Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 2, a probing amendment suggesting that the voting age perhaps be changed to 17 rather than 16. I did this for a number of reasons, to get a proper debate about this.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, referred to the Welsh Senedd elections and the fact that it did not do any harm. I am sure it did not, but it is not exactly the same as voting for the national Government. Turnout did not even reach 52% across the whole of Wales in the Senedd elections earlier this year, so we are talking about quite a different scale of representation.

There is one sentence in the Labour manifesto on this:

“We will increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy, by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections”.


We have not seen that outcome really happen in other parts of the United Kingdom that have already adopted voting at a younger age. I am not going to have a row, because I appreciate it was in the manifesto, but it is useful to point out that research the Electoral Commission shared with us from across several countries and states that have lowered their voting ages shows that, when enfranchised, 16 and 17 year-olds tend to vote in greater numbers than those enfranchised at 18. According to the Electoral Commission, you are more likely to vote when you are 16 and 17, but then not when you are 18.

There is something interesting going on here; there is a bit of a transition. One of the reasons why, traditionally, I have opposed changing the vote from the age of adulthood is that there is a significant change in what happens in the rest of your life when you turn 18. There are significant differences between what a 16 year-old and a 17 year-old can do. A 17 year-old can drive a car. They can fly a plane and get a private pilot’s licence. They can become a blood donor—you cannot do that when you are 16. They can join the Armed Forces—or rather, to be precise, they can join the Army as an officer at the age of 17 years and nine months; they cannot do that in any of the other Armed Forces. You cannot become a police constable until you are 18.

There are so many things on which we have changed the law, in the past five years or so, to stop people doing things until they turn the age of adulthood. So I am trying to get a sense of why the Government have chosen 16 in particular, recognising that this can be an age when a lot of young people will not even have taken their GCSEs, beyond the one line in the Labour manifesto. When you turn 18, you can do things such as serve on a jury and get a tattoo—I did not know you had to be 18 to get a tattoo until I looked it up. You cannot make a will until you are 18, which is quite surprising; perhaps we can change that in another Bill. You certainly cannot get a credit card or buy alcohol—well, not legally.

Another thing is that young people’s lives are very much on our minds, as we are talking about the statistical NEETs. The ONS reckons that there are 57,000 NEETs between the ages of 16 and 17. Back in 2008, I think the Labour Government made it a criminal offence for those young people; they had to take full responsibility if they were not in education or training or did not have a job. Before the last Friday in June when they were 16, it was their parents’ responsibility to keep them in school. I understand why the Government never chose to enact the enforcement or penalty sections of that Act, but they had done it to criminalise young people—and yet today, they want to do something quite different. They have no real focus on why those 57,000 young people are knowingly breaking the law, and it is their responsibility. By the way, councils are supposed to know what every young person is doing under their broader statutory duty on safeguarding children; they are supposed to know exactly what every child in their area is up to. Why do we not have more focus on giving young people the potential and the future that they desperately need, rather than choosing 16 as the age at which they can start voting?

I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister on the referendum; that is an interesting concept. By the way, to match this amendment, I have tabled a later amendment on reducing the age for candidates to 17. I wanted to go a little further in seeing what the Government say about the ages of 16 and 17. The Government say that they can work, pay tax—you can actually do both of those things below 16—and serve in the military. That is correct, but those things need parental consent; they need both parents to consent if the young people are in different houses or their residence is split between two houses. Then there is their contribution to society more broadly, which already happens with young people; we see that in wonderful examples such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and many other schemes, and young people have won Points of Light awards in the past.

What is it about 16? I feel that the Government think there will be an electoral advantage to this—it is as simple as that. They should be careful what they wish for. Polling not that long ago showed that more people were going to vote Reform and Green than for the Labour Party. Do they really think this is the right thing to focus on at 16?

I am concerned about the level of education that would be deployed to achieve this. There is a lot going on, which I will come on to in later amendments to Schedule 1. Nevertheless, it comes back to why they have picked 16, and this is what I am trying to get from the Government. There are plenty of things we have barred them from doing. They cannot get married—they can in Scotland, but not in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are multiple things for which we have lifted the age gap. This really needs a better description than one sentence—three-quarters of which is about things that can be done by children under the age of 16—to make sure that we can continue to have a credible electorate. I am conscious that this will be in other amendments that are coming up. With that, I will carefully consider the contributions of other noble Lords.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in my name. I think it would be useful for noble Lords to remember the vision that lies behind this Bill, which was published in the Government’s paper last July, Restoring Trust in Our Democracy. I just want to quote a couple of little bits from the beginning:

“Our democracy is central to who we are as a country. We can take pride in its evolution and how it has and continues to inspire. As a government, we have a responsibility to protect and strengthen it. The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity and should not be taken for granted”.


