So, as I said, I welcome the news that the government will not seek to take this bill any further in this session and will not seek to carry it over into the new parliamentary session. The times last week reported that the Chagos deal was dead and that there had been briefed that no bill relating to the Chagos Treaty will be in the King's Speech.

That's very welcome. But can the noble, noble Lord the Minister, confirm whether that briefing is accurate? Parliament has not yet been told. And 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, of course, would 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.

So can the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that not a penny will be paid to Mauritius now that this deal is dead? His colleague, Minister Doughty, in the Commons yesterday was a little evasive on this point. So can the noble Lord put an end to any rumours about possible compensation or other payments to Mauritius this evening, and put it on the record in Parliament? Now that Mauritius has no legitimate claim on taxpayers money without this treaty any other place. My right hon.

Friend Priti Patel asked Ministers about the purpose of this upcoming UK delegation to Mauritius, but the Minister failed to answer so can the noble Lord, the Minister. Please tell the House today what the purpose of that delegation is? Who is going on this delegation to Mauritius as part of it, and what will they in fact, be negotiating? Now, we know that the Chagos Surrender deal is vehemently opposed by decision makers. Political decision makers in the United States and its opposition members in this House.

That brought the importance of the 1966 UK US treaty to the fore late last year. So can the noble Lord, 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? Turning to the Chagossians themselves, who are too long and too often have been mistreated and ignored throughout this process. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, give the House an update on the status of those Chagossians who have returned to their homeland on purpose? Banos what is the UK government's view of their status in light of the ruling of the British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court, that the Chagossians have a lawful right of abode? Can he say why the government are refusing to allow the mosquito nets, bed linen and water purifiers? Their resupply vessel is the only small boat that the government seems to be interested in stopping in any way whatsoever.

They have been ignored the Chagossians 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 those chagossian people. And before I sit down, my Lords, I'd like to thank all noble Lords on all sides of the House who have stood up for the Chagossians, who stood up to the British taxpayer and stood up for our national interests 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we were making all along. They. My Lords, this has turned into a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has turned into a very sorry affair, and I continue to be sorry for the Chagossian community who still see political turmoil and the injustice that they turmoil and the injustice that they have endured over many years, has the potential of continuing because the same international legal the same international legal position remains not only to do with the status of the archipelago, but also to do with the rights of the Gagauzian community, which 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. The Minister has heard me say this on a number of occasions. I say the outset because from the statement in November 2022 by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, that negotiations would commence on ceding sovereignty, he did so by saying that it would cover the international legal elements. But in that process of the negotiations that then took place, the community
18:54
18:54
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
ongoing. But he also restated that the Conservative government's strong opposition to any right of strong opposition to any right of return or settlement or visits, or working on Diego Garcia with regards 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 it in that treaty. So we are operating under a under a roll over 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 contradicted by President Trump, but what is the status of the understanding with regards to the treaty? It has been amended on a number of occasions since it was signed, but it hasn't been fundamentally reviewed. That was a choice by the previous government, but fundamentally, they have been the continual rights of the denial of of return.

And the Labour government didn't consult properly the community that would be affected directly. So can the Minister clarify if the government is content with the text of the treaty itself, not just the fact that it can't be brought into force because the legislation has now been withdrawn in this session, or will the government take an opportunity of looking at the treaty? Again? It is of importance to be clear on this point. This was not clear in the House of Commons yesterday.

There are, of course, opportunities to look at the treaty elements to firm up those areas which are not simply permissive with regards to the chagossian rights, but will enshrine Chagossian rights also with regards to the test for value for money, scrutiny and accountability. The Minister knows that these are the issues that these benches have focussed on relentlessly, and indeed, we had amendments to that effect that passed this House, which had cross-party support. If there is a long delay, then the Chagossian rights will be continuously denied.

So there is an opportunity to operationalise those rights and for the government to right the wrongs of many of its predecessors and bring in force the mechanisms to do so under our domestic legislation. This would overturn the statement of Foreign Secretary David Cameron. But these benches would support legislation to ensure that whilst we are waiting for the clarity from the United States administration, which none of us can guarantee, then the Chagossian rights are not put in limbo. They have been denied those rights, but they can be addressed now.

The funding elements, not with regard to Mauritius, but to guards to the Chagossian community themselves. We can also operationalise. There seems to be commitment by the government to support a trust fund for the rights of the Chagossians. 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, because we simply cannot trust the Trump administration. Notwithstanding the previous statements by the US State Department officials.

And can the Minister state what the US processes are that we will trust within the space of two days? And I have a degree of sympathy for the government. Within the space of two days, there was a statement from the State Department, United States saying that there was supportive of this, followed by a white House Truth Social posting by the president. What is the mechanism in America that we will now trust? Finally, a technical point that was raised by my hon.

Friend Richard Ford in the House of Commons yesterday with regards to the military relationship with the United States, there seems to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether the United States have 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 with regards to what our understanding is of what the US are currently using, can use, and what the UK will allow the use of both the port and the military base of Diego Garcia.

Finally, I hope the Minister can take up an offer for there to be a degree of cross-party. It might be difficult, but at least at this stage, a degree of cross-party consensus that the community's rights that have been denied so long should not be put on ice. Waiting for the clarity from the State Department, from the United States. We should be operationalising those rights now.
18:59
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Oh, well, can I thank everyone for their warm welcome to the opportunity to respond to this opportunity to respond to this debate? It's an important debate. And can I say both to Lord Callanan. So everybody who's contributed and also to Lord Purvis and many members on both sides of the House is an important issue. Let me say straight away, just to set some context, the the difference between us is not one of, of ensuring that we have a strategic base, which is of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and of crucial importance to us and our allies and to do our best for the Chagossian people.

There is a difference of view about how that can be achieved. And clearly, as Lord Callanan has outlined in the remarks he's made and the the various speeches he's made from the Dispatch Box over the last few months, supported by many of his colleagues. He has a different view to the government as to how that can be be achieved, and he's argued for that. Lord Purvis, in particular with others, has argued for sort of middle ground with that, but also raised the issue, as many members have done, about the Chagossians and the rights of the Chagossians themselves.

None of us, none of us in the House believe that the way the Chagossians was treated originally was actually something of which we, any of us, can be proud. But we are as a government. Any government has to deal with the situation that they're confronted with, the situation that that they're dealing with. Now, let me try and answer some of the points and directly answer some of the particular points that have been made. The government, in terms of that, the noble Lord will know that the the bill will not pass this particular parliamentary session.

As for the King's speech, let's see what's in the King's speech. But the government will continue the discussions on how to take this forward and will continue discussions with with with the Americans. It cannot. We've said all along, it can't proceed without the support of the Americans. The exchange of notes from 1966, although slightly amended, are the. Underpin the treaty. So of course we need US support for that. And at the moment, although originally. Given that support is not not forthcoming from the present at the current president at the current time.

So I hope that directly answers. Of course, we need US agreement with respect to this. We need to take it forward. Forward on the particular issue of the money. There will be no treaty payments at all to Mauritius in terms of money. So that's just a sort of the. There will be no. The noble Lord, I him and I spar across the Dispatch Box not as much as I'd like, if I'm honest about it. But let me just let me just say this to him.

Mauritius is a country every now and again, any country in the world the UK will have relationships with will sometimes do have arrangements with. We'll have educational visits, exchanges, all those sorts of things. So for me to stand here and say there will be absolutely no nothing at all spent from the UK to Mauritius would be. And the noble Lord wouldn't be able to say if he was to where I am. What I've said to him, which is. Question was about was with respect to the treaty there will be no treaty payments, and I hope he understood and accepted that that that particular point in terms of the the visit the noble Lord mentioned the FCDO officials will be going to Mauritius to speak to the Mauritians.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. FCDO officials go all to various countries all over the world. They will be going to discuss the particular arrangements where we are at the current current time. In terms of that, there are six people on the particular island which the noble Lord referred to. We have not. Because I asked this question. I am told there has been, and I accept there's been no denial of humanitarian provision to the people on the island at all, and I'm told that.

So I just want. Well, unless people are not telling me accurate information, I'm telling the noble Lord what I've been told. There has been no denial of humanitarian provision to the people on the island as far as the the situation with respect to the Supreme Court, the noble Lord will know that the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court allowed. Rejected the way the right to remove the people from there by by by that was rejected. That has been appealed. And so we await the appeal to see what happens as a consequence of that appeal.

So I hope that directly answers some of the questions that the noble Lord posed in terms of the point, the the noble Lord Lord Purvis is quite right to point out that the negotiations, of course, were not started by this government, were started by the previous government, and in fact, such was the determination of the previous government to get some sort of arrangement. There were 11 rounds of negotiation. Wasn't that one round and it just fizzled out. There were 11 separate rounds of negotiation now.

Well, all I'm saying now, the defence, of course, is, well, we wouldn't have done the deal that was before us now. But all I'm saying is, why on earth would a government have 11 rounds of negotiation? Was it just a pretence? Was it just sort of something that they were not that weren't actually serious about the negotiations? And as the Lord Purvis pointed out to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee just before the last election, the Foreign Secretary of the time made talks about how they were negotiating to try 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 that will obviously, that underpins the Lord Callanan Lord Hannan is quite right. That underpins the exchange of notes, underpins the treaty, the existing treaty or any change in the future. And of course, that would need to be negotiated and changed in order for it to to be taken, taken forward in terms of the treaty delay, what happens to Gaussians outside of the treaty? The arrangements in the treaty can't be put in place because the treaty isn't isn't enforced.

So we deal with the existing. But I give one one thing that will happen. What we seek to do is that the heritage visits. We would want those to resume as soon as possible, and the noble Lord will know they've not taken place since 2020, and we would hope that the heritage visits, including to Diego Garcia, that we may be able to restart and get get those going there. But as for the 40 million trust fund, as for the resettlement program, they they await the treaty for those to be to be introduced.

And I would just point out the treaty that has had to be moved forward has been delayed, of course, as a resettlement program in IT that doesn't exist at the current time. So the ability of Chagossians to resettle, not to Diego Garcia, but to the wider British Indian Overseas territory there, is enshrined within the treaty, which is now not going forward with. And at the moment there is no resettlement program. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Foreign Secretary at the time pointed out to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

But of course, there are existing arrangements around education, as I pointed out to Lord Callanan, other things that will continue, but the things under the treaty cannot go forward because they don't exist in law at the current time. Talks 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 no combat operations from all. All combat operations from that base, rather are subject to joint decision making.

But no government is going to talk about necessarily about the various permissions that are given on specific operations. But I hope that gives some confidence that those those things are subject to that joint joint decision making. Let me just finish with this. Can I thank again all noble Lords Differin wrestling with a difficult problem. The government's view is the security of that base at Diego Garcia is paramount. It is absolutely fundamental to us. The. The opposition believe His Majesty's opposition believe that if we simply carry on as we are, then 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 we protect the integrity of what is a fundamentally important base, not only to ourselves, to the US and to the security of the whole of the Western Alliance. And that's why we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sought to take this treaty forward. My Lords, we now have up to 20 minutes of questions from but not minutes of questions from but not speeches from backbench members. This is the companion chapter six, This is the companion chapter six, page 86, 87 .6.7 and 6.8. If the conservative benches. First.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, my Lord, my Lord, conservative. If anyone was left
19:08
19:10
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
The the noble Baroness Bull. No, we're not binning. It's not being binned. I think binning was the phrase that noble Baroness used. We're not binning the treaty. We. We will look to take it forward and. And discussions will continue with respect to it. It just won't. The current parliamentary session will not allow that to happen because the parliamentary time. So, as I say, we cannot, as I said, cannot take it forward without US support. But those discussions will will carry on.

In terms of the investment programme, as I've said to the noble Baroness on on many occasions, the government is increasing defence spending. We will continue to do that. There have been various commitments to 3% in the next Parliament should the economic circumstances allow, and then on to 2035 with further investment. But all I can say to the noble barristers who say time and time again, whatever the argument about the totality of spending, let's also recognise that there are significant sums of money being spent in ship building, in aircraft, in dockyards, in all of our armed forces across in many parts of of our country and indeed abroad.

And we need to recognise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what we are doing as well as we are not, as well as what we are not doing. My Lord, my Lord, I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, my Lord, I thank the noble Lord Lord Coaker for his presentation. I have considerable presentation. I have considerable sympathy for the situation that the government finds itself in, subject government finds itself in, subject to the capricious decisions of the US president, and I would love to be a fly on the wall in the State Department, to be honest. But the fact is that the government has made some missteps. I think my noble friend Lord Purvis said that, and I think I hope that the noble Lord Coaker would recognise that
19:11
19:12
19:13
19:14
19:15
19:15
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Noble Lord makes an important point, and as far as I'm aware, there are numerous members of your Lordships' House who've met with the Austrian community. Numerous ministerial visits have taken place with the representatives of the Chagossian community and the Chagossian. So all of those. There have been numerous visits, no doubt numerous meetings, and no doubt those meetings will continue because there are obviously important. So of course they will take place and carry on as we seek to have a resolution to the particular issue that we face.

At the end of the day, as I say, it's about how we take from the government's point of view, is how we take this forward to protect not only the rights of the child as far

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as we can, but the integrity of the base. At Diego Garcia. Conservative. Conservative. In response to a question from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Al Pinkerton in the other House about what the collapse other House about what the collapse of the treaty means for the. In practice, for the long promised right of return for Chagossians, the Minister replied, we still believe that this. The treaty is the best route under Mauritian. the best route under Mauritian. Mauritius's guidance leading to resettlement.

