Speaker’s Statement

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I served in this place with John Prescott for many years, and I admired him from afar as being a true Labour man and a man of true grit. I am not sure that my admiration of him was reciprocated, but I held him in great affection. My first memory of him was in 1983, when I arrived in this place as a new Member of Parliament. I gave a speech, during which I could see John grunting and looking furious. He probably thought I was an absurd, young, opinionated Thatcherite brat—and he was probably right.

Talking of Mrs Thatcher, my next memory of him was when I saw him having a quiet supper in the little Members’ canteen we used to have downstairs. The moment my boss, Mrs Thatcher, came in, I could see John waving his hands in fury at her for all that she had done. Neil Kinnock leaned over and said, “Calm down, John, calm down.” I thought, “Here is a man of real strong opinion.” We have so many anaemic politicians today—I am not looking at anybody in particular—so it was wonderful to have a man like John Prescott on the Opposition Benches.

John much mellowed and it was a great joy to serve with him on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I remember him saying that his children wanted him to go on “Strictly Come Dancing”, but he decided not to. That would have been something for the history books—John Prescott on “Strictly Come Dancing”!

As a local Member of Parliament, I pay tribute to John Prescott. I used to take my children to The Deep, and he did a great many things for Hull. I wish hon. Members could have watched Look North, our local television news programme, and seen the tributes paid by local people, who said how loved he was in Hull and how hard he worked for the people. He was a great man and he will be sorely missed.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was deeply saddened to hear about the death of John Prescott. I send my condolences to Pauline, his sons and all those who were close to him. I considered him to be a good friend of mine and of Mansfield. He was a giant of a man and a champion of the coalfields, devolution, local government and climate action.

I first met John in the 1980s, as an activist in the Labour party, and enjoyed supporting him in his first campaign to be deputy leader in 1988, and in his campaign to be leader and deputy leader in 1994. His legacy includes setting up the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which was established to help support former coalfield areas in communities such as Mansfield that had been impacted by the pit closure programmes of the 1980s and 1990s. That helped ensure that my area received millions of pounds of funding.

John had a particularly strong link to my constituency of Mansfield, especially through my Labour predecessor, Sir Alan Meale, who was his parliamentary private secretary for some years. Anecdotally, I can recall many endearing memories of John, including a time when we were playing table tennis in Sir Alan’s front yard in Mansfield. It was a lovely sunny day and we were enjoying our game in the garden, on a day when the Prime Minister was out of the country on business. An important call came through that John had to take, and we paused our game. To this day, I have no idea who it was or what was said, but the conversation clearly distracted John so much that when he arrived back, he hit the ball with such force that it bounced right off the table and hit the ministerial car. From that experience, I can assure the House that the left hook still packed a mighty punch.

In the years after John left office, I would often drive him back to the station at Newark or Doncaster after his many visits to Mansfield, so he could get the train to London or back home to Hull. The insights from his frank and honest recollections of history from the Blair and Brown years will stay with me for a very long time. May he rest in peace.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

That lifetime guarantee appears now to have expired.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am a bit worried about what my hon. Friend is saying. Why do we need a comprehensive plan at all? Why not just leave it alone? As that great conservative, Lord Falkland, once said, “When it is not necessary to do something, it is necessary not to do it.”

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. There has sometimes been that confusion, and new clause 4, or anything that the Government would look to bring forward—as backed up by their manifesto and popular support for such a move—would mean that we could get the upper House working much better.

The introduction of a mandatory retirement age is another thoughtful and, dare I say it, far-reaching policy that was in Labour’s manifesto. I pay tribute to the Paymaster General. We all know he is one of the finest authors in this House, and his publications are still available on Amazon, although they are not quite as sought after as those of the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I am sure that the volume on the Prime Minister that will no doubt be coming forward will be a real hot seller, but the Paymaster General is a great author and he came up with the mandatory retirement age, I imagine, and it is a good policy. It is certainly worth including in this legislation that he is bringing forward.

It is not onerous in adding too much to the Bill, and it would have a significant impact in reducing the size of the House of Lords. We know that the House of Lords is the largest legislative chamber outside of the People’s Republic of China. The simple act of introducing a mandatory retirement age, which was a key part of the Labour party’s manifesto, would considerably reduce the number of life peers. It would also have a significant impact on reducing the cost of the House of Lords.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sorry to declare an interest, but why is my right hon. Friend so ageist? Some people are wonderful at the age of 80, and others are useless at the age 50.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), such a well-loved, distinguished and senior Member—even if he has only served 27 years in this House.