Until recently, democracy moved in one direction, from no democracy to partial democracy to full democracy, but I believe that in the Bill there are elements which will see a major reversal of democracy, and it is happening here in the United Kingdom.

Until 31 December 2020, it did not matter where you lived in the UK. Every adult had the right either to elect representatives, who between them made all the laws to which we were subject, or to stand for election to do it themselves. However, that changed from 1 January 2021, when the United Kingdom was divided into two different classes of citizens. On the one hand there are UK citizens living in England, Wales and Scotland, who continue to enjoy the right either to elect representatives or to stand for election to do so themselves, and on the other hand, there are UK citizens living in Northern Ireland who are subject to a second-class citizenship through which they have the right to elect representatives to make only some of the laws to which they were and are subject, or to stand for election to do so.

Of course, as we all know, in 300 areas of law—not just individual laws—UK citizens living in Northern Ireland have been disenfranchised and are now subjected to a second-class, truncated citizenship. On 21 January 2021, no laws had been imposed on us, but since then we have seen increasing numbers of laws hedging us in, growing and growing, and providing a constantly increasing reminder of our disenfranchisement that will get worse. Your Lordships’ House is well aware that, because of this, every time a law is imposed that requires some form of Westminster implementation, we try to oppose the statutory instrument.

In this context, I have tabled Amendment 21 because the message that the Bill is sending 16 and 17 year-olds across the UK is that it can be celebrated as playing a role in restoring our democracy, when it does no such thing for the whole of the United Kingdom. At the moment, our laws treat 16 and 17 year-olds across the UK in exactly the same way. None of them has the right to elect a fellow citizen or to stand for election. However, if the Bill becomes law, it will create discrimination where none currently exists. It will create for the first time two classes of 16 and 17 year-olds in the UK. On the one hand, there will be 16 and 17 year-olds in England, Wales and Scotland, who will be given the right to participate in elections that contribute to making all the laws to which they are subject. On the other hand, there will be 16 and 17 year-olds in Northern Ireland, who will be given the right to participate in elections that contribute to making only some of the laws to which they are subject.

Noble Lords should understand that that violates the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The very purpose of that agreement was to persuade terrorists to renounce violence and seek to pursue their political goals through the ballot box. The agreement contains a special protection for democracy that is additional to those applying to the UK as a whole. It commits to protecting the right of the people of Northern Ireland to

“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”

in relation to all the laws to which they were subject. This was upheld from 1998 until the end of 2020, when the Belfast agreement was violated by the protocol and the Windsor Framework. Now there are whole swathes of life, in 300 areas of law, in which the people of Northern Ireland can no longer pursue democratically national and political aspirations.

It is part of the broader change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. I know that some noble Lords do not like me saying this, but it has, in effect, made Northern Ireland a colony of the EU in these 300 areas. No one in Northern Ireland can have a say on these laws that are made by a foreign Parliament; we are, in effect, a vassal state of the EU. At a time when everyone is apologising, especially in our schools, for colonialism and slavery, it is quite bizarre that we should be acquiescing in its reintroduction, telling 16 and 17 year-olds that they are going to be different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the point my noble friend makes, and I will be very happy to write to her or meet her to discuss that further. On the government amendments—

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I know the Minister has a lot to answer tonight, but will she say anything about Amendment 21, which was mentioned by a number of Peers?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not doing the government amendments because they are the last bit; I am doing them because this is where they come in the order of things. I will come on to other amendments.

Following the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, newly eligible young people will need to register to vote. Government Amendment 12 and consequential Amendments 275, 295 and 296, tabled in my name, will enable electoral registration officers to obtain information about 14 and 15 year-olds during the 2027 canvas. Registration officers will be able to use that information to invite those young people to register to vote, either as attainers or as electors, once the new franchise is brought into effect. This will help to get young people on the register and reduce the risk for our hard-pressed EROs of a large spike in registrations immediately before the first poll is conducted under the expanded franchise.

