Government Political Priorities and Legislative Agenda

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a great debate and I am looking forward to responding to all the wide-ranging points that have been made. I just say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that not only did the Prime Minister break a world record on Tuesday with a three-and-a-half-hour Statement setting out his priorities and being subject to questions, which he also did at PMQs, but we also had the repeat of the Statement yesterday, as the noble Lord said, which, again, the Leader answered questions on.

I was very pleased that the Labour Party, backed by the Chief Whip, focused on this subject in today’s debates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for bringing forward this debate. In effect, we have had five hours of debate today on the new programme of the new Prime Minister and the new Government. It is a great opportunity.

As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government’s agenda rests on four core areas: making Britain better off; putting power back into the hands of communities; giving people room to breathe; and tackling the most intractable problems so that Britain can believe in itself again.

First, we will permanently shift decision-making out of Westminster. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that that is not a return to the 1970s. We established No. 10 North in Manchester as an engine room for devolution and local growth. Decisions affecting local areas will be taken by local leaders who know their communities best, underpinned by fiscal devolution and rebalanced public investment.

I pay tribute to the comments made in this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She is absolutely right—we do have to empower local leaders and Ministers. Generally, this debate has been about how we bring people together to address the problems of the United Kingdom. That is a tribute to this House.

Secondly, the Government will drive reindustrialisation and good growth in every postcode. We will back British business and industry at every opportunity. We are the party of enterprise. We are the party of aspiration. Those are the sorts of missions that this Government are absolutely committed to.

Every pound of taxpayer spending will back British jobs, address skill shortages and support communities. We will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, as my noble friend pointed out so well.

Thirdly, we will give communities room to breathe, with a 20% business rate discount for pubs, clubs and live music venues from April 2027, bus fares capped at £2 and VAT removed from electricity bills this winter.

Fourthly, the Government will tackle the systematic issues that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned, have been ignored for too long: ending rough sleeping, decades of political drift on social care and the youth unemployment crisis, and building our way out of the housing crisis. I will come back to those issues later. We will continue to pass legislation underpinning our political priorities to deliver this change.

On spending, we are committed to fiscal discipline. I know the noble Lord, Lord True, wants details, but it is not my place to pre-empt the Chancellor. As my noble friend highlighted, the Government are on track to reduce borrowing more than any G7 country and will reprioritise existing spending and budgets where necessary.

I turn to some of the specific points made in the debate. My noble friend is absolutely right: planning has been a critical barrier to the necessary investments in our infrastructure. He asked me a specific question about the Fingleton recommendations. I reassure him that we committed in the King’s Speech to legislate in due course and that absolutely remains our position.

We do not want to continue with this period of speculation. That is why the Budget will be on 28 October and will be built on very strong fiscal discipline. We are not borrowing for day-to-day spending. We want to get debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the forecast. As I said, we are on track to reduce borrowing more than any other country.

My noble friend Lord Davies is right. There has been very strong progress on pensions and on how pension funds can be used to drive that sort of growth to which we are committed. My noble friend Lord Eatwell raised a specific point about investment in science and technology. He is right. We have to address this. The problems that the STFC’s core budget has been affected by are energy costs, staff costs and unfavourable foreign exchange situations, but I reassure him that major international subscriptions, such as CERN, are being fully protected. The STFC will also generate more external income through supporting industrial partnerships, commercialisation and better use of its assets. The outcome published in July is a long-term, sustainable plan for the STFC with UKRI providing an additional £135 million, enabling programmes to realise the benefits of current investments as the STFC transitions to a long-term stable financial position.

I acknowledge my noble friend Lady Hazarika’s position, and I think it is reflected across the House. We are all committed to recognising the threats that we now face, and certainly our commitment to Ukraine has been on a cross-party basis. This House remains united. We know that that threat is serious, and I agree with my noble friend that the idea that Russia is not a threat is complete nonsense. We are committed to 3.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. The defence investment plan will be fully funded, and defence will be an engine for good jobs across the country. We have signed more than 1,400 major defence contracts, and 94% are with UK firms. We are ensuring that the need to spend on defence benefits communities across the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord Coaker reminded the House recently, we have had the biggest investment in military housing for half a century and the biggest pay rise for our Armed Forces.