I have sat through the whole debate and I did not intend to speak, but I just want to reply to a few comments. By its very nature, the debate has been confrontational—that is what we do in this place. We tend to concentrate on what divides us rather than on what unites us, and I want to say something about what might unite us.

First of all, on the ideas that divide us, we are debating whether to abolish the hereditaries. The Labour party says that it is in its manifesto and therefore it can do what it wants. We say that that is gerrymandering, that the bulk of these people are hardworking and that by nature they are Conservatives, so this is an excuse to get rid of a large number of Conservative peers. The Government will carry on and do it anyway. That is clearly very controversial.

The next proposal, it seems, is to abolish the bishops. I heard what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), but there are all sorts of objections to doing that, not least because this is an established Church. Do we really want to attack a faith community? It is part of our history. Are the bishops really doing much harm in the House of Lords? Incidentally, because of our canon law, the Catholic bishops do not want to be Members of the House of Lords anyway, although they are apparently quite willing to support distinguished laymen to help the Catholic cause there—but we all know that. I do not think that we will ever reach an agreement on abolishing the bishops in the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the Father of the House agree that inevitably, given the nature of the Bill, we have been talking more about the process by which people become Members of the House of Lords than about the activity that it carries out? In particular, although not everyone in the House of Lords is an expert, a large number of them are: people who have reached the top of their respective professions, whether those professions be academia, the law, the arts or the judiciary.

Can the Father of the House cast his mind back to 1984, when he and I, having both fought the 1983 general election—he stood in Gainsborough and Horncastle, which is why he was in the House; and I stood in Swansea West, which is why I was not—co-operated on trying to have postal ballots for trade union elections? Does he remember that he introduced a Bill that got nowhere in this House, because of the strong whipping system of elected Members, but when we took it to the House of Lords we were able to persuade people on the arguments because of the light whipping? The amendment went through, and when the Bill came back to the Commons the then Government brought in their own measures to meet the point. Does he agree that, apart from creating gridlock, an elected second Chamber would not have the possibility of introducing fresh ideas that, once introduced, may be accepted by a Government in this place, but which would never get off the starting blocks if they were introduced in this place initially?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very good point. I remember that rebellion very well—it was the start of my many rebellions. I suggest to Labour Members that they should not rebel if they want get on in this place. We had a rebellion and finally won on that issue, and my right hon. Friend makes a very good point about how we won the argument. That underlines how important it is to have a second Chamber that is not composed of elected politicians. I really do not see the point of electing politicians to a second Chamber, because it would just be like this place: full of people who want to become Ministers and who are completely subordinate to the Whips.

What is the point of having an elected second Chamber? The whole point of a second Chamber is that it should be independent-minded, and the Lords are independent-minded. They regularly defeat the Government, and they actually have better debates than we do. The House of Lords is full of people who have tremendous experience in the professions, business and charities. I just do not see the point of getting rid of them lock, stock and barrel, but there is a perfectly good consensual argument that the number should be reduced. There are some people in the Lords whom we should remove either because they have not been appointed in an entirely right way or because they do not turn up.

[Sir John Hayes]

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, Bagehot spoke about this issue. He said that the distinguishing feature of the House of Lords is that its Members’ views are emphatically their own views. In his terms, they are not subject to social bribe, by which he meant that they are not answerable to constituents in the way we are, so they can make judgments entirely free of that pressure. That is a virtue of the current arrangements and, frankly, a virtue of the hereditary peerage too.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think we can all agree that the other place, for all that it is seemingly undemocratic, works quite well. The Lords actually listen to debates, and they vote according to their conscience. They regularly defeat the Government, and they improve Bills again and again. If it works, why change it?

Will the Paymaster General please think about the idea that I have suggested? We could get some sort of compromise by which all parties in the House of Lords are reduced by the same amount. We could reduce the Lords to around 600 Members, give more power to the House of Lords Appointments Commission and, in future, keep the number at about 600.

[Dr Murrison]

I am very much attracted to the argument laid out by the Father of the House. He is right to say that consensus in these sorts of matters is nigh on impossible, as poor Jack Straw found out in 2007. The Father of the House is also right to aim for a reductionist strategy in trying to decide what we can do to improve the situation. That will get a majority consensus in this House, difficult though census most certainly is in these matters.