I turn now to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The Government agree that extending the franchise must go hand in hand with ensuring that young people have access to reliable information and the knowledge they need to participate confidently in elections. However, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary. The Government’s proposed social media ban will apply to children under the age of 16, although they will still be able to access the online world for purposes including news and learning. Meanwhile, 16 and 17 year-olds will continue to be able to access social media, although additional default protections will apply to help ensure they can do so safely. The Online Safety Act already includes safeguards for content of democratic importance, recognised news publisher content and journalistic content on the largest user-to-user services. Ofcom is now implementing that regime and there is a strong case for allowing it to run its course before introducing a further statutory review requirement through the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, I think that is certainly the case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has tabled Amendments 21, 278, 284 and 286. These amendments seek to require an equality impact assessment comparing the effects of the franchise change in Northern Ireland with Great Britain and to delay the commencement of Part 1 of the Bill until a formal report on the Government’s response to that assessment is laid before both Houses. The Government are committed to extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds across the entire United Kingdom on an equal basis. The Bill ensures that people across the United Kingdom are empowered to participate in our democracy. Imposing additional statutory requirements on extending the franchise would create an unnecessary delay to delivering this commitment for young people across the UK.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Windsor Framework in relation to this amendment. The Windsor Framework was overwhelmingly approved by Parliament. It respects Northern Ireland’s place in the union and gives democratically elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly the ability to scrutinise—

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Can I just finish? Then, if the noble Baroness still wants to come in, I will happily give way. It gives Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly the ability to scrutinise the rules that apply and the Government are committed to it. The Government are committed to equality across the country and lowering the voting age to 16 applies identically across all reserved elections, without distinction. The assessment comparing electors in Northern Ireland with those in Great Britain is unnecessary and would delay implementation of the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for the detail with which she has responded, although obviously I do not agree with her. Can I just correct something that has been said by many noble Lords? The Windsor Framework was never voted on as the Windsor Framework either in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. The only way that we have had votes has been on statutory instruments. The very first one was some months after 2021, when the protocol was brought in, and then the Windsor Framework. There has been no vote ever in this place or the other place on the Windsor Framework and the principle of it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will leave that comment where the noble Baroness left it.

Amendments 22, 279 and 285, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Brady of Altrincham, would require a report explaining why the voting age should differ from the age of majority set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which is 18. A similar amendment to this was tabled in the other place, and I can only reiterate today what my ministerial colleague said in those debates. The Government are working to build and maintain a democracy fit for 2026 and beyond. The central question before us is not whether the voting age aligns with every other age threshold contained in statute. Rather, it is whether 16 and 17 year-olds should have a voice in the democratic decisions that affect their lives and their future. The Government’s view is clear: young people have a direct stake in the future of this country and extending the franchise will enable them to participate in shaping policies and institutions that will have a lasting impact on their lives and can help establish the habits of democratic engagement that will build the foundations for lifelong participation in our democratic system. I hope that reassures noble Lords that the Government have carefully considered this matter, and we remain committed to delivering this important reform.

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is a very wide-ranging Bill—almost too wide-ranging—but it has some sensible proposals on electoral administration. It also has a number of proposals for which, as other noble Lords have said, there will probably be unintended consequences, and we need to go into the detail.

I want to deal with what the Government themselves said: that the Bill is all about restoring trust in our democracy. There has never been a time, as we all know, when we need to restore trust in our democracy more. Until 2020, UK democracy was very stable and secure, in that it did not matter where you lived in the United Kingdom because everyone had an equal vote. But in January 2021, we had an assault on the core of universal suffrage. Before that date, it did not matter where you lived; everyone had the same basic democratic right to elect a fellow citizen to make all the laws to which they were subject, or to stand for election for themselves, in devolution to MLAs, or to MPs. But the imposition of the protocol/Windsor Framework meant that while UK citizens can still stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject in England, Wales and Scotland, UK citizens in Northern Ireland have had their democratic rights truncated, such that 300 areas of law—not just 300 laws but 300 areas of law—are simply imposed on us by a foreign Administration.

In the context of the political union that is the United Kingdom, this is not just an attack on democracy in one part of the country but surely an attack on the integrity of democracy across the whole country. What is more important is that it has also constituted a very specific and insensitive attack on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That agreement was for the purpose of trying to persuade terrorists to give up the bomb for the ballot box, so special stress was placed in it on protecting democracy. Specifically, it contained the unique commitment that the people of Northern Ireland should have

“the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

Far from being upheld by the Windsor Framework, this has been subject to a full-frontal assault, in that the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations in relation to all the laws to which they are subject was taken from them.