I say to my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Whitty, that we are committed to our climate change commitments and are investing £100 million in fire and rescue, with record levels of flood defences to ensure that we are adapting to the effects of climate change. This summer has shown the clear impact that climate change has had on our country.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheenan, I recognise waste dumping as an unmitigated disaster and a crime. The PM will set out a plan to shut down those criminal gangs. He has given a commitment to that plan. We have also given additional funding to tackle the three major illegal waste sites in the country.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for consistently raising the Windrush scandal. My noble friend Lord Hanson has answered Questions from her on this issue. I understand the impact of the compensation scheme, but I am afraid I will have to write to her with a detailed response on that report. I cannot go further than that at this stage.

To pick up the point about health and social care, the Prime Minister has a clear ambition to work on a cross-party basis to end decades of political drift and reform of adult social care. Part of his mission is to tackle this issue that has been ignored for too long. As part of this, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is, as we know, chairing an independent commission into adult social care. In July, the Prime Minister announced that the publication of the Casey review will be brought forward by a year, to 2027, as well as work to go further on reform of the social care workforce, building on the fair pay agreement—a point raised by my noble friend Lady Rafferty. These two issues are linked. My noble friend Lady Royall raised the issue of the need for staffing, and my noble friend Lady Rafferty is right that we need to ensure that there is fair pay in social care, because that is how we retain people. It is an important step, alongside wider workforce reforms like the care workforce pathway, towards our longer-term ambition for a national care service.

That is why we are taking a deliberate and phased approach. It is important that reforms are implemented in a way that is affordable, deliverable and sustainable for the sector. The first fair pay agreement, backed by £500 million in funding, will lay the foundation for future agreements, so I welcome that contribution.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester raised the issue of homelessness. We have been very clear about the impact of that, and the Prime Minister has understood the urgent social priority to end rough sleeping, backed by a dedicated £442 million funding package—targeted funding established to offer everyone needing it a route off the streets by Christmas, as part of the core mission to tackle infrastructure.

Housing is a big issue, and we need to tackle the housing crisis and boost economic growth. There is £39 billion for social and affordable housing, with the first £10 billion having been allocated. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Taylor is here, because she has highlighted the importance of this to this House on numerous occasions. We have allocated £9.5 billion to deliver 70,000 homes, with 60% for social rent—the highest number of social rent completions since 2012. We have a very clear pathway on that.

In relation to the economy, our commitment to business and how we are focused on driving growth, particularly through devolution and giving local leaders that responsibility, we also understand the impact of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. Our goal is getting people up for success, not paying for failure, so there is £3.5 billion for tailored employment support. Major changes will be made to technical education to give 14 year-olds access to skills and experience. We have just had a 2.5-hour debate on a number of those issues. Employment is at a near record high, having risen by 1 million since the election—the third highest employment rate in the G7. Economic inactivity is down, but the issue of those young people who are not in education, employment or training needs to be addressed. Some of the schemes are working. The £3,000 bonus for firms hiring long-term youth unemployed is just one example. It is important that we understand that.

A number of Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Frost, have raised the issue of Europe. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we must be bolder in securing a closer relationship. The UK-EU summit this year is the right way to boost GDP and growth and to improve trade, defence and security. These things are not in isolation. That partnership with Europe is vital also to improving our security. As my noble friend the Leader said yesterday, this is not opening the door to a single market or customs union, but there is a way that we can improve our partnership to deliver the things that we need to ensure our economic growth and security.

The noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned some of the legislative changes in the programmes that we have had. There will be some changes in the details of Bills, as noble Lords would expect when there is a change in ministerial leadership, and ministerial colleagues will be keeping noble Lords updated in the usual way, including by tabling amendments.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about our democracy, as my noble friend Lady Taylor made clear yesterday, we are committed to making our democracy fairer, more secure and more resilient. We have accepted all the recommendations in Philip Rycroft’s review of foreign interference in our democracy earlier this year, and, as my noble friend made clear yesterday, our legislation is progressing through Parliament and will protect our elections and open up our democracy. A cap of £100,000 on political donations from overseas, protecting democracy from the surge of dirty money, and the ban on cryptocurrencies make this absolutely clear.