Can he now confirm that that was misleading? The treaty does not require the Mauritians to resettle, and if they do allow resettlement, which they're against at present, they could resettle it with Mauritian people and not Chagossian. people and not Chagossian.
19:17
19:17
19:17
19:18
19:19
19:20
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Well, just to. The the. So again, just to show that my preparation for this, I have the exchange of notes in front of me and the. The noble order is right. This is 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. But he is right to say that the official. The officials have agreed that exchange of notes, both here and in the US.

However, not all of the American system has agreed with the changes that are in the exchange of notes and whatever our view, there is quite an important part of the American system that's not agreed with the change. All I can say to the noble Lord is that we will continue the discussions that we are having to try to ensure that we take forward what we believe to be in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the United States, but also the security alliances upon which we we we depend.

And I think that's the important thing. I just the only thing I would say is, and I just say this, I don't want to sound pompous, although it does sound pompous, the. As a UK government Minister, that's what I'm interested in. That's what I'm really interested in, how I work with others across government, in the interests of the country and the alliances that we represent. And I appreciate that. There's all sorts of others who are doing this or doing that. My interest is the defence of the country and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protection of Diego Garcia. I'll always be here for the Labour benches, then the conservative benches and then Baroness Suttie.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Suttie. My Lords, thank you very much for letting me get in. My noble friend, the Minister has a very robust. But I have to say, robust. But I have to say, 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. Can I just Lord Purvis asked for. Can I just begin with what Lord Callanan said? He began by accusing the government of doing a U-turn.

I think there have been two U-turns over this one from the president of the United States. Volatile as always, and we've heard just how far the negotiations had already gone between the State Department and the FCDO. The second U-turn has been undertaken by the Conservative Party. It was absolutely clear that it was absolutely clear that the last conservative government, as the. As my noble friend, the Minister said, spent 11 rounds of debate on this and they produced a proposal for a treaty which has got full of.

Is full of all the things that have been said in in the treaty that this government has come up with. So I think there's a bit of a U-turn on his side. And I'd like to ask my noble friend, I'd like to ask my noble friend whether he agrees with me that, given what has happened, it's somewhat hypocritical to hear the conservative frontbenches making the sort of criticisms they've made when they've been through all this themselves.
19:23
19:24
19:24
19:25
19:26
19:26
19:27
19:28
19:30
19:31
19:32
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
size of government since 2010 and will largely end the practice of will largely end the practice of unpaid Ministers with no. Has been a source of concern for noble Lords in recent years. It will ensure the in recent years. It will ensure the Prime Minister of the day has the flexibility needed to appoint enough Ministers to meet modern enough Ministers to meet modern government demands. For noble Lords who are not familiar with the competition. It might just be competition. It might just be helpful to shed some light on it and why the change is required.

As noble Lords are 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, the statutory limit on how many ministerial salaries are available are set out in the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act from 1975. The current limit is 109 salaries. He has not changed since the 1975 act was introduced over a half a century ago.

In addition, there's a set 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 of 1975, and that limit is 95. There is no equivalent limit on the number of your Lordships that are able to serve as Ministers. The Ministerial and Other Salaries Act of 1975 also sets out salaries that should be paid to eight other office holders. The speakers of both houses. The Leader of the Opposition in both houses, the chief opposition 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 currently 83 salaries that can be allocated at Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary ranks a further four salaries allocated to Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General and the Advocate General for Scotland and 22 salaries allocated to government whips. Bear with me with all these numbers, I just want to give absolute clarity to the House, the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act of 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, 5050 Secretary of State Rank and Minister of State rank salaries and 83. Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Secretary. Rank salaries. I've already stated these limits were set in 1979, which is over 50 years ago as a result of the demands of modern governments. All governments since 2010 have consistently featured larger ministerial team than the existing act. Provisions permit to be paid that range from an average of 108 Ministers in the Cameron and governments to 123 in the government.

There are currently 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 predominantly fallen to Ministers. In your Lordships House. Now, my Lords, I know this regrettable situation has been a source of frustration for many years and was also described by one noble Lord as a humiliation during the passage of the House of Lords Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay's Amendment Number 90 at Committee and the noble Lord Lord True amendment 13 and 13.

A report sought to address this by preventing unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of your Lordships House. The subsequent government report, when forward legislation today, which would largely end the practice of unpaid Ministers. It remains the case that the Prime Minister decide on the allocation of ministerial salaries. My Lords, I am confident 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, often managing some of the broadest and most demanding portfolios in government and for a significant number of them to serve in the House.

Unpaid cannot be right. And in terms of business of the House and Minister in this House from either party could be doing the work in the House of 3 or 4 Ministers. In the other place, someone Lord Dear summarise the bill. The bill increases the cap on ministerial salaries for 109 to 120. All additional salaries will be allocated to either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank at the office of the Prime Minister. And as I've said, they operate cumulatively.

This means salaries not allocated at a senior rank can be used to pay Minister a more junior rank within the limits. So the Bill will therefore make provision for one additional salary at the Secretary of State rank. That increases to 22 for additional salaries be allocated at Secretary of State or Minister of State rank, increasing the overall number of Secretary of State Ministers to 54 from 50 and 11. Additional salaries at either. Secretary of State. Minister of state. Parliamentary Secretary. Increasing the overall limit of those from 83 to 94.

My Lords, if all additional salaries were allocated to the most senior Ministers possible, this would result in one extra salary for Secretary of State, three for Ministers of state and seven for parliamentary secretaries. The limits on Lord Chancellor the Attorney General, Solicitor General Advocate General for Scotland and Government whips remain unchanged. The limits on other office holder salaries were also remain unchanged. As I've said, the increased 120 salaries reflects the average number of Ministers in each government since 2010, and the changes set out in clause one of the Bill.

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 effectively be reserved for Lords Ministers. My Lord. It's also important to stress that this Bill does not increase the pay of Ministers. Pay in your Lordships House. Increased in 2019, 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 the 1st of April this year is 98,599? And if noble Lords were to look at the explanatory notes, they'll see that it looks as if Lords Ministers are paid at a higher salary than Ministers in the House of Commons. And yet Ministers in the House of Commons also received their ministerial salary. But for those Ministers that is the only payment they receive. My Lords, the Prime Minister maintained the ministerial salary freeze on entering office and the Bill doesn't change that either.

So, my Lords, to conclude this short bill has a welcoming. I'm sure 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. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord True because he helpfully indicated his support for the Bill.

When we were at the Third Reading of the Hereditary Peers Bill. I'm grateful for his support. My Lords, I 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 New Speaker ****

possible. I beg to move. Yes. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be now read a second time. Well, my Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, for her introduction to this bill and her very clear explanation of it, which very clear explanation of it, which I can confirm I support. And I can I can confirm I support. And I can therefore be brief, as most of the House will know, followed this, and the noble Baroness alluded to this. I do have form on 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, people had to have private means to become a Minister in many circumstances. Now, my Lords, has always been wealthy people who've 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
19:41
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
on my side when I was leader made great personal sacrifices, for which I once told the House I was which I once told the House I was ashamed to ask them and which I was beyond appreciation when I saw them ready to make those sacrifices. But the converse of that appreciation 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 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. And 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. And 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 four session, I was told by my own very senior colleagues that it would, and I quote, cause comment when I perhaps was approaching election or something.

But when I tried to address the matter by different means and ensuring at least that senior unpaid figures on both government and opposition frontbenchers such as a Foreign Office Minister and leading shadow spokesman, might be allowed deemed attendants 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 that I was told Labour would have fewer Ministers and so it would not be necessary. Well, it hasn't quite worked out that way, and it was never really going to.

As the noble Baroness has explained, it's. This position has grown and persisted for decades. The number of unpaid Lords, frontbenchers which rose as high as 13, maybe even 14 in my time, is still at least 11 as advertised currently on the.gov.uk list of Ministers. Now it would be invidious to list those names, but they include some of the most hard working and respected members of the frontbench opposite, just as they did under our government. Now, this bill could bring that inherent unfairness in public life to a close, and I hope that when the noble responds that she will undertake that it will do precisely that, she said it would largely do it.

I do understand there may be transitional reasons why that might not be possible, but public office in the 21st century. My Lords, I affirm, must be open to all. Now, this bill allows the total number of paid Ministers of noble Baroness Maclean 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 the noble Baroness explained, remains unchanged at 95.

So if the Commons end, as I may put it, or the other place, or patronage Secretary still decides that the House of Commons members should take up all their potential places, then 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 this Bill. Now, as the noble Baroness alluded to this fact, that's still a ratio of nearly 4 to 1 between this House and the other place, and without disparaging anyone, because I had an uphill struggle with my own colleagues, my my Lords.

And I make no disparagement of this government because they're addressing the point. But sometimes I wonder, wondered over the years if 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 mean, I said I wouldn't name names, but I look at people such as the noble Lord Lord Hanson and Flint, who carries out what I think we would all acknowledge as one of the hardest jobs in government.

Carrying the Home Office brief in your Lordships House. And I remember my noble friend who was the House was praising not long ago. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a truly outstanding Minister of State in the Foreign Office and indefatigable traveller in service of his country. These people, my Lords, need to be properly recognised now. Many might contend, and could contend that the real answer would, of course, be to restrain the growing size of the payroll. In the other place, it doesn't need to be 95 hasn't always been 95, but that's not on offer currently.

And therefore I do feel in the interests of the whole House, we should proceed, as the noble Baroness suggests, in this bill, and 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 to the House of Lords Bill earlier this session, which I recognised was not actually practical in its explicit effect, but was designed to allow this House to express a view and perhaps force the Other place to consider this issue.

And so that has been done, and I'm grateful for the constructive discussions that I've 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 on various frontbenchers in this House. But setting that aside for the interim, I do welcome this bill. It ends a long standing injustice. It opens a door, 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 cooperation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

across this chamber, for which I will always stand. Here. There's someone relatively.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's someone relatively. New to the house. I'm very struck, as we've just heard from the noble Lord True, how hard the noble Lord True, how hard Ministers work in this House, and having spent 20 or more years working with governments of working with governments of different persuasions over and seeing Ministers, and I always think the Lords Ministers often think the Lords Ministers often work harder and get less work than they do. I rise to make three further points in support of this bill.

First of all, I'm honoured to follow both noble Lord Lord True and my friend, my noble friend Baroness Smith, and congratulate them on the speeches they've made, but also on the collaborative approach they've taken to this issue. As a result, I'm confident that should we pass this bill and I hope we will. It will bring benefits both to this House and to the government long into the future. On a previous occasion occasion, the noble Lord Lord True set out three important principles, which I just want to repeat now, because I think that each one of them is important.

There should be a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, which fits with the how hard minister's and the Lord's work that there should be equal treatment of Ministers in both houses, which I think is also an important point. And perhaps most importantly of all, that nobody, for lack of means, should be prevented from taking on the role of a Minister. And my noble friend Baroness Miller has totally supported those three principles, I do too. Second, I want to emphasise that the that the last of those three points is 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. How shall 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 such evident competence, commitment, passion and talent. I would not want either the
19:50
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton Portrait Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Labour)
-
-
government or the country to be deprived of the contribution that any one of them might make as any one of them might make as Ministers, simply because the role was unremunerated and a similar case made that may may no doubt case made that may may no doubt have been made in the past. And indeed the noble Lord Lord True says he might have made it in relation to all sides of the House in the past, and perhaps in the future. Third, there is an future.

Third, there is an encouraging precedent. Some of you may be aware that I have a very modest sideline in medieval history. In 1406, Henry the Fourth 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 wasn't the GC, it was the Lollards. And then, as now, English shipping was under threat in an economically crucial narrow strait, the English Channel at that time rather than Hormuz.

Then, as now too, there were expensive wars in two locations distracting the government. And finally, according to the speaker of the day anyway, Sir John Tiptoft, there was some rascals in the King's household. I wonder, to use Barbara Tuchman evocative phrase, whether we sometimes find we're looking in a distant mirror as part of his response, Henry the Fourth drew heavily on talent in the Lords. He strengthened his council. He 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, quote, remarkably successful and 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. To conclude 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, just perhaps, in spite of everything, we can look forward to positive financial and economic developments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in due course. I support the bill. My Lords. Like my noble friend Lord True, I would like to add my support to this bill which seeks to rectify situation that as leader, I too sought to address but too sought to address but unfortunately did not succeed in doing so, namely amending the law to ensure that Ministers are paid to ensure that Ministers are paid for the work they do, whether they are here or in the other place. That may seem common sense and 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 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 infamous whiteboard and the post-it notes that came with it. And when it came to deciding laws ministerial positions, the Chief Whip and I were given considerable
19:53
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
discretion in terms of the appointments themselves. But too often we 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 Although we managed that with varying degrees of success, there were simply not enough salaries available. So invariably we had to available. So invariably we had to ask some Lords Ministers to take on their roles unpaid on occasion. As we've heard, this meant excellent we've heard, this meant excellent colleagues were either unable to take a job in the first place or, if they could, some found themselves unable indefinitely to continue in unpaid roles, depriving the government of talented individuals.

And this wholly unsatisfactory situation is what this bill aims to tackle. Noble Lords have already been recognised in the speeches we've heard across this House are well aware of how hard our Ministers work. We see on a daily basis the breadth of responsibilities that Lord Ministers have, not just in relation to their specific departmental policy areas, but also their much broader role in representing the government in this House, the challenges of not having a salary are a particular issue for Ministers, who's a key part of their role, are required to travel frequently to represent our nation, and so cannot attend the House regularly.