There has never been a better example of a Bill whose purpose is to restore democracy being in complete denial about the existential threat to democracy that the country faces. Rather than giving votes to 16 and 17 year-olds, the Government had the opportunity to restore the full value of the vote to all UK citizens. Yet the Bill does precisely nothing to put that right. This was an opportunity. Indeed, it makes things worse by introducing discrimination where it currently does not exist. At present, the law treats 16 and 17 year-olds the same way across the whole country—except, of course, in Scotland where 16 and 17 year-olds can vote.

However, going forward, the Bill is going to tell 16 and 17 year-olds in England, Wales and Scotland that they are worthy of the right to elect a fellow citizen to make all their laws, but it tells 16 and 17 year-olds in Northern Ireland that they are worthy only of the right to elect a fellow citizen to make some of the laws to which they are subject. They are to be denied the right that this Bill extends to their peers in GB. We are seeing this at the moment with the number of statutory instruments coming through this House. There is no consultation and no say on them, just a dictated imposition. Can noble Lords imagine if this was being done to Cornwall or Yorkshire?

It also creates the absurd situation that a 16 year-old in Great Britain who has never paid any tax or put their life on the line for their country will be afforded more rights when it comes to electing a fellow citizen than a Falklands or Gulf War veteran living in Northern Ireland who has paid tax all their life and put their life on the line for their country. That just cannot be right. This Bill was an opportunity to look at it. The Minister said it was really important that people had to believe that their vote mattered and could be counted. I am afraid that is not happening in Northern Ireland.

I will add one further thing that I know noble Lords will not like. We have gone on about and attacked Reform UK so much today, but if we really care about genuine democracy we should have Reform UK Lords in this place. It is a party that actually has a possibility of being in government—who knows—and there is not a single member of Reform UK in this place. I think that is wrong.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my amendments in this group, concerned with cultural assets of community value—the same amendments I tabled in Committee. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg for these amendments. I have done so primarily to allow me to thank the Minister for the encouraging reply she gave in Committee that such assets will be explicitly recognised in statutory guidelines. The Minister has kindly invited feedback on that guidance, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg and I have drawn up a more comprehensive list of categories of possible cultural assets than we have discussed, in the hope that this may be of practical use. I have forwarded this in a letter to the Minister over the weekend, so she may not yet have had time to have a look at it. It is a longer list than the examples contained in my Amendment 262, which then would be cited in the Bill. In the interest of completeness, it contains perhaps some unusual examples, but it may be the unusual that a local community wishes to maintain.

One outstanding concern which occurred to us in drawing up this list is about potentially moveable cultural assets, such as archives or furnishings, or even a single object of cultural value; of course, this will be a particular concern for heritage sites. It may be a question of whether or not such assets are integral to the property in which they are housed. This is not something we have previously discussed, but I hope nevertheless that this dimension might be acknowledged within the guidance, so I ask the Minister to consider that specific point. Of course, with historic buildings of national significance, one would hope that other measures come into play, and the conscious inclusion of cultural assets within the scheme should not negate responsibility to others, particularly that which local councils ought to have with regard to many of our cultural assets. However, the great thing about the scheme as it stands is that it is about people power. The local people are often the first to recognise an asset’s importance. In that sense, the scheme is not a replacement for, but an important additional part of, the armoury.

The rest of my amendments raise the status of cultural assets within the legislation; they are not less important. I still protest against cultural being treated as a subset of social and being less important rather than equal to sporting assets within the legislation as it stands, but I am not going to press this at this stage. Rather, I will congratulate the Minister and her team on the clear progress that has been made, ensuring that cultural assets will be much more widely recognised as potential candidates for this scheme.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 263A and 263B. I also support Amendment 263ZB on the consultation with Sport England, which I think is very important. We must not remove Sport England as a consultee. I declare an interest as the honorary president of the London Playing Fields Foundation, the charity that was founded way back in 1890 to protect, promote and provide playing fields at a time when the pressure to build on open green spaces was intense. Very little has changed since then. However, the activities that can take place on well-managed playing fields, I think we all know, can improve lives, especially when we know how the situation is with young children and obesity.