This debate has been characterised by some levity, which is okay—it is positive. It probably reflects the fact that most of our constituents are not usually seized by constitutional matters, which is not to say that such matters are not important, because plainly they are. The attendance here today is not what one might expect for a matter of this importance. That probably reflects the fact that when we are all knocking on doors a few months ago, this kind of thing really was not No. 1 among people’s concerns, but it remains important nevertheless.

I confess that I have been on something of a journey since 2007, at which time I was persuaded that the upper House ought to be elected. I am not any more, because I have seen in the workings of this place how it is possible for this place ultimately to be challenged by a subordinate secondary Chamber that is itself elected. Try as I might, I cannot work out how it is possible to avoid that kind of situation. This is the primary part of our legislature, and that must remain the case. We must be unchallenged, but we need checks and balances, which is precisely what the upper House aims to provide.

Many have spoken today about who we might remove from the upper House. I have no objection in principle to the things that the Government are trying to do, but I am persuaded that matters of this sort should be part of a wider package, which is why I will be supporting the Opposition amendment today. However, my view is that we have probably got this round the wrong way, which is why I very much support the amendments being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) in relation to the bishops.

I remember when I was pontificating in another country—a majority Muslim country that was a nascent democracy—on democracy. At the end of my spiel, a lady put up her hand and, to her great credit, said, “I have listened very carefully to what you have said, but with the greatest of respect, who are you to come here and lecture us, given that you have within your legislature people who are there by dint of hereditary right and people who are there because they are part of a particular religious persuasion?”

We have heard some quotes today, including from G. K. Chesterton. I am not sure whether I can match that, but I think I probably can. Robert Burns said:

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!”

I like that. He is saying that it is important to note how we appear to other people, other countries and other legislatures, and it seems to me that that lady, all those years ago, had the measure of it. We may not think we are a theocracy in the same way as Iran is, or that we retain the hereditary principle in the same way as Lesotho or Swaziland do, but we are and we do. We need to remedy that, because appearances matter and that lady was absolutely right. That is why I support my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that.

I also agree with the assertion of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that this is it, and that it is no good hoping for another Bill. That Bill is not going to come. If it does, there is no guarantee that it will not end up in the same place as poor Jack Straw’s measures ended up in 2007. Given the difficulty with consensus, I suspect that that is exactly where such a measure would land. So this is it.

I do not particularly want to see our legislature populated by people who are there because they are representative of one particular faith community in this country. I am an Anglican, just like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. I am a practising Anglican and I value the views of bishops —of course I do—but it is simply not right to have them being politicians in dog collars generally propagating a left liberal world view. I would much rather that they were in their dioceses engaged in the cure of souls. That is where I, as an Anglican, want to see them.

I will certainly support my Front Bench’s measured amendments this evening. I very much hope that the Government have been listening carefully to what has been said. These grave, serious matters need to be debated in a careful and measured way. I see virtue not in ploughing ahead with the Bill as an emergency but in incorporating it into a wider set of proposals at a later stage, although hopefully not too late, so that we can consider these things in the round. I hope we will be able to see those proposals before too long. I live in hope.

The Labour party has had 14 years to consider all of this. My view is that this Bill will be it. That is disappointing and a missed opportunity.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, because the monarchy is a completely different part of our constitution. First, no monarch since Queen Anne has refused Royal Assent to a law. Secondly, our constitutional monarchy enjoys popular support. I return the right hon. Gentleman’s respect, and the one thing he is is honest. He is actually setting out a defence of the hereditary principle, rather than hiding behind a smokescreen, which seems to be the position of Conservative Front Benchers, from whom we will hear in due course.

I want young people growing up in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran in my constituency, and indeed in every part of the country, to feel that they have the same chance as anyone else to play a part in making the laws of the land. The continued presence of hereditary peers in our legislature is indefensible in a modern democracy.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The trouble with this sort of partial reform is that it opens other issues. Why does the Church of England have a monopoly on places in the House of Lords? I am all in favour of the established Church, and of letting it have perhaps 12 bishops, but why can we not share the other places between this country’s other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? Do they not deserve a voice?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am certainly in favour of the representation of different faiths in the upper House, but the Government set out a step-by-step process in our manifesto.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There are many different opinions on policy in the middle east, but does the Prime Minister agree that what must surely unite everyone in this House is our profound detestation of antisemitism in all its shapes and forces, as well as our profound love for the Jewish people on their day of suffering, especially as many of those who were murdered at the music festival and in the kibbutz were actively working for peace? Will he reflect that there are still many people—many Jewish and Arab people—who want a moderate solution, and that we should give them our support?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on antisemitism, and on our love for—and on standing with—the Jewish people, both across the globe and here in the United Kingdom. Many of them want nothing more than peace and security for themselves and their families, and we will continue to work with them. I agree with his remarks and the sentiment behind them.