To expect people to do their jobs for free due to outdated legislation is, in my view, entirely unreasonable. The unfairness of the current situation was, to me, made particularly stark during Covid, when the House agreed to a proposal from the commission that additional payments be made to opposition frontbenchers to reflect fairly the additional work they were undertaking to prepare for debates and legislation. When the House was sitting virtually and in its hybrid form. Yet no such recognition could or was given to unpaid Lords.

Ministers who were leading the response of the pandemic in the most challenging of circumstances. One of the arguments made against the bill in the other place was that this does nothing to encourage the slimming down of government. Indeed, it increases the cost. Whilst that is true, I would argue that this Bill is simply dealing with the reality of the size of government today, not the one that we may wish it to be, and addresses the unarguable fact that the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, made that the consistent losers of the current legal restrictions are Lords Minister passing this bill doesn't mean that the number of Ministers can't be reduced, but what it does mean is that people will be paid for the job they are doing today, and a very modest reduction, for instance, in the size of the civil service would more than cover the financial implications of this bill.

If the government doesn't decide to make such reductions. In my view, this bill will add a modest uplift to simply reflect what should have been happening. In any event, that Ministers across both houses should be paid for the job that they're doing.
19:56
Lord Redwood Portrait Lord Redwood (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. >> I welcome the excellent speeches by the Leader of the House and by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do think there needs to be a Lords Minister in every main department. I think those jobs can be extremely demanding, and I think it's a right principle that money should be paid for good work done. But I do think this bill is an opportunity for the government to think a little 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 they are doing now.

When I was an executive chairman of a large quoted company, it would never have occurred to me that it would be good practice to go in one day to the office, not having alerted any of my senior colleagues and telling them 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 I was going to make the engineering director, the sales director, and I was going to sack somebody else all on the same day.

I wouldn't think there would be a happy result. I do think successive prime Ministers have been quite wrong to have these big, clear out days as some assertion of power, because the ones they sack are never going to like them again, and quite a lot of ones they appoint are appointed to jobs they didn't want or don't understand. And so they also harbour a grudge about the experience of the reshuffle. So I think we need something better than that. And I think what we need is we want senior Ministers mentoring and looking at the performance in private of more junior Ministers.

And so I think leading Cabinet members should be mentored and their performance reviewed by the Prime Minister, other Cabinet members, perhaps by the Deputy Prime Minister, and obviously all the Ministers should be mentored by their departmental ministerial heads. And I wonder if it isn't time to be a little bolder and to change the language. And why do we call most of our Ministers, junior Ministers? People think it's a privilege or a necessity or requirement that they go and see a Minister.

So we don't need, then, to undermine the minister's authority before the meeting begins. Surely they're either all Ministers or they're a Cabinet Minister, which is a super Minister with strategic obligations and ultimate responsibility for the departments the other Ministers are working in. And I think that could be extremely helpful from the point of view of working out the structure. So I would think you only really need two main types of Minister heads of department. Cabinet Ministers paid a higher salary of 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 responsibility that it entails. So I would strongly recommend that we consider some kind of performance review system, because 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, whether they're going to be promoted, demoted or shuffled sideways.

And sometimes they were sitting there with their phone for a day or so. While the reshuffle agonisingly went on, and they weren't even rung up and told that they were just going to stay put, which might have been good news or relief or it might have been disappointment. So I think on performance, what we need is a system where they are mentored and they are assessed, and they are allowed to say that they need better resources or more support. And I think as a general rule, it would be much better if we didn't change Ministers so often.

I think looking at the governments of the last 25 years, Labour governments, coalition government, conservative governments, there's been an in and out far too frequently and I would have thought the norm should have been that you appoint somebody for a 4 to 5 year Parliament as a Minister. If they do very well and you want to promote them, that's a bonus. If you've got to manage them out because they're so dreadful. You only do that 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.

So there's a bit of movement, but you don't have these blow up days when everybody is put at risk. And I think this might start to work rather better, because I think it does actually take four years for a Minister to read their way in, to get used to working with their officials, to put in place the laws and the budget programmes. They want to then actually see the results of their labour. Whereas most of us were never allowed to see the results of our labour, because you were moved on to some other crisis point or difficulty before you had actually seen the whole thing through.

You wouldn't normally do that in a business. So I just make these modest suggestions to to the leader, and I hope she will pass them on to the Prime Minister, because I think government would be much better if Ministers were looked after a mentor, but also expected to perform. And if we we had a more orderly process for appointing and removing. And it does seem that with the current system, in order to. Many government cases, too many people are still selected who have bad histories that come to to meet them in an unfortunate way as soon as they become Ministers.

It would be much better if more time was given to the selection. Once you set up an initial government and there were more conversations with people to find out what they were good at, what they wanted to do, and a bit about their background to avoid embarrassment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am delighted to add my support to this bill. As with all new arrivals, I have had to 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 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 of the chamber, and learned that the way that 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 I still
20:03
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Portrait Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
haven't quite got the hang of sitting down quickly enough from time to time, but I very quickly learned just how hard Ministers work. In my first week back in work. In my first week back in March 2024, I had many opportunities to listen to Ministers in the then conservative Ministers in the then conservative government, and I do mean many. It might, of course, be considered invidious to pick individuals out, 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 True, because I think that some of my examples might be similar to the noble Lords. So let me start with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, whose expertise in courtesy from the despatch box immediately impressed me. Upon checking some parliamentary records while thinking about this speech, I saw that the noble Lady gave no fewer than 48 spoken answers that week on the earnings of mothers and fathers, on independent schools, on special needs, on school meals and on 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 a 1100 word speech and finished with 5000 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, making the point that the work that Ministers do in the chamber is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg. But even so, it's a pretty big tip.

That week, I remember being equally impressed by the knowledge and style of the Lords noble Lords Markham and and Ahmad of Wimbledon. To take just two more examples, the noble Lord Markham gave 18 spoken answers, nine on cancer staffing and nine on children's cancer, and a speech on sexual and reproductive health. And Lord Ahmed gave 15 answers on the death penalty on the execution of Hussein Abu Al-khair, as well as a statement on the latter. And 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's the Second Reading from my whip, if that 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 in two interventions on the sentencing bill. And just last month, my noble friend the Minister, Lord Hanson, gave 45 speeches, as well as five interventions and seven answers on crime and policing, the Golders Green Ambulance attack and on immigration fees, and in particular on the 25th of March, the night some of us well remember, he said, we have spent over 88 hours in committee.

We've 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. Finally, my noble friend Baroness Levitt's work in the chamber last month included 13 speeches on the Victims and Courts Bill, nine ounces 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 on the morning of the 19th of 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 of this unpaid as Ministers, which is clearly both ridiculous and unacceptable. It is absolutely self-evident that hard working Ministers should be paid for the vital work they do, and I enthusiastically commend this bill.
20:07
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
-
Hey my Lords. >> Hey my Lords. >> I too welcome this bill. I don't think it's acceptable that we ask Ministers to do their work unpaid, a burden that has fallen disproportionately on members of this House. And as we have heard, something that former leaders on something that former leaders on these benches have worked hard to change, but sadly without success. So the noble Lady, the leader is to be congratulated on the bill we have before us. I just wanted to focus my remarks on another aspect of ministerial salaries, and that is the absence of any provision for paternity, shared parental leave or adoption leave.

Ministers as office holders are not employees and so do not qualify for any of the normal provisions. And 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 weren't any spare salaries to appoint a replacement.

I was particularly aware of this when I was pregnant with my daughter in 2021, and also, at the time, 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 3 or 4 departments each, or 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 only be fulfilled by the specific office holder, the office.

The option of staying in post while cover was provided by another colleague just wasn't an option. And because of the limit to ministerial salaries, it meant that Suella faced having to resign in order to take maternity leave. Not a very satisfactory position at all. So the Ministerial Maternity and Other Allowances Bill Now act was hastily written and passed to create the position of Minister on leave for Ministers who wish 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.

Also, 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 at the time it was acknowledged that there were areas the act failed to address. There still is no formal provision for paternity leave for 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 the statutory entitlement is only two weeks 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. I hope the government's ongoing review of parental leave will address. But nevertheless, even at two weeks, it. The current system doesn't address the fact that if you're an office holder with formal constitutional responsibilities attached to it, it simply isn't possible for someone else to cover them, even for a short period of time. And the current system also doesn't address the fact that even though take up across the country is low, other fathers do have the opportunity to take a longer period of leave via shared parental leave.

Another quirk of the system is even as a Minister who is a new mother with the ability to be appointed as Minister on leave, they don't have the ability for their partner to take up any shared parental leave either. And given, as we've heard, the demands of ministerial role, including long days and often in this place, very late nights, I think it's a particularly impactful oversight. The ability to succeed in these roles is often down to the long suffering and unseen partners that support Ministers.

But 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. And that's simply due to the fact that their partner is a Minister and therefore an office holder 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. And finally, my Lords, there is also an important omission when it comes to the provision of sick leave, which was something that affected my friend and former colleague James Brokenshire when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and then diagnosed with lung cancer. The areas I've highlighted were unfinished business from the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Act. Now, five years ago, after the passage of the act, the government committed to returning to this at a later date.

I had hoped that this bill was that date, but as it's a money bill, we cannot address those gaps today in this debate in our House, and I really appreciate the noble Lady, the leader, finding time to discuss these issues with me yesterday. I know she is committed to ensuring we can benefit from the talents of all of our members in this House, in ministerial office, regardless of background or family circumstance. And so I'd appreciate hearing from the noble Lady, the Minister, in her concluding remarks, what plans the government has to address the gaps I've spoken of today.
20:12
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Portrait Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I've been struck by the cross-party tone of this debate, and I'd like to continue this tone and I'd like to 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 Ipsos pay setting, which I heartily agree with, and I think it's very worthy of consideration, he told the Financial Times that he would, and I quote, really love for ipsa to peg MPs and ministerial pay to our growth rates as a country, as opposed to what is at the moment, which is a slightly Byzantine formula, end quote.

His thinking was such a move would help the government to prioritise economic growth at every level, and of the parties in Parliament as well. I am pleased to say the Business Secretary's excellent proposal was received positively by other MPs. There are a few MPs more on the pulse of public opinion than Chris Curtis, 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 that, and I quote, the right thing is to restore. To restore trust in politics is for the public to see MPs linking their pay to the improvements in the economy. We're 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 last 20 years. Between the years 2020 11. 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 even 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 like a very sensible approach, because it makes the link far more explicitly to GDP per capita rather than GDP, a far closer reflection of people's everyday living standards.

And it should be noted that in the year since the scheme was introduced, the average growth rate in Singapore has been 4.6%, as opposed to average growth rate in the UK of 1.7%. So these growth figures suggest that the scheme is a useful tool to boost economic growth. I therefore hope that we can unite around this very practical suggestion of the Business Secretary to link the pay of Ministers and MPs to our national prosperity, properly incentivising, rewarding them for growing the economy and people's standard of living.

I, for one, would be delighted for our elected representatives and Ministers to receive a bonus of eight month's pay if economic growth hit 10%. Frankly, I'd be happy to award them the eight month bonus if growth hit 3%. So there hasn't done since the year 2000. And this would incentivise all parties, all parties to make growth their number one priority. I very much hope the government will include a bill on P2 cars. Excellent proposal in the King's Speech. And when it comes to her winding up, I don't expect the Lord Privy Seal to reveal the contents of the King's speech.

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's divided. I hope this is a sensible proposal which the whole House and the whole country can unite around.
20:16
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> Often confronted by issues of great complexity, but happily, today we're dealing with a rather straightforward single issue on which I hope will be united. Like others who've spoken, I'm a relative newcomer to this place, and since my arrival I've come to understand a little the range of demands placed on frontbenchers on all sides of the chamber, but particularly so 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.

But the challenge of steering a major bill through this House is enormous, requiring a mastery of detail and, incidentally, endless patience and bottomless stamina. And the courtesies and conventions of this House, I've recognised, also require many hours of patient engagement outside the chamber with other noble Lords who wish to pursue a particular interest in a bill, or indeed some other aspect of public policy handled by the Department concerned. But I recognise that as a Minister, too.

Of course, there are countless other commitments to be met outside the duties here in this House. I recall asking the noble Lord Collins of Highbury on one occasion how he had enjoyed a recess, which I had certainly appreciated had arrived, and he explained that he'd spent the entire time on ministerial visits to 5 or 6 capital cities in Africa. No rest for the wicked now for too long, as the party opposite has testified so compellingly after their long period in office.

The ministerial responsibilities in this House have only been met by persuading some good colleagues to accept all those responsibilities without receiving any remuneration. This has been wrong and unfair. The noble Lord True has talked about a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I could similarly refer to receiving the rate for the job. Now, over the years, I've found myself involved in many more complicated negotiations about pay and reward. Sometimes asked to defend robustly ambitious pay claims that have been lodged.

But this is one occasion where I find no difficulty at all in supporting the pay claim that this bill deals with. When the starting point is zero, the only way is up. So this is about simple justice, but it is also about ensuring that people of talent and 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 me to be long overdue, and I strongly support it. My Lords, insofar as this bill rectifies an anomaly, it's to be welcomed. I very much endorse what others have
20:20
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
said. Of course, Ministers should be paid. It's been a disgrace that particularly Ministers in the Lords particularly Ministers in the Lords have given sterling service without remuneration. So I take that as remuneration. So I take that as given, and I endorse what everybody has said about Ministers in this has said about Ministers in this House. What I wish to question is the premise of the Bill that the number of Ministers that there are number of Ministers that there are 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. My Lords, over time the number of Ministers has grown. Ministers will doubtless concede that this is a consequence in 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. That is, that the growth in the number of Ministers is a consequence of keeping 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. Now the term payroll vote is demonstrably a misnomer in that it encompasses and has encompassed not only Ministers who are not paid, but also includes 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 being neither paid nor 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? And I gave evidence to the Committee, and 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 entitled Too Many Ministers Question Mark, found that the United Kingdom was an outlier in terms of the number of Ministers appointed, and that the ratio of Ministers to MPs was 1 to 8, compared to 1 to 14 in Spain and Germany, 1 to 16 in Italy and 1 to 29 in France.