I reassure the noble Lord that our priority is a democracy that works for everyone everywhere, not just people in some places. The Prime Minister still supports electoral reform as part of that mission, but he understands that it is a big constitutional question and it is premature to legislate now. There needs to be a mandate, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord True. We have made clear that mandates are governed by manifestos, not by some spurious other form that can be invented at any other time.

I am running out of time, so if there are areas that have been raised but that I have not specifically addressed then I reassure noble Lords that I will write to them. This has been an incredibly useful debate, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord True, that we are committed to working together to address the big issues that this country faces, particularly social care. However, the Prime Minister has set out his priorities for the country: making Britain better off, putting power back into the hands of community, giving people room to breathe and tackling the most intractable problems so that Britain can believe in itself again. I have outlined those issues.

I want to reassure noble Lords. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who said that 21 months has been the average term served by a Prime Minister. Let us be clear about this: there is an expectation out there that our big problems can be solved immediately. That is not the case. As politicians, we can do more to get people to understand that these challenges cannot be resolved overnight. That is why, later this year, the Prime Minister will bring forward a new plan for Britain—a 10-year plan laying out a path from where we are now to where we believe we all want Britain to be, combining immediate and direct action today with lasting national renewal and change that will be felt across the whole country.

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) Regulations 2023

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction and obviously wholly support him in what he is required to do. I have just a couple of issues to raise. We were having an informal discussion about one of them, but it would be useful if the Minister could put on the record just what the process is for the confirmation.

Secondly, there is rather a paucity of people present for this debate, including representatives from Northern Ireland, and that is the nub of our problem. The reality is that Ministers, including the noble Lord, should not have to be doing this. It is a total betrayal of the proper interests of the people of Northern Ireland that this is not being decided by their democratically elected politicians. The Minister even hinted at the fact that it is creating problems. There are vacancies which have not easily been filled and that is affecting the functions.

I wonder how many more times we can go through this process before this Government, or another Government, will have to initiate a change. To my mind—I will say this explicitly—the Democratic Unionist Party may be unionist but it is certainly not democratic, because the reality is that it is not representing the people of Northern Ireland and not even representing the people who voted for it. But it is denying the majority of the people of Northern Ireland effective governance and that is causing real hardship, real difficulty and real suffering.

Finally, the argument put forward is that they are not going to go back until their seven tests are met, yet those tests are entirely irreconcilable. They are not achievable. They are not actually possible. On that basis, we are left asking, “Is there any intention of them returning or any circumstances under which they will?” I know that the Minister has many conversations and dialogues, but I do not know whether he feels that we have any chance of getting the Executive and the Assembly back. We cannot go on doing this year in, year out, without addressing the problem and doing something about it. I know that that is not the subject of this debate—I absolutely support what the Minister is trying to do—but I would be grateful if he could briefly tell us about the process for appointments.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, start by echoing those sentiments. Obviously, the solution is to get the Stormont Government and the Assembly up and running. In yesterday’s Oral Questions in the other place, this issue was specifically addressed. The Minister there responded to my right honourable friend Hilary Benn, who asked what plans there are and what conversations are being had, by saying that conversations with the DUP are constantly ongoing and that some progress is apparently being made. I hope that the Minister here can echo that positive side of things because the solution rests with getting the democratic institutions back up and running.

I turn to the specifics of the SI. I am sure that it is good practice and an ongoing practice for all relevant departments to do this but, certainly when we see that the specific urgent appointments include the Agricultural Wages Board and the Labour Relations Agency, I just want to be reassured that the practice of consulting properly with stakeholders, in particular with the trade unions concerned in Northern Ireland, is taking place.

With those few comments, I will leave it to the Minister to respond.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Collins of Highbury, for their contributions to this SI debate, which is definitely a record, it being the shortest I have had to deal with since becoming a Northern Ireland Office Minister. I am sorry that some colleagues from Northern Ireland could not be present today.