Debate on the Address

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. We still have 25 Members who wish to speak, so after the next speaker, Sir Julian Lewis, I am afraid I must impose a time limit of seven minutes. This strict time limit will not apply to maiden speeches, but I am sure that those who make them will also want to keep an eye on the clock and remember the courtesies of the House. If we do not impose this time limit now, and if people do not keep to it, not everybody will get to speak in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. I must now impose a time limit of seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

This is the first time I have ever been able to speak from the Government side of the House, having first been elected in 2015, which was six Prime Ministers ago. In the 2015 general election, Bermondsey and Old Southwark was so far down Labour’s target list—it was No. 84, I think—that the rule of thumb was that if I won, we would be in government. I will not ask where everyone else has been for the last nine years, but I will thank them and congratulate them on being here today, especially colleagues who have already made their maiden speeches and those who will make them in the coming weeks and months. It is amazing finally to be on this side of the House, but I cannot say that it has been worth the wait, given what the Tories have done to our country over the past few years.

My constituents’ overwhelming sentiment since the election is one of relief, and of shaking off the sense of shame and embarrassment about the previous Government and the country’s economic devastation. My constituents are still paying higher bills and mortgages as a result of Tory economic incompetence, but there is relief that the shame of the last Government is over. We saw the Equality and Human Rights Commission have to investigate the Department for Work and Pensions because of its unlawful behaviour towards disabled people. Through political incompetence and maladministration, the second biggest spending Government Department was unable to support disabled people properly. Change in the leadership of that Department could not be more refreshing.

Another cause for relief is that the Rwanda policy is scrapped. It was an unlawful, immoral international embarrassment that was raised with our Foreign Office and raised on every trip I went on with the Foreign Affairs Committee, to the UN, to the US and to Brazil. Wherever we went, countries saw that we were shirking responsibility while others shouldered a greater responsibility. It is also a relief for taxpayers because it was such a colossal waste—a humongous, knuckle-headed nonsense.

I cannot even repeat what Tory Ministers called the scheme when they were in government, because it would be unparliamentary language, but it cost hundreds of millions of pounds at a time when my constituents were being told that the £20 uplift on universal credit was unaffordable, that seeing a doctor or dentist was just not possible and that having enough police was a luxury and somehow not a Government priority, all while millions were poured down the Rwanda drain. And for what? A scheme that sent no one but Tory Home Secretaries to Rwanda at an outrageous cost. For the price of sending one person to Rwanda you could send six people into space, and the electorate gave their verdict two weeks ago when they blasted the Tories into space. And yes, terrible puns were on my leaflets in the election.

The Leader of the Opposition—it feels good to say that—said today that he wished to work with the new Government on certain policies. I say to new MPs that from opposition I was able to improve the laws on housing rights for women fleeing domestic violence, on some terminally ill disabled people receiving support from the personal independence payment and on support for communities affected by terror attacks. I say to them: take the Prime Minister up on his offer. He said that the door was open, so take him up on that offer to seek improvements that benefit your constituents.

Since the election, I have had constituents come in to Parliament. Two schools have come in: St Michael’s college in Bermondsey and the Southwark inclusive learning service from London Bridge. It has been amazing to speak to young people about the new priorities and how the new Government are already beginning to mend and heal the UK with the work done in the first week and announced today in the Gracious Speech. This includes lifting the ban on onshore wind despite Green opposition, boosting UK investment, beginning to fix our NHS, tackling crime and antisocial behaviour and reasserting targets for house building, which is a very welcome priority for my constituency in Southwark, where housing is always the No. 1 priority.

I flag to the new Government and new Ministers that the Bakerloo line extension would bring 20,000 new homes at least, and benefit not just transport infrastructure and homes but jobs across the country, and boost our economy. I hope to see the Bakerloo line extension delivered under the new Government, offering new hope and new ambition for Britain from a Government who finally say to people not what they cannot have but what we are seeking to achieve for our country and for our people’s future, including today. Of particular personal importance to me is fixing mental health services. My mum had schizophrenia, a mental health condition, and that was my route into public policy awareness and politics. To have the chance to influence and shape mental health services as we in the Labour party begin to fix them and build out better is an enormous privilege.