Sport can provide the motivation to be more active and encourage confidence and social skills. Of course, none of this would be possible without a pitch to play on in the first place, and it is therefore vital that we protect playing fields so that they remain accessible, affordable and attractive to current and future generations. Getting rid of our fields is a false economy. Research commissioned by the London Playing Fields Foundation showed just how much money could be saved. An impact study on the activities at the Douglas Eyre Sports Centre in Walthamstow over a 12-month period found that the minimum saving to the public purse was £4.8 million, mostly in reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. Let us not forget: once a playing field is lost, it is lost for ever.

I turn to my amendments. First, I say to the Minister that I support government Amendment 252, which is very important, and also the new category of indefinite sporting ACVs in the Bill, which is most welcome. It makes it clear that once a playing field, always a playing field. Thousands of playing fields have been lost to speculators, and the Bill’s right to buy for sporting assets of community value has the potential to ensure that our remaining playing fields become community-owned assets in perpetuity. The right-to-buy mechanism could be a game-changer in saving playing fields, but there is a flaw in the Bill. It is silent on hope value, which, if left unaddressed, means that communities will always fail to compete with speculators.

The Minister said in Committee:

“We want to ensure that communities have the best opportunity to purchase valued assets and are not priced out by inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential”.—[Official Report, 5/3/26; col. GC 517.]


She was so right; “inflated sale prices” is the lay definition of hope value that Amendments 263A and 263B seek to remove from assets of community value valuations. The principle of removing inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential is accepted by the Government; “inflated sale price” is a non-legal term or definition for what we all call hope value. You could also say that it is the key definition. Hope value is the amount of inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential. Hope value is so big in playing fields because the valuation of a playing field is low, because a playing field run by community sports clubs is usually dependent on volunteers, and that is a break-even social asset. Of course, the same acreage with planning for housing is worth many millions.

In Committee, the Minister dismissed amendments very similar to these on the grounds of “striking the right balance” between communities and asset owners. I agree with that, and I think we all agree with that, but there are two scenarios where a speculator owns a sporting asset of community value with the intent of change of use for abnormal profit. A speculator who owns a playing field that is subsequently determined by the local authority as an ACV has a right to appeal the designation of ACV. A speculator can also afford a judicial review of the council decision. Moreover, a speculator who buys a playing field that is already a sporting ACV does so at their own financial risk, speculating that they can remove the ACV designation to enable change of use for profit. My amendments do not disrupt the right balance. The historic loss of playing fields has proven what we all know: it still favours the speculator. The speculator has more funds and more specialist knowledge to pursue their aims than the community has to protect sporting ACVs at risk.

My Amendment 263A presumes that the new right-to-buy process is working and removes the inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential from the valuation process, and so gives a community charity a chance to buy a playing field at a valuation based on its use as a sports ground. Amendment 263B is the back-up if the right-to-buy process fails as the speculative owner is unwilling to sell an ACV to a charity. The Crichel Down rules for compulsory purchase already provide a path to CPO to tackle obstructive owners, but this amendment makes sure that inflated sales prices based on redevelopment potential—hope value—are removed from CPO valuation for sporting ACVs.

Why do so many groups working to protect playing fields feel so strongly and support these amendments? Let me lay out starkly why these amendments are needed. I use Udney Park in Richmond as a reference case. It was opened in 1922 as a war memorial sports ground by Old Merchant Taylors’ Football Club and was re-donated under covenant in 1937 to St Mary’s Hospital Medical School, which then merged with Imperial College London in 1988. In 2014, Imperial decided that Udney Park was surplus and put it on the market. In 2015, Imperial sold it to a UK speculator who gazumped the £2 million community bid with a £6 million winning bid—so £4 million of hope value, or inflated sale price based on redevelopment potential, probably about £30 million. The UK speculator took five years then to get their planning application to a public inquiry, spending a further £4 million on professional fees. Udney Park became an asset of community value in 2016, thanks to all the campaigners. In 2020, the planning inspector refused the change of use and the UK developer then put Udney Park back on the market in 2021.

However, the current asset of community value right-to-bid process failed. The community bid £1 million. The park was now dilapidated and the war memorial pavilion closed and vandalised, so there was a reduction in value as a sports ground since 2015. Unfortunately, an offshore speculator bought the park in 2022 for £3.5 million, so that was now £2.5 million of hope value or inflated sale price based on redevelopment. If hope value is removed, this offers a path to community ownership for Udney Park and other playing fields at risk.