It also noted that growth in the number of Ministers since 1900, with the increase marked for 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, my Lords, the appointment power is wielded for political benefit and not for the purpose of good. Certainly not for the purposes of efficient government.

As the 2011 report noted, activity needs to be distinguished from achievement and effectiveness needs to be distinguished from efficiency. As 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 policy with their departments.

Having fewer Ministers who gave priority to their core responsibilities. Could help bring about this change in culture. My Lords, what we need is government characterised by leadership and not management. Related to that, we need not only fewer Ministers but better trained Ministers. This is a subject I pursued for some years. My Lords, 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, and which caps the number of Ministers below the current maximum, and provides that no 1st 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're promised a national school of government, but we've been here before. I initiated a debate in September 2021 on the case for introducing training in core leadership skills for Ministers and civil servants, but there is still some way to go. My Lord, it's in the interests of good government to make the changes I've outlined. However, 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's a lost opportunity. Lords, I support this bill, but I have a number of questions which I hope the Minister would be able to answer as we really have an opportunity to
20:26
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
debate issues about payments to unpaid Ministers. Let me say at the unpaid Ministers. Let me say at the beginning, it is understandable that due to complexities of the that due to complexities of the social world and related workload, the number of Ministers needs to be increased. But that does not increased. But that does not necessarily mean that we will have a better or more accountable government. I like the idea of a government. I like the idea of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and fully support the idea of ending the practice of unpaid Ministers.

I'm sure 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. So when will they actually 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 fair day's pay for a fair day's work will actually 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 a voluntary basis.

It should really apply to all government and shadow Ministers and also be extended to members of this House and the other place. There was a glimmer of hope in Labour's 2019 manifesto, which promised, and I quote, public filing of tax returns of wealthy individuals. End of quote. But that pledge seems to have been ditched in Norway. Everyone's tax return has been publicly available since 1814, and that is a major reason why it has fewer tax scandals and political scandals.

The extension of tax transparency can help to avoid scandals and enhance confidence in the political system. Hopefully, the Minister will commit to introducing a bill in Parliament which 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 problematical and very difficult to calculate. But that hasn't stopped Ministers from pushing the idea.

So can the Minister explain how the productivity of the newly paid or already paid Ministers is actually measured? Is there actually 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

productivity? My Lords, firstly, if I can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly, if I can express my gratitude to the whips for allowing me to speak in the gap, apologies for not registering in time. I have a few quick points to make after hearing what I already know, which is how hard and truly valuable Lords Minister are. And by valuable Lords Minister are. And by the way, I exclude myself from that group. The idea that we should not pay government Ministers anything pay government Ministers anything is frankly absurd. And in fact, this is an anomaly in our history, as we've heard with Lord Barber comments.

But to add that if you go back to the 1790s, William Pitt was paid 5000 a year to be Prime Minister and another 5000 to be warden of the Cinque Ports, which equates to nearly £2 million a year in today's salary. He then, unfortunately had to borrow a further 2 million from George the Third to cover his debts, putting some of our more recent profligate prime Ministers into perspective.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point is that if we want great statesmen running our country, we need to pay them properly, And we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And we. Can almost draw a geometric line from the salaries of our Ministers from the late 18th century to the from the late 18th century to the zero rate today, and plot our general economic and national 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 expert leadership. If I need to see a medical expert, I'm going through my usual middle aged checks. At the moment, my GP doesn't 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, any formal training and no salary. Indeed. Often, when asked, normally incredulously, how I got appointed at 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'd rather speak to someone who was paid rather than to a volunteer.

I was then fired after two weeks and then reinstated two weeks after that. By the way, with great dignity by our leader, a victim, I may say, of fire and rehire. I was asked if I got my redundancy bonus. I said I took 100% of it, which for those of you who weren't 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. And by the way, as we've heard from some noble Lords, expect far more from them in terms of outcomes. And to say otherwise, I'm afraid my own party was guilty of this. Interrogating our nation, and is against all the laws of society and economics. I may end, if I can, with an additional plea. Again, under the pretence of good management, Ministers have precious few direct expenses, particularly for those of us who are unpaid.

It's actually quite a costly business being a Minister. On my first day as a Minister, I asked if there was a car to take me to see an ambassador. No, Minister, came the reply. 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 embarrassingly out of the window of the number 14 global superpower Britain. We were not. My final comment was on 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'm afraid you owe us £39.50. What for? I asked for the hotel you stayed at when you visited our embassy. Our ambassador in Germany. It was over
20:34
Lord Johnson of Lainston Portrait Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative)
-
-
the threshold for minister's expenses. So you need to pay the difference. So my last act as a Minister was literally to write a Minister was literally to write a check out to His Majesty's Government for effectively doing my job. At least now, Ministers will have a salary to meet their expenses when they represent their country abroad. I support this bill, but in my view it doesn't go far but in my view it doesn't 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 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, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

This bill is welcome, but is only one step in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right direction. We on these benches, of course,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We on these benches, of course, support this modest improvement. Indeed, the Liberal Party in the late 19th century spent a great late 19th century 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 to part in public life and not to limit it to those who could afford it. But 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 onto my group's frontbench, and I have spent 29 years as a frontbench, unpaid spokesman, including five years as a Lords, whip and Minister, mainly in the Foreign Office. And I'm very conscious of the difficulties that causes, although, as it happens, my wife and I both had professorial pensions and you can live pretty well on two professorial pensions. You don't need too much else. I did mildly mind it when I was sent abroad and thus did not be able to.

Was not able to claim my Lords allowances. But if I may just add to Lord Johnson's anecdote, I do remember that the Foreign Office, in the first two years of the coalition, was trying to demonstrate how economical we were being, and having represented Her Majesty's Government at a conference on the Balkans in Dubrovnik, I was collected by the Croatian government official car and
20:36
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
delivered to the airport and deposited at the front of the Easyjet queue to come home. Easyjet queue to come home. Although when I was swapping stories with other Ministers about stories with other Ministers about which airlines we had been booked onto, David Lidington won because onto, David Lidington won because he'd been on with her and we all have attempts to save money, and I have attempts to save money, and I strongly agree with those who have said that we need to pay our Ministers here and in the Commons.

Well, because we do have a problem with political recruitment and we do 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, very slow process of reforming our second chamber. There's a very long way to go. And the Hereditary Peers Bill, which is just about now to come into effect, has taken us a little bit further. But there's a lot further to go.

We've all had a situation since the election, when the conservative group was by far the largest in the House, but has been given several dozen additional appointments since then, which of course means that the government has wished to add to its benches. And we're expanding towards 900. And in terms of thinking about the future, it is highly likely that in three years time we may find ourselves without a single party majority and some sort of coalition government, quite possibly with one of the coalition partners with few or no members in the House of Lords.

So the question of how we adjust our numbers when governments change is one that we cannot duck for very much longer. I support her a time limit for appointments. I support a different system of appointments. I certainly support an age limit. And for that reason I should explain to the Lord Privy Seal. I am now at last stepping down from being on the front bench. Now that we do have a younger colleague on our benches who is at least as expert in the portfolio for which I stand as I am.

So I shall be a backbencher from now on. But occasionally being awkward and interfering ever. The the Lords has changed enormously since I joined, and the Lord Privy Seal rightly reprimanded me some weeks ago for suggesting that we are still a part time house, and I've been thinking about that. Correct reprimand. We are the 2 to 300 of us who do most of the work now full time. We work far harder than we used to, and that's partly because the Commons does much less of the legislative, detailed legislative scrutiny that it used to do some 15 or 20 years ago, so that this House now is the place where amendments are made to government bills.

But that leaves us with a great deal further to go in terms of defining what it means to be a full time house, because half of our members are still part time with outside interests and others. And if we are to be a full time second chamber, that requires quite a lot more thinking through. Others have mentioned that the quality of Ministers in the Lords, and we are extremely lucky to have the 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, and we know as the noble Lord. Lord Norton has said, that the quality of Ministers in the Commons, and the length of time that they spend in each office, is a matter of some contention. I agree strongly with the noble Lord Lord Redwood. Ministers should stay longer in post. I say passing. The last coalition government had Ministers staying in post for a great deal longer than single party government has since 2015.

There are advantages in coalition government as well as some disadvantages and ministerial patronage, and using reshuffles as party management are part of the way in which the Commons is managed. And that's unfortunate. We would do better if government patronage were reduced. The tale of Ministers P s and trade envoys were shrunk, and 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.

But last I do want to say, 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 Taxpayers Alliance that remarked that there are now a large number of local council executives who are paid more than the Prime Minister. Well. That's partly because the Prime Minister is paid so remarkably little. And if we want to be holding on to good people and attracting good people into politics, we have to accept that we 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, and I therefore repeat, we on these benches support the bill while saying we have a lot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more work to do to inform this House. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. My Lords, can I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate? I think it's gone rather wide of the subject in many ways, but that's not been unhelpful. ways, but that's not been unhelpful. I think we're fortunate in that we have a number of very experienced nurses in this House. A number of nurses in this House. A number of us had ministerial lives before coming to this place, and I have to say from a personal level, having experienced as a Minister and taken on a different job, it makes it easier for Ministers coming in for the first time taking on a ministerial role.

I think the points made by the noble Lord Redwood and others and Lord Norton of Louth. No. Lord Alton. Yes. Lord Alton. Lord Norton of Louth right way round and Sandbrook. It is a valid point to make about the support available for training. There's no other job like being a Minister and the work that has to be undertaken is extensive in this place, and I think I thank my noble friend Lady Ramsay for the example she gave and the work she does.

Identify how ministerial brains in the House of Lords have to bounce around so many subjects and absorb so much information, that I remember sitting on that side of the chamber or this side. I'm consistently impressed by the work they do. If I can try and address some of the points that have been made, I'm grateful. Lord True we've discussed this issue over a number of years, not since we've been in government, and I think he's right. It's a long overdue measure.

The noble Lord Watts talked about ending the freeze on ministerial salaries. I have to say that that freeze on salaries not addressed in this bill, but I think when it was introduced, firstly by Gordon Brown and then reduced by David Cameron, people didn't actually think about the House of Lords because a member of Parliament in the other place on a ministerial salary actually also gets an index linked salary, whereas members of this House get. I think I might say that I am paid less in cash terms than I'm over French Lady Royal.

When she did this job many years ago. So for the members of this House, it's had a disproportionate effect. I have to say that when he said that, I said there are a number of members who have made lots of money, who take on ministerial jobs, many who take on unpaid ministerial jobs do not have lots of money, but they make a decision and a choice to serve. And I think we should be very grateful to them. And as a noble Lady, Evans said it particularly affects those Ministers who have to travel as part of their job, and Lord Ahmad and Lord Hanson were mentioned for unpaid Ministers.

If they're not being paid a Minister or salary, they can claim the daily allowance if they are in the House. But we expect Ministers not to be tied to Parliament. We expect them to go out, to engage with people, to to see some of the things they're talking about and to have meetings in other places, particularly to travel overseas. And so they have been greatly disadvantaged. So just Commons, I was grateful to Lord Marland and both of Lord Barber, because new members, seeing the work of this House through the work ministerial has done, I think is was really helpful.

Noble Barber of Chittlehampton made a comment about it. The greater benefit to the House and the government. I actually think having paid many Ministers is probably less advantage of the government, because government has got to fork out the salaries rather than the House. But it is enormous value, I think, to your Lordships House as a whole. Noble Lady Evans talked about the work of the ministry, the. The white board of ministerial shuffles. My first reshuffle. It was actually pieces of paper stuck on with Blu-tack.

That's now interactive, but it is, it almost seems sometimes is that the Lord Ministers are those that are thought about. Afterwards. One of the ministerial positions are taken, and I think if members of the House of Commons I've spoken to have seen the work of Lord Ministers and others in the ministerial team, all comment on the work that our Ministers do, and I think she was right. I understand the points made by Lord Alton about are there too many Ministers? But the reality of government is this is how it's been for some time.

And I think he's right in terms of do we get efficient government? But I do think the pace of government and the pace of communication these days is a pressure that we don't sometimes realise. And I was reading, I'm trying to think which one it was a political diaries. I think it was Duff Cooper going back to before the Second World War and Channon's diaries as well. The pace they are working at is significantly different to what we are doing now. If they've got to travel somewhere, they're talking about several days to get somewhere and journeys that now take a few hours.

So I think the pace of ministerial life and the pace of public life is significantly different. I thought the points made by Lord Redwood and Elliot on ministerial training were really interesting, and I'm trying to think back when I was first admin of the kind of support and training I got. There is some degree of mentoring, but I think it's particularly more difficult when a new government comes in after a period in opposition and all Ministers time and need time to find their feet.

And we all have noticed in this House, across the House, how you see Ministers grow with confidence and ability in the positions they have. And that experience does count. So I do take that and take that on board. The Lord Elliott made a really interesting suggestion about economic growth and time ministerial salaries for economic growth. Can I say I would be significantly better off if that was the case? So it's the complete ministerial freeze for many years. I'd say it's probably very unlikely to be in The King's Speech.