I want to end today with a special thank you to the wonderful people of Bermondsey and Old Southwark for giving me my fourth win, including defeating an independent Corbyn candidate; to the Labour members in my constituency who fought so hard, both locally and in other target seats; and importantly, to my local Labour party executive for all their hard work and support, in the last Parliament in particular and over the election period. I look forward to delivering the better Britain they fought for, under this Labour Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

For his maiden speech, I call Graham Leadbitter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who is almost my namesake.

It is a great pleasure to speak on His Majesty’s first King’s Speech under a Labour Government. We promised change and, as I look around Parliament, I see an awful lot of change, with people in new places and so many new faces. I am enjoying starting to get to know many of the newly elected Members, mostly from my party, but from other parties too. To them, I say welcome. And to you and your team, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say good luck learning everybody’s name and face.

By coincidence, the 4 July general election that put me in this place as the first MP for the new Spen Valley constituency came just three days after the third anniversary of the Batley and Spen by-election in which I was first elected to this place. It is fair to say that a lot has changed in just three short years. I remember pounding the streets of Batley and Spen in 2021 during challenging times that were full of uncertainty, division and, for many people, fear.

The dark cloud of the covid pandemic still hung over us, many people were struggling with the cost of living, and politics felt worryingly polarised in this and other countries. I think it is fair to say that the Labour party was not in a great place. Many doubted that we would see power again in 10 years, never mind three. If the result in Batley and Spen played its part in turning things around and getting us to where we are today, I am delighted that we were able to help.

Although I was delighted with the result, the Batley and Spen by-election was not a pleasant experience. At times, we saw the worst of politics, including unacceptable behaviour from those who use our precious democracy to divide us rather than unite us. My constituents deserved better, and I hoped passionately that no other candidate would have to go through what I went through. Sadly, that has not been the case.

Although I am relieved that the general election campaign in Spen Valley was mostly conducted in a civilised manner, the same cannot be said elsewhere. Many candidates and their supporters, often women, faced threats, harassment and abuse. None of this should be part of any job, and it is not what our politics should look like. We must not normalise it, and we must all do our bit to change it.

On this, the first day of the first debate in a new Parliament, we all have the opportunity to reset the dial on politics and work towards a political culture that fosters robust, rigorous debate and scrutiny but does not allow fear, intimidation and abuse to become the norm. As His Majesty said, this Government

“will take steps to…rebuild trust and foster respect.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this approach and will work with colleagues across the House in this endeavour.

I am a realistic optimist. I know it is not going to be easy to bring the change that our country needs, but this new Parliament fills me with hope. I see people around me who are determined to be part of the change to a better kind of politics. The Prime Minister rightly describes it as the return of politics to public service, and he correctly says that this can be achieved only through actions, not words.

With so many new faces and so much new energy and commitment, I believe we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity in this place to change not only the Government, although that is certainly welcome, but the whole culture of politics, to restore the business we are all in to one that people can look at with respect. That starts with how we behave in here because, whether we like it or not, this Chamber is the window into our national politics. If we treat each other in here with courtesy, if we listen to the arguments of those we disagree with as politely as we listen to the arguments of those we support, and if we show that we can air our differences passionately but with genuine respect, people at home will notice. It would be the right thing to do even if they did not, but I believe they will.

My constituents want to see change. They sent me here to deliver it, and I will not let them down. It is a wonderful part of West Yorkshire where people have a real sense of pride in where they are from, whether that is the towns of Heckmondwike, Mirfield, Birstall or Cleckheaton, or the many beautiful surrounding villages—too many to list, but I will certainly make sure they all get a mention over the next five years.

I understand that pride because I share it. It is where I was born and have lived all my life. In Spen Valley, we tell it like it is. We are not easily fooled and we take no nonsense. So my constituents will only believe in change when they see it and when they feel it. This King’s Speech sets out the busy but exciting agenda to make that change happen, and the duty falls on us to make sure it does, whether it is affordable housing; safer streets and more police in our communities; tackling antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls; shorter waiting times and better access to GPs and dentists on the NHS; better education and opportunities for the young—academic and vocational—including for those with special educational needs and disabilities; reliable public transport; support for people with mental health; or social care that offers dignity in old age and for the most vulnerable in our society. I am all for giving local people more power to make decisions that affect their lives, so I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s pledge to kickstart a devolution revolution, with the economic growth and prosperity that underpins all this and helps to give people a bit more at the end of the month,

Another thing about Yorkshire people is that we do not waste money. We know that you can’t spend what you haven’t got. So when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves)—my good friend and fellow Yorkshire MP, and our first female Chancellor—warns that we have to get the nation’s finances in good order and it has to be our first priority, people get it.