As the Minister must know, local people in all cases of playing fields being threatened put huge voluntary effort into trying to save them. I pay tribute to the Udney Park Playing Fields Trust, led by Mark Jopling, who has also written to the Minister and the shadow Minister, and has been working closely with the Liberal Democrat MP for the area. The trust has been tireless in its efforts, but faced with the wealth of this developer, it has virtually no chance of saving the playing fields for their children’s children to play on if we do not even up the situation on hope value. That is why these two simple amendments are so important.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 263ZA and 263ZB. I declare that I am chair of Sport Wales, I have recently been appointed to the board of Active Travel England and I am a patron of Fields in Trust. Sport England is notified only if there is loss or damage to sports fields. While I admire the Government’s ambition to increase housebuilding in an attempt to stimulate growth, it is important than people, especially children, have a place to play. The work of Sport England in safeguarding these areas is really important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

This would be a negotiation, as I set out, involving an independent valuation process to determine a fair price for both parties based on the market value of that asset. That means that both parties get the opportunity to make representations to an independent valuer to support them. The final price will be determined by the independent valuation process. Community groups will have to decide whether they want to go ahead with that purchase, and asset owners will decide whether they wish to sell at that price.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

But surely the market value depends on what is going to be done with the particular playing field?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot really add anything to what I have said already. The valuation process would take all matters into account. It will be for both parties to make representations from their perspective about what they consider to be the market value, and the independent valuer will make the judgment between the two of them.

Chinese Embassy

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, most Londoners know just how difficult it is to get a tiny little extension approved for the back of their house. Why on earth does a foreign embassy need such a huge building in such an important area? Even the United States of America does not have such a huge embassy. Aside from security issues, does she not agree that this is a ridiculous application?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has a view on that, but the Ministers taking the decision have to determine the application as it stands. The documents were submitted correctly to Tower Hamlets Council and the decision is now being considered in MHCLG. It is a decision for planning Ministers. It is open for any party to make representations about the case, the matter the noble Baroness raises or anything else. All relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making the decision.

Social Disorder

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I support the noble Lord’s comments 100%. The police have our full support to use their powers without fear or favour. I have enormous gratitude for the dedicated officers who worked tirelessly to respond to the unfounded violence and abuse. The Home Secretary continues to work with law enforcement, across government and with the entire criminal justice system to ensure that we are fully equipped to deal with these incidents.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that disinformation must not happen also because the Government are involved in any kind of disinformation? I am sure he will agree with that, but will he then agree that perhaps it is not sensible for Ministers or the Government to condemn almost anyone who was involved in any protest using the terminology “far right”?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Khan review cited divisive language from politicians and a decline in trust and participation in democracy as factors that contribute towards worsening social cohesion. Politicians on all sides have a duty to use language carefully and consider the effects of their language on social cohesion. The Government have made a firm commitment to restore trust in government.

Local Planning Authorities: Staffing

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Planning authorities still have an obligation to produce an up-to-date local plan, setting out how they plan to build the houses that their local areas need. The Government are focused on this and will shine a greater light of transparency on the authorities that do not have plans. We will be prepared to take any measures needed to put that in place.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

Can His Majesty’s Government have any influence on the training of planners so that they understand the word “beauty” and do not allow such grotesque buildings in London? They are so high, dominating the river, and they destroy the heritage and history of our wonderful capital city.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

This illustrates something that we will come to in our discussions next week: that more regulation is not necessarily better for nature. We need to look at what works, and work with and involve people; we need to understand how people work with nature and that overregulation is not the best way to protect nature. This amendment would be a superb way to look after swifts and other hole-nesting birds. I really hope the Government, if they cannot accept it this evening, will take it very seriously.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I was very sorry when he resigned from his position because I thought he was an extremely good Minister. In a sense, if this amendment goes through—and I very much hope it will, and that the Government are listening tonight and texting various senior people to say that we need to support this—then I think it would be a really good legacy for the ex-Minister. He has come here tonight to move this amendment, which he would not have been able to do as Minister.

As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it is common sense, and we begin to think why nobody thought of it before. Why have we not done it before? Perhaps the noble Lord has suggested it in the past, but it is a useful, common-sense approach to something that should be worrying us all.