I can't really give away any confidences about what may or may not be in it, but MP salaries are determined by Ipsa, and that's an independent body. And I wish him luck in trying to persuade them of that. But the Minister will pay. Freeze does remain in place, but I think it is a point of members of the public understanding the formula by which decisions are taken on that. So I'm grateful to him for making that point on growth. My Lord Stephen number Lord Redwood, I thought had some really interesting comments, and I know I was thinking back through my ministerial life as he was speaking.

My sense is that most Ministers don't like big reshuffles. But once you start, one thing happened, then another, and there is something about having experience in a department and getting knowledge. But there's also something about bringing a fresh perspective on something as well. I think the important point more than longevity in office he raised was the ability to show leadership and decision making. And those are two qualities that are quite hard to learn. But for Ministers are absolutely essential.

If I permitted one anecdote, not delay the House on one occasion in a new post, I was given the correspondence. On the first day the Northern Ireland Minister and I was given a cheque to sign and a letter to sign, and it was to reimburse a mother whose son had forgotten his bus pass on the way to school, and he was sent to forming to be reimbursed for his bus fare. And I was being asked to sign the letter and the cheque, and I sent it back and said, I don't intend to sign this.

This is not a matter for me. I said, but Minister, our previous Minister did that. And I said, yeah, he had one department, I've got three. I'm not doing it. But it is for Ministers as well to set the boundaries of where they think it's appropriate. There's a ministerial intervention. So I think his point on that was really welcome. My Lords. I think it's been a helpful debate. There's a number of points to take note. Sorry. Baroness Penn raised the issue of other issues to be considered around maternity pay and other issues.

They're not subject to this bill. I do take the point you make about unfairness. I think she was probably the first member of this House to take maternity leave as a Minister, and I do remember some very nerve wracking moments in that July before she gave birth, where she was rather large, and it was a very hot day. And I think we were all hoping that she would last to the end of the debate before giving birth. But it's probably a sign, as the noble Wallace said, 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, and I think that just shows the society is changing.

We are not a house of people that can afford to do the job for nothing, and if we want
20:52
20:53
20:53
20:53
20:54
None Portrait Debate: Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules and the regret motions in the names of Lord German and Lord Dubs
-

My Lords, first of all, I must declare my interest. I am supported by the ramp. That's always been a mystery to some people. It's the
20:54
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
refugee and migration project so that members can understand. I move in this regret motion, which concerns a statement of changes to the immigration rules laid before the immigration rules laid before the House on the 5th of March, and I don't expect that it will be quite as well natured as the previous debate, which we've just discussed, because this piece of secondary legislation has resulted secondary legislation has resulted in one of the most excoriating reports from our select committee that I've ever seen.

It's 15 pages can be summed up in a few words peaceful, piecemeal, ill thought out and lacking in evidence. And add to that the financial assertions made by the government, which have now been blown out of the water, and we have a policy for which we will surely pay a sad and unnerving price, both in financial and human capital terms. Now, the government may have pushed back implementation, but the March, the second start date 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 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 that, critically, at the same time, takes a less humane approach to protection. These changes buy a piece of secondary legislation under the negative procedure will affect more than a million people in this country, and I must say that's 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. They do not expand safe routes for refugees. It also undermines 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, introducing measures before the impact can be known.

So avoiding a more complex legislative process and the scrutiny that comes with it. Changes of this scale, my Lords, deserves 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. And these motions today are a poor substitute for scrutiny, especially as key information is either being withheld or not available. If the government is 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 a change to the length of protection granted to refugees, reduced from 5 to 2 and a half years. 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 fourth year. The war in Syria lasted more than 13 years. 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, of course, to secure home tuition fee status. Temporary protection is also likely to delay family reunion, which could push more families towards dangerous journeys.

Given that 90% of refugee family reunion visas previously were granted to women and children. Now this uncertainty has tangible effects. While 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 well qualified, 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 and significantly tightening the settlement rules.

In Denmark, where the government has taken some view on its success, has in fact reduced refugees employment levels. Now we should learn lessons from this evidence. Refugees already face considerable barriers when attempting to rebuild their lives after conflict and displacement. Stability is not a luxury in this context. It is a prerequisite for successful integration. If our objective is to enable refugees to contribute to society, to work, to support their families, and to become part of the communities in which they live, then policies that foster anxiety and despair will undermine social cohesion rather than advancing it.

So now the noble Lords Minister could tell us whether the government has got evidence from other countries regarding the employment outcomes for refugees with temporary status. Reducing the leave granted to refugees is also unlikely to act as a deterrent. The UNHCR has observed that there is little evidence that policies of this kind have any meaningful effect on where refugees eventually and ultimately seek asylum. Alongside this, the practical consequences for the Home Office itself should not be underestimated. Reprocessing claims on such a frequent cycle will inevitably increase bureaucracy and the administrative burden.

It will place further strain on an already overstretched asylum system and increased costs for the taxpayer. Refugee Council analysis estimates. This policy could require the Home Office to review about 1.9 million cases over the first ten years of it being in place, at a cost of £1.27 billion. My Lords, that's an astonishing sum for a policy that undermines integration prospects as well as Home Office efficiency. So could the noble Lord Minister, tell the House that the government can and will provide an impact assessment for these changes that are being made now, and an impact assessment that includes both an estimate of the additional workload and how it would be resourced.

Turning to safe routes, this is a glaring omission in the government's approach, as set out in this statement of changes the absence of meaningful legal pathways for those seeking refuge and when safe routes do not exist, people do not simply abandon their search for safety. Instead, they are forced into the hands of smugglers and traffickers. Safe routes are not a soft option. They are a practical tool for managing migration in an orderly and humane way. They allow governments to retain control over who arrives and how, while reducing the incentive for dangerous and irregular journeys.

Yet at the very moment when new safe routes are not operational, these changes close down an existing pathway to protection. By introducing visa breaks for students from Afghanistan, Sudan, Myanmar and Cameroon. All of these countries are on the International Rescue Committees emergency watch list of the world's worst humanitarian crises. Yet. Even female Chevening scholars in Afghanistan, who face a real risk of persecution, will not be able to come to the UK to study the 1951 Refugee Convention also recognises and protects refugees through a plus, or those who are in need of protection due to events occurring after they have left their home country.

With these changes, the United Kingdom is undermining its international obligations and turning its back on people in need who could make a positive contribution. Let me also address the issue of destitution. The immigration rule changes, revoke a duty on the government to offer to support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. These changes carry consequences that are both moral and financial. If the system becomes more restrictive without becoming more efficient, we risk pushing vulnerable asylum seekers into destitution.

When support structures break down. The result can be rough sleeping, exploitation and increased pressure on charities and local authorities. Too often, local authorities are asked to absorb the practical consequences of national policy without the recourse resources required to manage them. Destitution is not an immigration policy, it is a failure of administration and humanity. Finally, let me turn to the question of our international obligations. 75 years ago, British lawyers played a leading role in shaping the 1951 Refugee Convention.

That convention emerged from the ashes of the Second World War, born of a determination that the persecution and displacement suffered by millions should never be repeated. Its purpose was simple but profound that those with a well-founded fear of persecution should be able to find sanctuary beyond the borders of their own country. The architects of the convention also recognised that protection was not intended to be merely temporary. They therefore placed clear obligations on states to facilitate the integration and eventual naturalisation of refugees in the countries that offered them asylum.

It is against that history and that spirit that the changes before us today must be judged. In my view, they sit uneasily with the principles that Britain itself helped to establish. We can have firm borders and compassionate policies that uphold our international obligations. We can design a system that works both for those seeking refuge and for the communities that welcome them. But to achieve that, we need policies grounded in evidence, practicality and fairness. These changes for the immigration rules do little to advance such a policy.

This government attempt to tack to the Tory reform position is more than regretted. It is a policy which treats people who already contribute to our society in a shameful way, and it will cost us dearly. The government should withdraw these changes and return with new proposals. I beg to move.
21:07
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-
The question is that this motion be. >> Agreed to. >> I'd like to 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, on, on the on the whole process. I'm very surprised when I learned that there is no ability in the House of Commons to have a debate on this issue. I frankly couldn't believe it, but I've discussed it with various MPs who said there is no possibility for the elected House to debate an issue.

This is not a these are not trivial changes. These are quite fundamental changes to the way in which in which we deal with asylum seekers and refugees. And I believe that there are two complicated changes for the procedure which is open to us. Even in this House. We can have a debate, but we've sort of got 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.

And as it is, the only option is the motion of this sort to enable any debate to take place at all. And I would have welcomed the chance to move probing amendments on a whole range of these issues and what we're dealing with, what is the material for for really an important bill. So I shan't be asking for the opinion of the House, but I do hope that our comments today will influence government thinking. I think that's the best we can do with the procedure that is open to us.

And of course, what we're dealing with in this issue, which is going to be with us in many years to come, because with the turmoil in the Middle East, with the turmoil in other countries as well, we must expect more people to be on the move. And the important thing is that we manage those. The results of such such movements in a dignified way, consistent with our international obligations and commitments. And we do it in such a way that we don't forget that human rights matter.

Now, my Lords, I'm going to avoid going, making, going into debate as if it was now a Committee stage Report stage. But I'll just mention a few of the issues. First of all, I welcome the extension to the Ukrainian scheme. That is good. Many of us have been arguing this for some time, and it is very welcome that the government are doing. My sense of what we have before us is that we're dealing with a lot of piecemeal changes, not as a total whole, not as a sort of an approach to to a difficult issue.

We're dealing with piecemeal changes, and I just feel that I have the impression they haven't really been all that well considered. And indeed, in saying that, I'm supported by the report, by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, they've made comments like we found the answers unhelpful or not fully thought through the implications of the policy. I think that's a fairly serious criticism, not from a party point of view, but from a point of view of of good governance and how subordinate legislation should be handled.

Now, I've also read the reports that we've had from NGOs and other organisations, and clearly they regret that there wasn't enough consultation for them to have an input into the whole process. And the belief is that if they'd had more input, then the changes proposed would have been better thought out and would have, would have, would have been more substantially based. For example, to regularly review asylum applications, we'll need more overall capacity by the Home Office, and we've heard over the years through successive governments that the Home Office doesn't hasn't up to now had that capacity.

Now, I welcome the changes that have taken place in the Home Office. And they are making they are making a sound decisions much quicker than before, and the backlog is being dealt with. And that is all. That is all to be welcomed. But now we're going to have proposals which will move the whole process the other way and which will, which will put extra pressure on the Home Office. It's difficult to believe that a two and a half year assessment. Can happen without additional resource needs.

And I wonder what assessment the government has 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 on refugee status after they initially granted protection. But under the these proposals, there could be many. One. One opinion is there could be as many as eight eight different times in this. This has to happen. And the problem is that this will impose burdens on legal aid.

If there is any legal aid available, because I think the government could reasonably be asked to identify what legal aid needs will be there to ensure that those granted refugee status will be able to access legal aid during the review periods, because every review period will challenge the right of of of people to stay in this country and their whole futures will depend upon it. And frequent housing moves can have a very disruptive effect on education, on children who are tend to be settled in a new country.

And all of this will will lead to instability. And I think people living in this country who are feeling unstable and uncertain about their futures cannot make the sort of contribution to our society that that we would like them to. The result is, I mean, tensions within the Refugee Convention, under which the United Kingdom has agreed to facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees. And we're going against that part of the refugee convention. I know there are other challenges, the refugee convention, but I hope we'll stand firm, firm firmly by them.

I wondered any any assessment has been made by the government of the reduced length of length of leave on integration outcomes, because what we really need surely is an overall integration policy. And I fear integration is difficult thing to achieve. But I think we need a policy for integration of people in our society. Finally, may I may I just talk about family reunion and children? Family reunion applications were paused from September last year, and we had the understanding that there would be resumed early this year.

I wonder if the Minister could say, when will these family reunion applications be restarted? I wonder if the government has assessed the impact of the polls, given that that nine out of ten visas gone before the polls went to women and children? And I wonder how many refugees have applied under other family visas since the pause and how many were successful. I do feel we are turning our backs on, on on refugee children and family reunion. They're not covered here, and I just would like the government to come back to what is it, and give us an idea of what policies they're going to be on family reunions, which this House has debated with a lot of emotion over the years.

So, my Lords, I'm conscious that what we do has to have public support and and we just can't introduce policies on refugees and asylum and just ignore the concerns of the general public. But on the other hand, I believe that many of the things we're talking about an earlier speech in now could have public support if presented sensibly. And I don't think we can proceed with policies on asylum and refugees without public support, but we have to gain that public support.

And that means having calm, balanced debates, explaining what it is that people have, what what terrible situations 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.
21:15
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> It's daunting to follow two such real experts on the subject, and I can't match their eloquence, but I can't match their eloquence, but I do feel like them. I feel strongly that these rule changes are wrong. I some of them, of course, we have to admit we were warned of. In the White Paper, which we discussed on the 17th of November. But even so, there are some surprises there. But 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 from any form of education back home.

And that Sudan is the world's worst current humanitarian crisis. Catastrophic and heartbreaking. As the Leader of the House correctly described it earlier this afternoon, and refusing even skilled worker visas to Afghans. Looks very like washing our hands of our problem a mess which 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's not there.

It's not in today's ragbag of changes. Instead, the door is slammed shut on students from Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Cameroon. But the most significant change undoubtedly, 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, harder to get accommodation, harder for their children's education, 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, and harder for them to progress in work because employers won't invest in training. Workers whose right to remain here is so temporary and transitory. And in another of today's changes, we twist the knife by imposing a new ban on refugees from taking low paid jobs precisely the jobs in construction, social care, farming, 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 Lord German of putting refugees through up to 8 or 9 reassessments, think of the economic activity foregone, the taxes foregone. It's an own goal. It's bad for the country as well as being bad for the refugees. I do hope it's 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 or critical audience reaction to the anti-immigrant stance of the two right wingers.