Politics as public service relies, above all, on trust and honesty. Only if we are straight with people about the challenges we face as a country, and we have honest conversations with our constituents about what we can and sometimes cannot do—or cannot do straightaway—will they start to have faith in politics as a force for good in their lives.

We have in our hands today a tremendous opportunity to begin the transformation of this country into a country that is looked on once again with respect around the world, ready to step up and play our part, whether on tackling climate change, defending democracy when it is under threat, or doing everything we can to end the appalling and devastating conflicts in the middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere—in short, a country of which we can all be proud. There is a lot of work to do, but the time starts now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Siân Berry to make her maiden speech,

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I congratulate the hon. Members for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Southport (Patrick Hurley) on making excellent maiden speeches today.

I am so honoured to be here in this historic Chamber today as part of a brand-new group of Green colleagues, who I must now call my honourable Friends. We are very pleased today to hear a wide range of new Bills being proposed. We welcome some measures. Some we will seek to improve and some we will seek to change or add to.

Listening to people in my constituency during the election, it was hard not to be affected by the strength of public feeling and distress about the climate emergency and the degradation of our natural environment, and by the huge desire to defend social justice and public services. This Parliament must seek to deliver for them.

This is my maiden speech; I stand here thanks to the votes and values of the fantastic people of Brighton Pavilion. They have put their trust in me and the Green party, and for that I extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation. Brighton has always been a truly special place, from its origins as a fishing village and Roman villa complex, to its Regency and railway booms, with its huge sense of spirit and a warm welcome to every visitor to our famous beach.

But Brighton has always been so much more than a seaside resort. The richness and variety of our culture and entertainment is legendary. From Victorian innovation, through the 1960s of my parents and my own decade of youth in the far away 1990s, to the present day, our music, theatre, comedy and literary traditions have always blended with cutting-edge, creative and exciting counter- culture movements to reflect and enrich the modern world. Our cultural richness has survived, strived, struggled and then thrived through many turbulent times, not least the recent pandemic, and I am confident it will continue to do so for many centuries to come.

I am proud that the latest census confirms that nowadays my city is home to one of the UK’s largest populations of LGBT+ people, and that we host the biggest and best Pride celebrations, including Europe’s largest Trans Pride, which will be this weekend. Brighton and Hove is a welcoming city in so many ways, and I am very proud we are a city of sanctuary, committed to a culture of hospitality and welcome for those seeking refuge from war and persecution.

Brighton Pavilion has a history of dedicated, long-serving MPs. From its first election as a single-member constituency in 1950, it was represented until 1969 by Sir William Burke Teeling, an Irish writer and self-described “amateur tramp”, who walked from London to Newcastle to explore how councils were tackling unemployment. Our MP was then Julian Amery for 23 years and Derek Spencer for five years, before David Lepper served in this House as a highly-respected and hardworking MP for 13 years. And, of course, I have one of the easiest and most pleasurable jobs among new MPs in paying tribute to my immediate predecessor.

Brighton is also a special place because it has been at the heart of the green movement in England and Wales, and that continued when our own, beloved Caroline Lucas won the seat for the Green party in 2010. Caroline held the seat through three further elections, leaving a 14-year legacy that I look up to as a shining mountain to climb, as I take my very first steps here today. As well as being an excellent constituency MP, of the many ways in which Caroline influenced policy, I was most charmed by her success in working with the nature writer Mary Colwell to win a new GCSE in natural history. Helping to inspire and train up a generation of new David Attenboroughs is a real national service.

Most impressive has been Caroline’s steadfast and long-standing opposition to threats to the public’s right to protest. Caroline lived that principle and through it played a key role in ending fracking in the UK. I know that all of us sitting here today are humbly aiming to live up to the high standards, values and work ethic that she represented, and to serve here with the same energy and enthusiasm.