As a young child, I grew up loving birdwatching—watching swifts and all kinds of birds. Knowing how much joy and pleasure that gave to me, my concern is that we could have a future generation growing up who would not see birds in the same way. I say to the Minister and the Front Bench that sometimes you have to accept that you have made the wrong decision; this is an opportunity now to put that right.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. I will sound like an old fogey—so perhaps I should be sitting in the seats opposite—but I used to love going into my branch of Co-op and actually speaking to somebody, asking them questions directly. This has damaged communities, especially communities of quite vulnerable people who cannot travel very far, so the Greens will be voting for this amendment.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I also strongly support what the noble Baroness said on this. It is something that I have been very concerned about for a long time and you cannot divorce it from the way that post offices have been run down by our Government. The reality is that post offices cannot now do many of the things that they used to do. It is a drip-drip thing that is gradually making it very difficult particularly for the elderly and those who have no access to a bank account or are not near a bank.

Whatever the Government might think of GB News, I do not understand why they will not look more at its huge petition to say that we do not want to be a cashless society. This is really important. The noble Baroness is starting the fightback, which I hope the Government will listen to. I hope that she puts this to a vote, because people talk a lot about it but, when it comes to the crunch, noble Lords need to show that they mean it; otherwise, it is useless us being here.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is as if we were never away. I remind the House of my relevant interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made a very strong case in support of her Amendment 164, to which I have added my name. This amendment is so important because this is, after all, a levelling-up Bill. If there is no access to financial services in the very places that are the focus of the Government’s mission statement for levelling up, we are doing them a disservice and not, in fact, helping to level up. So I hope the Minister will take heed of the noble Baroness’s arguments.

The House of Commons Library produced a very informative briefing on this very issue last year. One of its statistics was that overall use of cash payments fell from 45% of all transactions in 2015 to 17% in 2021. However, since the cost of living crisis, there has been anecdotal but substantial evidence that use of cash has increased as families find it easier to control their spending if they make cash payments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has argued on behalf of those without bank accounts; there are a large number of such people. How will they manage if they cannot access cash? Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, it is also more difficult for some older people and those with disabilities, particularly learning disabilities, to manage bank accounts, whereas they can live more independently with cash.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, all these changes to a more cashless society depend on a good mobile signal or access to broadband. Let us remember that these are simply not available in many parts of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, knows how difficult it is to access a mobile signal, let alone the internet, if you live in the Yorkshire Dales. Moving without thought to a lack of in-person banking access will seriously harm people in rural communities and those folk I mentioned.

So far, we have not thought much about local retailers in small towns and villages, which often carry out their transactions by cash. The question for those retailers, which some of them have raised with me, is where they deposit their cash if there is no bank available. If they have a substantial amount of cash, as some of them will, travelling with it and depositing it is a risk in itself.

The number of physical banks has fallen by 34% between 2012 and 2021—so says the House of Commons Library briefing. That is a substantial number. The Government anticipate that the loss of banks can, on the one hand, be resolved by people using post offices, but the number of post offices too is in sharp decline. Huddersfield is a very large town of more than 100,000 people. The post office in its centre has now moved into a branch of another shop, so it is not even a post office on its own. You have to walk through the shop to get to the post office at the back. That is hardly a presence in our towns and communities that encourages people to believe they have access to cash and banking facilities.

Finally, during the recess somebody told me about a particular banking problem they had. The bank had made an error in a transaction and wrongly attributed it as a charge on their account instead of as a payment. Resolving this problem took a couple of weeks. The person in question could access their internet account and tried resolving it that way. They failed. They tried to phone the bank: “Press 1, press 2, press 3”; “Hold on: I can’t do it”, they were told, “but ring in the morning, when somebody will know what to do”. In the morning, they were told, “Go to your local branch”, at which point the person in question said, “It closed last week. Where do you expect me to go?” In the end, they had to travel 20 miles to the nearest bank in a large city to try to see somebody to resolve the issue. It was then resolved, because you are more able to get such things sorted in person.

That will not be the only example; if I have heard of that, there will be numerous examples of that sort of situation. If that happened to an older person without access to the internet or the ability to get by public transport to a branch 10 or so miles away, they would have been at a huge disadvantage and lost that money, because there would be no way to resolve the issue. That is why banking and financial services need to have a physical presence in our communities. We do not expect every bank to have a branch everywhere, but we do expect the Government to agree to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to try to resolve this issue so that we can help to level up some of our communities and some of our folk. If the noble Baroness intends to move the amendment to a vote, we will certainly support it.

Valedictory Debate

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

When I see the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), I always recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) talking about seeing him in his nappies when he was young. Seeing again how young he obviously is, I am very sorry that he is leaving the House. One thing we have in common is the arts. A lot of Members spend their evenings in the very wonderful part of my constituency with the Southbank centre, the National Theatre and so on.