The Scottish people clearly don't feel that immigrants are afraid. The Scottish people. Of course the population of Scotland would decline, but for immigration, the immigrants seem to be welcomed in Scotland and I do hope the Labour Party will think very hard about whether the stance that has been taken by the Home Office now is a wise stance. I don't think it's wise for the country. I suspect it may not be wise for the party, though. That's that's not my business.

Finally, I'd like to say a word about process. I'm privileged to serve on the secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, skilfully chaired by Lord Watson of Invergowrie. Lord German and Lord Dubs have 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 answer our questions.

Some of the questions are quite basic, and 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 scrutiny Committee have produced and let it have answers to the questions that officials ducked and which, when we raised them and which remain open, some sort of response to our report would be very much welcomed. We concluded, as Lord Dubs noted, that the Home Office is not fully thought through.

The implications of the policy. We also concluded of the policy. We also concluded that. The lack of any 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's our conclusion. We concluded that we couldn't do our job and advise the House properly on these changes. We couldn't do our job, so Parliament can't do its job.

Therefore, I support both regret motions for reasons both substantive and procedural. My Lords, we know primary legislation is pending. It would have been so much better to wait for the primary legislation. And if these changes have to happen. Allow us the chance to debate them properly in primary legislation. To think it through, to let Parliament think it through, or better still, to let the Home Office think again. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I to declare an interest as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I to 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. This has system in modern times. This has echoed in the explanatory memorandums explanation that this marks the start of introducing a
21:23
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
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 e m 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 false parliamentary scrutiny in both houses. It's a change to the basic asylum protection that would be my main focus.

But I echo my noble friends, welcome to the extension of the Ukraine scheme and his motions. Concern about the Visa brake prevention of educational opportunities, including for Chevening scholars. I'll 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 and 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've heard, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee advises, makes full scrutiny impossible. The committee is somewhat dismissive of Minister Tap's assurance that the Home Office takes the provision of IAS extremely seriously, and concludes that the Home Office may not have fully, fully thought through the implications of the change in asylum protection. And here I would 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 assessment will be conducted throughout the policy development process. But in answer to a more recent question, he emphasised there is no legal requirement to publish child impact assessments and to commit to do so. 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.

And this is part of the wider process. Concerns raised by the. Including the total lack of consultation. When asked about this, the Home Office responded that given the pace of change, which surely they have set themselves, is not always possible to consult ahead of all policy reform and later that while the significance of some of the changes was accepted, I quote, it's important to put that that meaning into context for the changing question, as those factors on their own do not always result in a justification for a public consultation.

What on earth does that mean? My Lords, I'm 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. My Lords, turning to the substantive impact of the move towards temporary protection for refugees, the Slsc is simply is similarly sceptical about the Home Office's responses to its questions on employment, and suggested we might want to press further on this.

So can I, 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 and Freedom from torture stroke. Helen Bamber Foundation argued the opposite in their submissions to the SL s c please don't respond. The 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 is still not able to 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 the changes to the occupations in which asylum seekers can seek work after 12 months, suggest that the work lane of this route might only be open to those able to access more skilled and better paid jobs, yet that should be irrelevant to refugee status and creates a two class system of refugees.

If my noble friend can't give us any details now about the work and study route, can he at least say when the Home Office hopes to be able to make those details available? On the related question of permitted occupations open to asylum seekers after 12 months, while it is welcome that the number of available occupations will be increased, is not clear why this cannot be in addition to the current rules rather than instead of them as it is, as the SLC warns, it could mean fewer asylum seekers are able to find work and it also, as we've heard, 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 employment is an important element of integration, which we've heard about which the M echoing Ministers states is a key aim of this and related reforms. In line with the recently published Welcome Social Cohesion Action Plan, but I haven't yet seen an explanation as to how making refugee status so insecure is conducive to integration, either from the point of view of refugees themselves or of employers and landlords who might think twice, as we've heard before, taking them on.

This is certainly not the view of organisations who work with refugees, including the International Rescue Committee and the UNHCR. The latter warns that providing refugees with only 30 months of leave at a time is likely to be detrimental to refugee 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.

End of. Quote. Relevant to the integration point citing international evidence, freedom from torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation in their submission to SS SC, warned that the changes will have a profoundly harmful impact on the mental health, rehabilitation and recovery of survivors of torture, trauma and exploitation. When asked about this, the Home Office responds simply ignored the point made and answered in terms that might well have been made by the previous government, which I must say I found pretty depressing.

Women for refugee women are particularly worried about the likely consequences for women's mental health and the heightened risk of abuse, violence and exploitation. Women are also vulnerable in their role, as mothers, and refugee organisations are very concerned about the likely impact of the uncertainty of temporary protection on children, both accompanied and, in due course, probably unaccompanied. The Refugee Council spell out the likely adverse impacts on children's needs for stability as they recover and rebuild their lives, with consequences for their education in particular, as we've heard.

And freedom from torture warned that the inability to plan for the future undermines the very foundations of family life. Now, I and others welcome my noble friend's assurance in answer to an oral question that whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer. As a result, the slsc were left unclear as to the implications of the changes for unaccompanied children and encouraged us to probe further. Can my noble friend say any more today? And can he repeat his at his assurance that children will not suffer relevant.

Relevant to is here. Here is the failure to restart the family reunion process. One of the few existing safe and legal routes with no prospect of new safe routes for a year or so. And even then, they're very welcome. They are described as modest. My Lords, according to the International Rescue Committee, the original model of refugee protection after five years was in line with international best practice of peer countries. We are told by the Home Secretary that it served as a pull factor, but on the basis of what evidence can my noble friend tell us, please? And can it tell us in which other European countries refugee status is temporary? Even Denmark, which, as we've heard, upon which the new policy has been modelled, provides for permanent settlement after eight years, whereas those on the core protection route here will have to wait 20 more than a childhood.

What is the justification for this, and what account has been taken of evidence that has noted the Danish model has had a negative impact on refugees integration, employment and mental health. The Home Office's response to a question from the Slsc on the employment effect in Denmark did not answer the actual question, leaving the committee to comment that either it has not sought such evidence or that it has sought it and is not divulging the results. Neither is satisfactory. My Lords, I, of course, understand the politics of this, and as my noble friend said, the need for public support.

But the kind of language used when introducing the new policy and the constant conflation of asylum seeking and illegal migration, serves only to exacerbate hostility towards those who, in the words of the UNHCR, are fleeing conflict, instability and human rights abuses, circumstances no one would willingly choose under the Refugee Convention. They have the right to access territory in pursuit of international protection. I fear that the changes we are debating today represent a significant step in the erosion of that right, to the point that it becomes pretty threadbare.

I finish with the words of a torture survivor. I wish policy makers could walk in my shoes and only understand how difficult life is with insecure immigration status, and another described the policy as dehumanising. My Lords, personally, I feel nothing but shame. A great.
21:35
Baroness Teather Portrait Baroness Teather (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Pleasure to follow the noble >> Pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Lady Lister. Bittersweet, and I'm hugely grateful to the noble I'm 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 asylum, refugee and 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.

Generous 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 Committee pointed out, a huge amount which remains profoundly unclear. But in the interest of brevity, I want to focus my remarks tonight on the one change I fear will create the most human misery for refugees and be deeply counterproductive to integration and social cohesion.

That is the reduction in the duration of leave for refugees for 30 to 30 months, and the requirement to re-apply 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 German remarked in terms of the Ukrainian scheme to engage in education and to lay down roots, it's likely to affect their ability to rent housing, leave them more vulnerable to exploitation, damaged personal relationships. Children and young people in refugee households will grow up in this instability, the whole of their lives, potentially. 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 who has spoken publicly about the changes, and laid out in detail in submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee by, for example, the Helen Bamber Foundation, freedom from Torture, Earl Peel and the Refugee Council all 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 Gareth's research documenting asylum seekers experiences of waiting for decisions, with many describing it as wasting their life.

The government is 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 UK drop in for years, but only felt able to begin trauma counselling and grieve for what they had lost. Once they had papers and knew that they would be safe. This is a point echoed in the evidence 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 a 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 has never been shown in practice to make much difference at all. Furthermore, these rules are going to 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 the 2nd of March 2026.

Lastly, I heard the Minister's answer to my question and other noble Lords in the chamber earlier today that renewing leave would be a straightforward process, with reviews supported by AI, but I would gently suggest that in 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 and Brent and then as director of Jlr's UK. The idea that the Home Office is likely to manage a huge additional volume of decision making without delays, muddle and error doesn't bear any contact with reality.

Yeah. What happens to people's lives when renewal decisions start to take months to resolve? What will be the ramifications of delay for individual's personal decisions on whether to marry or take work or study, whether to invest in volunteering or building relationships in their local community. And 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 study route? It is, in my view, an intolerable burden to place on the shoulders of people who have already suffered enough, suffered 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister to think again. Yes, excellent. I recognise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I recognise. That the. Government wishes to reduce migration. And that this requires public support. But like all others who have spoken this evening, I am very concerned about some of the changes concerned about some of the changes to these 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'm
21:42
21:42
21:42
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
who were hoping to come to our universities following rigorous selection procedures on fully funded scholarships, and they've had their hopes and their dreams had their hopes and their dreams and their futures shattered. This has a profound effect on the individuals, but also on their countries, on our universities, and, I believe, 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.

My Lords, 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 and absolutely 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 in the International Rescue Committee's emergency watch list, and this means that they are amongst 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 been said on women and girls from Afghanistan who suffer such severe restrictions on education, 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, economic and social reform in their own countries. And importantly, they would also make a fantastic contribution to our own universities. I know this to be the case because at Oxford, I worked with many students from the four countries. Courageous young people, leaders of tomorrow who've come through so much to come to our countries. I mean, having had to study so much in their own countries, quite extraordinary young people and their sanctuary students.

And for me, the concept of sanctuary is one which I firmly espouse. And it's a principle that defines our humanity. And 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, which will literally change the world in medicine, in climate change, and in environmental policies. For example, in correspondence with the Minister and his departments, some of us strongly argue that there should be an exception to the immediate visa ban for students who have applied for scholarships.

As noble Lords will know. These are gold standard scholarships, fully funded by the FCDO, as the website says. Evening scholars return home to use the knowledge, skills and networks that they gain in the UK to influence positive change. I simply do not understand why the government would ban visas for students from the most vulnerable countries in the world, coming here to study on the most highly regarded, government funded scholarships. The numbers in relation to students are so small that they're completely insignificant.

A maximum of 60 students would have been offered scholarships this year, like other scholarships. They are also fantastic instruments of soft power. I welcome the development of new, safe and legal routes to offer sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution, which will include a specific route for students. This will provide some hope for those who were unable to take up their places this year, and for future students. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm that the new routes will be open for applications this autumn, so that students from the four countries will be able to take up their places in 2027.

I understand that the visa plan is not intended to be permanent, and that it's due to be reviewed in 18 months time. Could the Minister say how the government will assess whether the ban has been successful, and what would the interaction be with the potential lifting of the ban and the new safe and legal routes for students? Paragraph eight of the impact assessment refers to the imposition of this first phase of visa breaks. Does this mean, my Lord, that the government is considering its extension to further countries? I would ask my noble friend, the Minister, for his response to.
21:47
Lord Bishop of Southwark Portrait The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)
-
-
My Lord Dear. It is a privilege to follow noble members of this House speaking with wisdom, House speaking with wisdom, compassion and conviction. I understand that in the current polarised climate that the government wants to have 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 the 31st of December 2025, does indicate a marked reduction in inward migration in most categories, although that of illegal channel crossings are not the largest category by some margin.

Remains stubbornly immune to downward pressure. My Lords, I wish to offer some observations from these benches which, while sympathetic to where Ministers find themselves, nonetheless owe a debt of gratitude to the regret motions of the noble Lords, German and Dutch, for making it possible to have this debate for which I express thanks. My Lords, my Episcopal colleagues, and I do not dispute the function of the executive in exercising immigration control. What we do assert, however, is the contribution that migration has made to the United Kingdom.

And with a declining birth rate and rising economic inactivity, it is likely to play a continuing, vitally important part. Secondly, we deplore rhetoric which creates images of the other and imputes images of rampant criminality on migrants and asylum seekers. That is utterly reprehensible and disgraceful. Thirdly, my Lords, 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 the government is trying to make? I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, is it that the criteria in the Refugee Convention are no longer adequate for the task, or is it the government think that Home Office staff are applying them incorrectly and with too great a liberality, and so all possibility of getting anywhere near the United Kingdom must be denied to these people.

Fourthly, my Lords, we have heard the concerns about the 30 month leave to remain and the anxiety 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, my Lords, 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. And I call upon the Minister to announce the recommencement of family reunion in this category. I support the regret motions in the name of the noble Lord Lord German and the noble Lord. Lord Dubs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it pains me to intervene to say that I think intervene to say that I think Ministers have got these changes 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 the moment. I want to focus, as my noble friend Baroness 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
21:52
Lord Smith of Finsbury Portrait Lord Smith of Finsbury (Labour)
-
-
and regimes in these nations. Let's not forget the impact on Afghan not forget the impact on Afghan women students particularly. But it women students particularly. But it also diminishes the experience and opportunity to learn for British opportunity to learn for British students to. Overseas students students to. 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 to.

Why on earth are the Home Office deciding to remove any possibility for students from these countries to come here to the UK? Even Chevening scholars, simply because a small number of those who've been here in the recent past have asked to stay and whilst I'm at it, can I ask, as I have done before, why students can't be removed entirely from the immigration figures? Students, by definition, aren't immigrating. They are here for a temporary defined period.