It is those principles that will guide my work as an MP, as well as some of my own values and enthusiasms. People who know my work in other places will be aware that listening to and supporting young people is something I feel very strongly about. With huge pleasure, I commend to the House the incredible work of Brighton and Hove Citizens, which has just won a huge campaigning victory with a beautiful example of raising up and empowering young people and their voices to make change happen. With schools across Brighton and Hove working with colleges, religious groups, workers, universities and the charity sector, Brighton and Hove Citizens has this year won a big new commitment from the council. After a long and engaging campaign, sixth formers Fi Abou-Chanad and Tally Wilcox presented a 2,000 signature-strong petition and won a pledge for hundreds of young people in Brighton schools to benefit from investment in mental health support and counselling.

That is just one group of young people among many inspiring organisations across our country that I cannot wait to hear more about in this job. They include Green New Deal Rising, the UK Youth Climate Coalition, YoungMinds, People & Planet, the National Society of Apprentices, the National Union of Students and many more. Young people should have a louder voice wherever decisions are being made, not just when they organise. I am therefore disappointed to see no specific Bill in today’s list removing barriers to voting for young people, including voter ID and age limits for elections to this House and English local councils that do not apply in Wales and Scotland.

Our 16 and 17-year-olds, and our young people, need a real voice and need those measures in this Parliament. I hope that, when we debate the Bills put forward in today’s King’s Speech, the voices of young people are sought out and listened to, and that many changes and additions are made where they are needed most, including removing the two-child benefit cap.

I am grateful for the patience of hon. Members in listening to me. I greatly look forward to seeing the impact of the young voices I plan to raise up in this Chamber being granted the same attention and respect.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Mr Luke Charters to make his maiden speech.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the many hon. Members who have given their wonderful maiden speeches today.

It is an immense privilege to represent York Outer. I would not be here were it not for the wonderful education I received at Huntington school. That education gave me the confidence and skills to go on and change lives, but there was one stand-out teacher—Robin Parmiter, my wise and compassionate religious studies teacher. I went on to name my son Robin after him, so my son is a continual reminder of the power of a good state education. He is also a constant reminder that, despite humanity’s vast medical and technological progress, we still do not have a cure for toddlers teething.

Moving on from religious studies to history, I want to go all the way back to 71 AD, when the Romans are believed to have made York a military base. I appreciate a lot has changed over the many millennia since, but York’s role as a military base has not. The Queen Elizabeth barracks is at Strensall, in my constituency, and I am very proud to be the first Labour Member of Parliament to represent there. I am incredibly proud of this Government’s unwavering commitment to our armed forces and to our veteran community.

It is important to note that my predecessor, Julian Sturdy, played an important role in protecting and saving those barracks. He was also a forceful advocate for our rural communities; I want to continue that work. I wish him all the very best for the future, after 14 years of service.

As many hon. Members will know, people from Yorkshire are straight-talking and no-nonsense. I have been told many times on the campaign trail, and since joining the House, that unfortunately I live up to that stereotype. But I am not on my own. I have a great cohort of colleagues on the Labour Benches who are representing God’s own county. Even better, we have a Chancellor from the white rose contingent, so the best thing is we have the Yorkshire value of frugality as a national policy, ensuring the public get good value for money. How welcome that is after 14 long years of managed decline, as our country finds itself at a critical juncture. Thankfully, the question is no longer who gets to rebuild Britain, but how we will take the mantle on.

We can all learn from colleagues in the York community. Just 40 years ago, on 9 July 1984, lightning struck the roof of York Minster and the south transept was destroyed by flames. I am proud that my dad, an outspoken Yorkshireman if ever there was one, was one of the apprentice joiners who went on to rebuild the Minster after the great fire. The Minster joiners’ commitment centres around the values I share: dedication to duty, service and desperation to rebuild.

But there are already groups in York Outer embodying those values. Take BioYorkshire and its 10-year plan for sustainable innovation, which harnesses the green revolution that we so badly need for the years ahead.

We are home to many wonderful small and medium-sized enterprises from Wigginton to Wheldrake that share our ambition for wealth creation. We are a Government who are both pro-business and pro-worker.

It is also fair to say that our heroes on the frontline of the NHS are a perfect embodiment of the Minster joiners’ core values, as was the late Frank Dobson, who was born in the village of Dunnington in my constituency. My family have had close encounters with our health service in York, and I come to this place with enormous gratitude to those who serve in it. I pay true thanks to them, but words cannot truly get there. I will be a powerful advocate for them in this place. These vital public services are at the heart of our communities. We value them so dearly, as do our constituents, as they form the social fabric that allows us all to live rich, happy and content lives. But it is such a shame that so many of these crucial services are evaporating.