[Mr Vaizey]

I should just say that I have not said I am leaving the House— I was just giving a statement at the end of term.

[Kate Hoey]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has to be re-elected, of course, but he is not retiring. [Interruption.] Now I am very unclear whether he is retiring or just putting himself forward for re-election—fine.

Like the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), who spoke first in the debate, I came in at a by-election in 1989. I will not go through my whole history, but I just point out that it is very different being a Member of Parliament who is literally five minutes away from their constituency. He was my constituent in Kennington for a very long time and he took a great interest in many of the community events; I am very grateful for that. Coming in as a new Member in that by-election back in 1989 was very different: we had no television covering the house, no mobile phones, no emails, no 24-hour news—it all sounds wonderful now. Members who come in now probably do not really understand how different it was 30 years ago.

Some of the improvements have been wonderful. For example, I waited for an office for a very long time. All the things that are now done for new Members did not happen then and we were very much left to find our own way. I should also say that I do not like some of the changes. I am very pleased that we have a new Speaker who will be extremely fair and show the kindness—quite honestly, I am not a hypocrite—that the previous Speaker did not show to Members, and I hope that the new Parliament will realise that some changes from the so-called modernisation do not necessarily change the standard of the debate in this place or the way that people behave. I think we need to look at that very carefully, and I hope that the new Speaker will do so. There is not just the question of clapping. Practically every tradition in this House has been introduced over the years for a reason. I remember being one of those people who came in and immediately said, “Why are we wasting so much time in the Division Lobbies? Why are we not getting through right away? Why are we not able to not vote in a different way?” However, I would not dream of voting to get rid of the Division Lobbies now, because it is such a useful time to talk to people from both sides of the House—if someone is not always voting with their party, as I have not been a few times—and to see Members from our own party. I spent most evenings going over to Vauxhall to community meetings, friends groups and tenants associations, so I did not have the luxury of being able to stay around in the House and have lots of nice meals, with the wonderful catering staff and wonderful food. We need to be careful about modernising this place so much that it is treated in a way that loses the absolute value of history that we have in this place.

One part of my life that will be very unhappy about me leaving is my wonderful, old, traditional, original Mini, because it literally knows its way from the House of Commons over Westminster bridge and back over Lambeth bridge. Some days I would do the journey perhaps two or three times, so my Mini will get a great rest when I leave, and it will not know what has hit it now that it will not be doing that journey.

I want to say a couple of very important thank yous. This place is made up of people who work so hard for us all and who very often do not get the thanks and tributes. I thank all the members of Royal Mail, for example—the postmen and women who have delivered our mail and have been so kind over the years. I thank Yiannis in the Travel Office, who has been fantastic. Most importantly for me, as someone who came in and was not in any way computer-savvy—I still do not really like technology—one person in the Digital Service, Balj Rai, has been just wonderful. He knows exactly how to be patient with someone like me, and I thank him.

Finally, I want to thank my personal staff. I have had Kathy Duffy working for me for 26 years—I must not get emotional; this is silly. I have had Max Freedman for 15 years; Lara Nicholson for 11 years; Ada During for six years; and my wonderful paralegal Ashleah Skinner, who has done a brilliant job, for four years. They have all made my life here so much better. I also thank all my constituents who have sent me such wonderful letters and shown kindness. I will not miss many of my party political activists, but I will miss my constituents, my community organisers and the people who really wanted to work with me to make Vauxhall a better place. One thing I said when I came in here was that my country would always come before my party—and it still does.

Local Government Funding Settlement

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I firmly recognise the benefit of multi-year settlements. We have seen this through councils’ ability to plan and to drive efficiencies and effectiveness. As my Department prepares submissions for next year’s spending review, I will reflect carefully on the matter in order to recognise the ability for councils to plan, while also ensuring that we promote innovation.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State understand that there is a limit to back-office efficiency savings and the new income that councils can get? Since 2010, Lambeth has seen some of the biggest cuts of any council in the country. There is a rising demand in inner-city areas that we can do nothing about. Just how does the Secretary of State think that councils can continue to deal with this rising demand with the level of funding that they are receiving?

[James Brokenshire]

A lot of that demand is in social care pressures, which is why we have made these announcements. Equally, I recognise that there is a need for long-term reform and sustainability to ensure that we can meet the needs of the future. I am firmly discussing that issue with the Health Secretary as we look at the social care Green Paper. Core spending power in Lambeth is also above average for that class of council, but we will continue to reflect on the issue.