The statistics are there to record permanent immigration. It's high time for the Home Office to think seriously about that change, not the ones they are bringing in front of us this evening. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with everything that everyone else has said this evening. I actually don't remember a debate I actually don't remember a debate where that was quite so true. I'm going to jump from international going to jump from international students to the EU settlement scheme quite briefly, because I know the bulk of this debate has know the bulk of this debate has been on other matters. But firstly, just one thought about the way that just one thought about the way that the immigration rules represent such an astonishing degree of executive power for the government, for really substantive policy changes.

Surely not envisaged in the 1971 Immigration Act, which conferred these powers. And I'm grateful to the Hansard Society podcast, which I. I listened about the way this this is this has grown. I mean, this is this is an incredible imperial edifice that is
21:55
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
largely immune to parliamentary control or even scrutiny. And I think it was noble. Lord Lord Dubs think it was noble. Lord Lord Dubs reminded us that that the other place is not has no scope to debate them at all. So the only place to them at all. So the only place to get any airing, and it's even below get any airing, and it's even below the level of secondary legislation, because all we can do is ask the Minister to and the Home Office to Minister to and the Home Office to think again.

We can't even we can only regret. We can't even negative these changes. But that's just by way of prior remark. I just wanted to to raise the suggested. The proposed changes to the appendix EU. And it's really just a series of questions. And this is an area where, again, the Secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee regretted the lack of of impact assessment. I think from memory, from the page on Gov.uk, I think there were only two impact assessments.

There certainly isn't one on these changes to the appendix. EU. And I must admit I find them really difficult to understand. It is claimed and I'm looking at paragraph 554 of the explanatory memorandum. The government suggests that they need to tackle identified abuse by EA citizens sponsoring EU Settlement Scheme applications by those falsely claiming to be eligible family members and they they they're going to enable a settlement scheme application to be refused where it is more likely than not that the person has assisted another person fraudulently, fraudulently to obtain entry clearance.

There's no assessment available as to what this identified abuse is, the scope of it, or why these powers are necessary, or how they will be exercised. The I don't understand, actually. And if the Minister doesn't have time tonight, maybe he could write to me. If the government wants to extend the current provision allowing a non e a national applicant to use an expired biometric residence card as proof of identity, I don't really understand why it's a non-eea national applicant.

To whom why this is in appendix EU. Does he does it mean to the EU settlement scheme? It's not really very clear. And again, there's more assertions. In. 555 we continue to see attempted abuse of the settlement scheme family permit. Right. And we want to bring in additional validity requirements. You know what what what is this attempted abuse? Please can we have some evidence of of of of what it is and, and what the what the scope is then then the, the government is going to require applicants to provide evidence of a sponsored EU settlement scheme, EU settlement scheme status.

I'm just surprised that that's all not already required. I don't understand why an applicant who's who's applying for essentially family reunion doesn't already have to provide evidence of the status of the person that they they want to join the sponsor. So that's really weird. And also to provide, the applicant would be required to provide evidence or information to attest to the family relationship. Well, I don't understand how anyone could make an application of this kind without already providing such evidence.

So that just that's just some of the issues that are raised for me by page 12 of the explanatory memorandum, which which are which are pretty unclear and seem to provide lots of scope for the government to do things on rather unclear grounds. And finally, I just want to highlight the fact that the organisation, the 3 million with which the Minister, as well as I've had a lot of contact with in the past few years, they are sadly having to take legal action because the government, when people who've applied for status under the EU settlement scheme are waiting for a decision, the government does not allow them to government does not allow them to come to the UK.

While that. Application is pending, and there's probably about 75,000 people that that is affecting people waiting for decision on their application, of whom 9000 have been waiting more than four years. Some are waiting for an administrative review, some are waiting for the outcome of an appeal. So all together, we're talking about a not inconsiderable number of of people. And there's been correspondence with the Home Office for the last four years, at least, that I've seen and presentations, I think, at the Specialised Committee on Citizens Rights under the withdrawal agreement.

Anyway, the 3 million which steadfastly maintains that this is a breach of the withdrawal, the EU, UK Withdrawal Agreement is now going to take legal action against the Home Office. So I only mention that to say that I hope that the Home Office is not generating further bases for potential legal action by what it's proposing to do under appendix EU of the immigration rules. To add to all the other. Sins, I would say, that have been enumerated by colleagues this evening.

But we really don't want action under the withdrawal agreement or legal action in the British courts. On the EU settlement scheme. We've had some, and I would have thought the government would quite like to avoid any more. Very briefly and in support of my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The case made by lady Lady Royal, I regret we're having this debate in this way this evening, and it in this way this evening, and it has been an extremely powerful debate. But I also want to thank the Minister for his personal the Minister for his personal response to my letter when I raised the issue, in particular of the Chevening scholars some weeks ago, I had a very thoughtful and very generous response from him when he did point out, of course, that the four countries that are targeted
22:02
Baroness Andrews Portrait Baroness Andrews (Labour)
-
-
for the ban were countries which for the ban were countries which had seen a spike of 470% in the increase in the number of applicants. Now, we may question applicants. Now, we may question how this has come about. There are many different reasons for that, but it doesn't dent the problem, but it doesn't dent the problem, which is created by a blanket ban, which is created by a blanket ban, which creates enormous and perverse, inhumane and unjust consequences for a very small number of people.

And the people I want to focus on, because they are a sort of lightning rod, they're an exemplar of what happens when people become collateral damage in policies, which may have the best intentions, but then have the most profound and serious consequences for individuals who are already, as has been said across the House in different circumstances, extremely vulnerable, and are likely to be made more vulnerable by the situation that they are placed in. And I want to refer in this respect to the one case I know well, which is the University of Sussex, which, like LSE, has been the two universities which have taken the evening.

Scholars for the majority, Sussex, for example, and will know of his reputation with the Institute of Development Studies. And the bigger point that I make here is that the University of Sussex. I have to declare an interest as having a PhD and being on the council from Sussex for many years. But Sussex had an extraordinary reputation for developing leaders of the Third World, and the prime example of this was South Africa, post-apartheid South Africa. So many leaders went to the Institute of Development Study, go back to South Africa to create the foundations of democracy, and that is what Sussex has been doing with Chevening scholars over many years.

The numbers 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's the vice Chancellor has said is because of our reputation for development studies and as a global university, many alumni have gone on, as we would expect, so brilliantly described by my friend Lady Royal, gone on to hold senior positions in government and political service and public service. They have been the leaders on which the future of these countries, and these are the countries to which we look now in some terror, actually, about how are they going to build their future if they don't have these brave, principled women as well as men? And of course, we've already had some idea of the implications for women, and we wish the happy and an impact statement on women as a been disadvantaged by this.

What I found most difficult to understand alongside why no exception could be made for this evening scholars, was that these young people had gone through all the hoops. They were at their final stage. They were scheduled for interview and the scheme was declared closed. No appeal, no way back. Now, what I would like to ask my noble Lord. I feel it's a dishonourable position to have put the country in, to have put the universities in and to put the FCDO in, frankly, as the funder and the organiser of the scheme, it sends an extraordinarily bad signal, because these, of course, are the people.

Not only do they take the soft power, the skills, the huge generosity and intelligence back with them and the knowledge of what Britain can offer, but they contribute so much. So my simple question to the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, as we all do around this House, is if there is flexibility in terms of the fact that this is not a permanent arrangement, can there not be, even at this stage, some flexibility for a clear, identifiable group of people for whom we owe so much? And can we have a more generous appreciation, perhaps in even the language of the Home Office, about the implications, the acknowledgement of what, in fact, this actually does signal the rest of the world as well as to people in this country who.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

By Lord Singh, I know what a lonely place the government Dispatch Box can be when one is Dispatch Box can be when one is introducing a firm bit of introducing a firm bit of immigration legislation. One notes immediately the surreal disconnection between the Overton disconnection between the Overton window of the views in this House and the views in the country at and the views in the country at large, and I'm afraid the noble Lord, the minister's evening, is not going to get any better,
22:07
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
because I have to declare that I entirely support the government's entirely support the government's position in relation to these rule position in relation to these rule changes. The. The short point is that these are changes that are that these are changes that are necessary to reduce the abuse of the immigration system, and they the immigration system, and they are sensible and proportionate. Use of the power to make changes in the immigration rules, and 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 our colleagues across the channel, and this is a sensible rebalancing, and I congratulate the Home Office for 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've 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 to the year ending September 2025, the proportion of Afghan asylum claims to study visas was 95%, while applications by students from Myanmar soared 16 fold over the same period.

Claims in the year ending September 2025 by students from Cameroon and Sudan rose more than 330% in 2021, posing an unsustainable threat to the UK's asylum system. But faced with that, the government had little choice. I submit, my Lords, but to address the question that these were people applying for student visas who intended to come here to claim asylum, it was a back door route into the country, and the government has rightly taken steps to stop that. Until that problem to stop that.

Until that problem can be resolved, the. Only regret that I have, my Lords, is that the opposition appears to come from the government's own back benches, both in this House and in the other place, and it is reportedly even present in its senior ranks. So I say to my to the noble Lord, the Minister, keep at it. You're doing well. Don't be put off by the siren

**** Possible New Speaker ****

voices behind you. This is an important debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is an important debate. It's an important issue. The case has been made by every speaker so has been made by every speaker so far, making the detailed points on the policies and the problems that they create. I want to put on they create. I want to put on record my concern and the the my support for the comments which have been made by both my noble friends and other noble members of the House, although much of the debate has focussed on specific.

Problems, the specifics of the proposal I think of you should be taken of the proposals as a whole. Now there are some necessary changes and we know what they are. But taken as a whole,
22:12
22:12
22:12
22:13
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm just looking to see how the voting is going to come in. Now, I don't expect that my first point will gain an overwhelming sympathy. The challenge of following the detail of changes in immigration rules, and it's not particular to this statement of changes. What is, in effect, whether there's a discretion in the hands of the Home Secretary, all of that is considerable. The impact on people directly affected or who believe they affected, or who anxious about becoming affected in the future.

That is also considerable, and there can be no doubt about the level of anxiety. Our inboxes bear witness to that. There's also the impact. This is the point which I think may not gain sympathy on professionals, as well as the organisations working in the immigration and refugee fields, not just in support and the assistance for which they're relied on. But my guess is that the complexity near impenetrability of the rules current at any given time, to which one adds, of course, the decisions of tribunals and the higher courts is a deterrent to lawyers entering into this area of work.

Plus, of course, the legal aid rates. And that makes it the more difficult for applicants to access support and representation. I have a huge amount of admiration for those specialists who must cry out for consolidation and reduction in complexity. How much does this lead when you have lawyers who may not be as skilled as one would like to see, to Home Office decisions being contested in the courts, I'm thinking they're about the quality of initial advice. Also, of course, and other noble Lords have alluded to this.

The quality of Home Office decisions in part, of course, because of the pressure on staff and certainly the two and a half yearly review of refugee status and the extension of the qualifying period for permanent status will mean additional administration. The Home Office is the Home Secretary's various announcements are seen as a package. That's what she says. They are, though only some are in this instrument. She also says that early legal advice is a core part of the system of the reforms.

The Law Society notes that she has yet to expand on this assurance. The changes in the statement have to quote the explanatory memorandum not been the subject of a formal public consultation, as this would be disproportionate given the nature of the changes. I don't think I need to explain why I wrote an exclamation mark in the margin against that to follow the noble Lord. Lord Dubs should this really be how we do things? As noble Lords have been saying, immigration rules are not classified even as Statutory Instruments.

They can be brought forward as and when the Home Secretary thinks fit, they are not amenable, not amendable. They're not amenable, but they're not amendable either. There's no realistic prospect of blocking them the last time a statement of changes was debated was in 2008. Disapprovals, as they're called, happened only in 1972 and 1982. My noble friend Baroness Ludford referred to the Hansard Society podcast. It was put this way it's as if the Home Secretary has her own prerogative power to manage the king's borders, and also MPs can do no more than pout.

And that wouldn't show up in Hansard. This is not at all easy to explain to the people who are affected by the changes. I'm so embarrassed by this. I don't know how to reply to emails that I'm receiving, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. My Lords, all this is relevant to supporters of proposals as well as to opponents. The proponents want to be sure that the rules are watertight and this. All this lends itself to frequent changes led by the political mood, not long term thinking.

And this is reflected, I think, in both the motions which we're considering tonight, which refer to what is not included in the rule changes, but as to what is in the statement. My notes on the Visa brake initially spelled it out as B r e a k, perhaps a subconscious reaction, though I have seen it spelled that way in some documentation. They'll have. This will have a huge impact. As noble Lords have said on a relatively small number or even an absolutely small number of people.

And I too have to ask, is this really worth the reputational loss to the UK? The loss of skills, the denial of education and employment opportunities to people living in crisis? What of the government's commitment to supporting fragile and conflict affected states, and of course, to women and girls important in themselves and as we know, in supporting their families, the students in question may not yet be skilled or experienced, but many will become so not only the exceptional young people who have been awarded scholarships, but others whose abilities and capacity for hard work have brought them to the threshold of a UK university education.

I'm the trustee of a charity which gives grants to asylum seekers and refugees for university places. I've been so impressed by those young people whom I have interviewed. Other noble Lords may have heard from a British teacher working at the British International School in Thailand, teaching a number of students from Myanmar who are following British curricula, completing British qualifications, he said. They bring talent, ambition and significant economic benefits, so we have a small number paying the price, I would say scapegoated to send a message and to amplify that, I quote the explanatory memorandum.