I remember setting up my first bank account in the village of Haxby, but that bank branch no longer exists. That is not an isolated case; there are no longer any bank branches in my constituency. As is so often the case in this country, it is vulnerable people who go on to pay the price. The closure of these branches poses a risk to our vibrant communities, which is exactly why I am so proud that this Government are going to bring forward 350 new bank hubs to maintain valuable access to cash. A priority of mine is to campaign to bring one of those hubs to York Outer.

After a short departure from the earlier history lesson, I shall now return to it and skip to 1086 and the Domesday Book. The village of Copmanthorpe in my constituency earns an explicit mention in the text. Its historical translation means “Traders” village. Unfortunately, the good enterprising nature of the people of Copmanthorpe, York and North Yorkshire has been taken advantage of over recent years by fraudsters. After spending years combating fraud at the Bank of England, the Financial Conduct Authority, and in the private sector, this is an issue that is close to my heart. One of the biggest investigations undertaken by North Yorkshire police, concluded in April, found that scammers had targeted £30 million of victims’ pensions and life savings, leaving many with nothing.

It was also reported in May that a devastating cryptocurrency scam took an average of £7,000 each from dozens of families. As many Members may have noted, these victims cannot be named, but I dedicate my maiden speech to them. Each one of those people affected by fraud are a loved one, a family member or a friend. Fraud is the biggest crime in the UK, and, under this Labour Government, I want to ensure that there is no safe harbour for fraudsters, no compromise in our pursuit of their schemes and no escape from justice.

On a more positive note, I have been fortunate enough to meet thousands of constituents who share the wonderful community spirit of York Outer. To the good people of York, from New Earswick bowls club to The Island, and from St Leonard’s hospice, which lovingly cared for my uncle in his last days, to the Wilberforce Trust, which has supported people with visual and hearing impairments for nearly two centuries, giving back is second nature.

As the new Member of Parliament for York Outer, I will be tirelessly dedicated to my constituents. I shall be a strong national campaigner when it comes to improving financial services and tackling fraud. I am ready and willing to serve the area that has given me so much.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I be slightly unconventional and end by thanking the House staff? They have welcomed hon. Members to this place. Their dedication and service is clear and I look forward to working with them in the years ahead.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Seamus Logan to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I agree wholeheartedly. The work that the right hon. Member and I carried out throughout the last Parliament is an example of how we can work co-operatively with Members of opposite parties and find those issues on which we can serve our constituents well. He joins us at an opportune moment, as I am about to talk about an issue that is close to his heart.

My final urgent request of the Government is one of moral duty: to recognise, support and compensate our nuclear testing veterans and their families. These are the men who put their lives at risk in dangerous atomic weapons tests to ensure our long-term security. For decades, campaigners, Labrats, veterans and their families, and the indefatigable Susie Boniface have been fighting for recognition for these heroes. They have highlighted scientific studies that show increased rates of miscarriage, increased birth defects, and the same rate of genetic damage as clean-up workers at Chernobyl.

Of course, the campaigners take pride in the fact that the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister met them when Labour was in opposition, and supported their campaign to receive the long overdue recognition they deserve. But despite winning the campaign for medallic recognition, the UK sadly still remains the only nuclear power that refuses them adequate compensation, research and support, unlike the US, France, Canada and Australia. Medal criteria are very limited, there has not been a formal recognition event and even access to war pensions has been impeded.

Veterans, and sometimes their wives, widows and descendants, have reported making repeated requests to gain access to their blood or urine testing records from samples the veterans recall being taken during the nuclear testing programmes. Sadly, many confirm that their service medical records frequently do not include the test results, and they just do not understand why. The data is vital for their war pension applications and for understanding the conditions they suffer, but sadly the absence of such records means that many veterans’ war pension applications are refused.

I want to place on record my thanks to hon. Members right across the House who have continued to support these veterans, particularly the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who has worked closely with me and campaigners in recent years. This week, we have both written to the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), requesting that they urgently meet us, veterans and campaigners, and work with us to deal with their concerns. We hope that is made an urgent priority, because ultimately the Government can and should deliver justice for these families, and now is the right time to do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Last and not least from the Opposition Benches, I call Jim Shannon.