On the couple of points that were made, I echo entirely both noble Lords’ comments in respect of getting Stormont back up and running at the earliest opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is right that the current situation is not sustainable and that the arrangements for governing Northern Ireland are not right for the long term. We need to return to a proper, stable, functioning devolved Government, as set out in the 1998 agreement.

As far as progress is concerned, I can say that, yes, progress is being made. We all know the reasons why the Democratic Unionist Party withdrew its Ministers last year. We are working hard. Obviously, we achieved the Windsor Framework in February this year; we are now working hard to clarify and address any outstanding concerns. As my right honourable friend made clear in the other place yesterday, conversations are taking place constantly and are ongoing. I myself held a round of discussions with each of the Northern Ireland political parties shortly before the Summer Recess. The Secretary of State is continuing with that. Obviously, conversations with the Irish Government took place last week at the British-Irish Association conference. We are continuing the dialogue. Naturally, I cannot put a timetable on this, but it is pressing and we need a return as quickly as possible; we are working flat out towards that end.

On the process for making these appointments, the devolved Northern Ireland government departments will continue to run the recruitment processes in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland code of practice. In direct response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that enables consultation with a wide range of partners, but ultimately it is for the department to run the process. We are not interfering in or taking over in that sense. The role of the Secretary of State is simply to substitute for what would normally be done by a Minister in charge of the relevant Northern Ireland department. The process will run in exactly the same way it would if devolution were up and running. The only difference is that the sign-off will not be a Northern Ireland Minister but—unfortunately, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

It is interesting that a number of the appointments identified in this SI were dealt with by the UK Government four years ago when Sinn Féin was keeping the institutions of the Assembly down between 2017 and 2020. A number of those appointments were made at the time, and they have run their four-year course. We unfortunately find ourselves having to repeat the same exercise. Like the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Collins, I sincerely hope that we do not have to do this again and that we can achieve a situation in which the institutions are fully functioning and up and running, and the Belfast agreement, which we all strongly support, is implemented in full for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. Unfortunately, I do not share his characterisation of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill, which I believe will lead to greater resilience and stability for decision-making within Northern Ireland. Over the last few days, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been engaging intensively and has had a number of discussions with party leaders, Members of Parliament, Members of the Assembly and the Irish Government in order to seek a resolution of the issues that have led to the collapse of the Assembly. In particular, the Government are deeply committed to resolving the issues around the implementation of the protocol, which have caused so much damage across Northern Ireland. The legislation to which my noble friend referred should, I hope, complete its passage in the other place this evening, and we are working very hard to bring Royal Assent forward for that legislation as quickly as possible. My noble friend will be aware that the election is due to be on 5 May.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Speaker for granting this PNQ; given how important this issue is, we might have expected the Government to make a Statement. I share the view that the First Minister’s resignation is disheartening. We continue to urge the DUP to take up its place in the Executive for the remainder of this mandate. There are immediate challenges to be faced. An official public apology to the victims of historical institutional abuse was due to be delivered by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 11 March. What urgent conversations has the Secretary of State had with the victims, the Northern Ireland parties and the Executive Office to ensure that these victims are not let down yet again? Will the Government now take responsibility for their protocol, which the Prime Minister negotiated and put in place? What practical, long-term solutions are the Government looking at? Ministers must now ensure that Northern Irish communities and businesses have a voice in any future negotiations. I hope the Minister will tell us how this will be done.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that discussions about the protocol have been taking place with the Northern Ireland Executive. I chaired a meeting of the Northern Ireland protocol contact group with the First and Deputy First Ministers only last week, which I think was the seventh such meeting that has taken place. There has been engagement between the Foreign Secretary and the leaders of the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as with the Secretary of State. There has been a lot of discussion around these issues. Regarding long-term solutions, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government produced their Command Paper last July. This set out some practical solutions to the issues of the protocol. The Foreign Secretary has had a number of meetings with Maroš Šefčovič. They had two telephone calls recently—one was supposed to be a meeting but, because of Covid isolation, it had to be done on the telephone. They are due to meet again this week, so the Government are taking these matters very seriously. When I was a special adviser in Northern Ireland, I did quite a lot of work on the issue of victims of historical institutional abuse. I am aware of its importance, but it is primarily a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive to take forward.