Again, public confidence risks being undermined when purpose bound visa routes like study are or are perceived to be used as a route to claim asylum. I'd say that confidence is undermined when the assessment is on the basis of nationality, not merit. I asked a question for written answer when I heard from the teacher from Thailand and the regarding the visa brake, and the answer was that the evidence is clear that the student route for these nationalities has been a source of a high number and high proportion of visa linked asylum claims.

We have therefore acted to halt this unacceptable strain on our asylum system and to ensure that the system remains fair, credible and sustainable. My Lords, I think we have had plenty of comment on that. I would ask for one assurance, I hope, that the Minister can give us on this. We've heard that Sudan may be seeking to identify students who've claimed asylum here, and the risks of that are obvious. It's also been suggested that the Sudan has been provided with information about Chevening by the Home Office.

Can the Minister clarify the position? Has any information been provided? If so, what and how are Sudanese students or anybody from Sudan students or anybody from Sudan seeking asylum being protected? My Lords, turning to permission to stay. Reducing the duration of refugee protection. Again, the explanatory memorandum talks about changing the perception of the refugee offer in the UK, which is to quote entirely in accordance with our international obligations, but not exceeding them. Where is the leadership in demonstrating a positive, welcoming moral approach rather than just the bare minimum? We're told that the wider reforms aim to integrate those who are here here by encouraging them to work and contribute to the UK, which is exactly what most of them want to do, but they find themselves blocked.

Or perhaps a better term is banned from doing so. Can people really be expected to integrate if they're separated from close members of their family, with no expectation of the family coming together? At any rate, through a safe route? This must be what they focus on, as well as the issues over family reunion. I'm sad to see that the specific circumstances in which a child can be granted settlement to join a relative in the UK are clarified as the term as they have been.

I am aware, as I know, the Minister is of the different customs in different countries, which means that the Home Office takes a view that a parent does not have sole parental responsibility, which would enable a child to come here. And that is the reality for so many mothers who come to work in our social care system, and they find that their child cannot join them. My noble friend refers to Disincentivizing integration and social cohesion with Disincentivizing, both refugees and the indigenous population.

When the message is about the need to have status reviewed so frequently and for so short a period for people to have any chance of belonging, and the two and a half year period means uncertainty and instability, potentially 20 years in temporary accommodation. Experiencing this as a further barrier to employment and so on. What consideration has been given to the evidence and there is evidence of the harmful impact of all this. The noble Lord Lord Dubs welcomes, and I agree, the extension to the UK Ukraine Permission Scheme.

As I understand it, this is through homes for Ukraine sponsorship being the only scheme often open. It is this in fact the case and if so, do we have the volunteers that are necessary? I've written. ET cetera. ET cetera, because I realise by this time I had more than taxed the patience of the House. But one of the ETCs is a report today that the respected Professor Jonathan Porter, is using. Home Office data estimates that the savings from this raft of proposals to be about £600 million, which is 6% of the Home Office claim of 10 billion.

One of the refugee support organisations put it all as bad for refugees, bad for communities, bad for the economy. And I would add, I think this follows the noble Lord, Lord Davis. Bad for our own self sense of self-worth and self respect as a country.
22:27
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah yeah yeah. >> My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs for bringing forward these Dubs for bringing forward these regret motions. Both motions relate to issues which concern the effectiveness and fairness of our effectiveness and fairness of our immigration system. My Lords, 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, my Lords, 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 accommodations 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. And my Lords 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.

And I would be grateful if the Minister could address how the government intends to maintain that balance in practice, while also regarding the concerns raised as to the absence of impact assessments, particularly in relation to children and equality considerations, it would be helpful for the noble Lords Minister to perhaps tell the House what analysis the government has undertaken in these areas. However, while these concerns are important, we must not lose sight of the broader context. The United Kingdom is facing an immigration system under severe strain.

Illegal migration remains far too high. This government has overseen record levels of crossings since coming to power. The government has presided over more than 69,155 crossings in small boats, and between the election at the end of 2025, the number of crossings was 50% higher than in the same period prior to the election. And even with these reforms, the existing system may not still may still not go far enough. Those who enter the country legally may be entitled to remain, and the absence of a sufficiently strong deterrent continues to undermine the system as a whole.

That is why we have set out our Borders Plan a clear and robust approach that includes banning asylum claims for illegal migrants, leaving the establishing a removal force and deporting illegal migrants arriving within a week. So finally, my Lords, I turn briefly to the proposal to offer financial incentives for voluntary returns. There are legitimate questions about whether such measures represent value for money and whether they risk sending the wrong signal. And I would welcome further clarity from the Minister and how this policy will operate in practice.

And while we recognise and support the direction of these reforms, there remains significant questions about delivery and effectiveness, and the government must ensure change is part of a broader, credible plan to restore control of our borders and rebuild public confidence. So, as always, I look forward to the minister's response.
22:32
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful, my Lords, to both the noble Lord German and my noble friend, Lord Dobbs for tabling the friend, Lord Dobbs for tabling the regret motions, because it's always a pleasure to discuss matters in a pleasure to discuss matters in the House. Even at 1032 in the evening. And I think there are important issues that have been raised, and I will try and respond to those as best I can through a croaky voice, which I hope the House will bear with me on this evening.

Can I just start by just putting some context to why we are here? This government was elected in July 24th and on election it had a considerable series of challenges, which is is trying to address. It has a high backlog on election to office of asylum claims not being processed by the previous government. It has a level of abuse which is higher than it is now. It has a high level of hotel use costing a fortune to the taxpayers.

Of some 400 hotels paid for by the government of the day, which are extremely high and extremely costly for the taxpayer to have. 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 there are now. And I start with that just for the simple reason that that is the background of where the government has tried to take some issues. And I welcome the support tonight from the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth and indeed the noble Lord Davis.

But I just say that is the inheritance that we've had to try to deal with. Now, if I look at the motions before the House tonight, the noble Lord German motion says that the government fails to provide a credible plan for bringing down the asylum backlog. Well, let me start with that. The government has put in place around 1000 extra staff paid for by the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme to improve the performance on asylum backlogs and on reviewing asylum backlogs.

There is a plan because the government's produced an immigration White Paper of which, as indeed the noble Lord Kerr of Lockhart has indicated, as indicated, was indeed trailed by the government. The government has an immigration White Paper and has made statements on how we intend to deal with those issues. And again, looking at the motion in the name of the noble Lord German, it says failed to bring down the asylum backlog. I'll come to that in a moment.

It says closing hotel, asylum, hotels. I'll come to that in a moment. And indeed, it says increasing the bureaucratic burden on the Home Office. Well, I'll come to that in a moment, my noble friend. Lord Dubs motion makes a valid point about the equality impact assessment, which I'll come to in a moment. And the noble Lords who have spoken today, my noble friend Baroness Royall. Noble Lord Kerr noble Lord German. My noble friend Lord Dubs. My noble friend Baroness Lister the noble Lady.

Baroness Teather. My old friend Baroness Andrews. Noble. Baroness Ludford my noble friend. Lord Smith of Finsbury the right reverend Prelate. The Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lord Davis of Brixton have all challenged some of the points that are here today. And what I will try and do is respond to those issues. The immigration rule changes were laid on the 5th of 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 s I s and the immigration changes set out in the new approach to refugee and humanitarian protection includes a new core protection offer. Now, the position that we find ourselves in now is that there have been changes in some of the very areas that the noble Lord German motion 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, not reflected in the motion. We've returned 58,538 people in the past 12 months who had no right to return remain sorry, including foreign national offenders who should not have been here. The issue of asylum hotels. He mentions there was a high of asylum hotels in the summer of 2020, three of 400 asylum hotels. 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.

And we have a commitment to close asylum hotels before the end of this Parliament. But we also have in the statements that have been made plans to ensure in that new reform to improve safe and legal routes, to provide more structured, targeted support for refugees, to speed up decisions through simpler appeals procedures and to tackle exploitation through illegal working and visa abuse, which both harm vulnerable people and local communities. So there is a plan and the motion of regret.

I just challenge, first of all, from the noble Lord German when he says there isn't a plan, I believe there is a plan to speed up asylum claims to provide targeted support to ensure we meet our international obligations, to ensure we reduce hotel use, and to ensure that we do that in a fair and appropriate way. Now, the Home Secretary has set out, yes, the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in a generation. Yes, the immigration rule changes, mark a major step towards a fundamental reset of the system.

And yes, there is a new core protection offer for refugees. And yes, there are changes planned to ensure that new asylum claims made after the 2nd of March will be for 30 months, rather than for five years. It doesn't mean those asylum claims are not going to be maintained if there's still a need for asylum claim after 30 months, but it is important that we do make those changes because we have to improve the performance in the system. And I agree with the local, with the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth that we have to do that.

Now. In answer to my noble friend Lord Dobbs, 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 there are changes to required. There are countries of origin that can and do change. Refugee status should be reviewed accordingly to reflect that.

I think that is fair. Now a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Visa brake, and chiefly the government has introduced a visa brake on student visa applications from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. The reason the government has done that is because the nationalities present some of the highest proportion of asylum claims to visas issued, and the number of claims is consistently high. Again, a point the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth made. Introducing these temporary changes, the government hopes 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're 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, and in the suspension of family reunion. We are keeping that under review as a whole now. I will, if I may. There's been a lot of issues raised today by individual members on the concerns that have been raised.

I will go through the Hansard tomorrow with a fine tooth comb, will pick out all of the points that have been made by noble Lords, 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 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, but the government has to deal with the issue of getting asylum under control, meeting our international obligations, reducing hotel use, trying to stop that pull factor which the noble Lords have mentioned.

And this is a series of measures which the Home Secretary has brought forward, which I believe are an appropriate start on these issues. I understand the concerns that have been raised. They've been 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 doesn't give credit to the government for the challenges it faces.

It doesn't acknowledge the strong elements that we're making to reduce some of the real challenges that our cost in our system. We are trying to reduce asylum backlogs, we are trying to reduce hotels, and we're 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. I know there are sensitivities. I will look at the points made in the debate today, but I would ask the noble Lord not to move his regret motion and to say to my noble friend Lord Dubs as well, that the equality issues are central to what this government is trying to examine in the processes that we're looking at.

We will keep those equalities issues under review, and I am open to challenge in this chamber about how this system is developing. In due course. I hope noble Lords will bear with me because the. The throat and the. The winter and pressures are catching up on me, but I will look at those points and respond accordingly. And I thank the noble Lord for his contributions today.
22:43
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, thank you, thank you. My Lords. Can I first of all say thank you to the noble, the Minister for his remarks. Not that Minister for his remarks. Not that I agree, as you would expect, but to persevere through, you know, a to persevere through, you know, a croaky voice. It's not easy at the best of times. All I can say to him is that the Chief Whip has arrived. He has something, I think, special in his cupboard, which he can help you out with at the end.

And if he doesn't, please let me know because we can make that very public. But seriously, at this point I. In the evening I first like to 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 a scoreboard for a football match or whatever, then the score is 13 three. And I would say to the noble Lord, the Minister, be aware of who your friends are in this matter, because it is.

It seems to me 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, because one of the things that's come out, I think, from this debate, from all my colleagues and also from everyone who's spoken, is that we have got somewhere the narrative wrong about what migration is about. You must remember that the OECD says of the United Kingdom that properly managed migration is a benefit to our economy.

And if that's the case, then we need to say something positive about the people who we who are with us and who are doing things with us. So I think the concern which I generally pick up is that we're not respectful enough, and we're not giving enough sense of humanity to the society in which we want to live. And the danger is that if we continue down that negative pathway and we continue to make life, as I think some people were suggesting, some members suggesting in the debate by making it appear to be a bad thing to that migration to the United Kingdom was not a good thing.

We were bad people doing bad things. Essentially, that sends a message about the people that we are. And that is, for me, I think, a great shame and something we need to think about. Of course, there is concern about deterrence and the pressure on the asylum system, and we understand that. But the changes to the immigration rules which are before us will neither restore confidence in the system nor control irregular migration. The concerns raised by the 13 people who have members who have spoken in this debate vary considerably, but they suggest that they don't meet these underlying challenges and increase complexity, costs and uncertainty.

My Lords, the purpose of this motion, and I daresay, of Lord Dubs as well, is because he said it in his introduction. It's not to obstruct the policy, but to invite the government to reflect carefully on whether these changes move us closer to a system that is effective, fair and consistent with the United Kingdom's long standing humanitarian commitments. That's the danger we face, my Lords. It's one which we are in a position to ask the government to reconsider. It is shameful, by the way, that we can't do it in any other way than this sort of debate, and that they haven't been able to find a way of doing it in the House of Commons.

But the expectation, surely, is that we would have from the White Paper we would have a bill, and that's the normal process by which this Parliament works. And the idea of doing it in pieces, in little bits, without the proper paperwork, without the proper impact assessments, it's just, just, just makes it more difficult for anyone to try and understand what the intention is. And all I can say is that from my perspective, looking at it now, the it is about making it look more uncomfortable in the United Kingdom, and that is insufficient, in my view, to do the job, which we have to do, which is to prove that there are people in this country who are welcome to be here, who contribute to our economy, who make us a better place than we would be beyond.

It's reflected in this idea of a student as well, where you have students. You often reflect on yourself when you meet people from other countries. When when you work with other people, you reflect upon what you're doing yourself. That's the values which have been at the at the root of the United Kingdom's humanitarian response. And I hope to goodness the government will reflect again about these matters and come back with something which we can negotiate and talk about, which meets that fundamental concern.

As Lord Davies of Brixton says, about therefore.
22:48
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page