G20 and COP29 Summits

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Great British Energy, which will be publicly owned, will drive forward on renewables, towards clean power in 2030. We have to make up time, because of the slowness of the Conservative party, but we are determined to do so. This will be measured in energy independence—so that Putin’s boot will not be on our throat, as it was in recent years—in the jobs of the future, and in lowering energy bills.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

We know that one thing the Prime Minister was discussing with President Xi in August was the planning application for the Chinese embassy. He said to the President:

“You raised the Chinese Embassy building…when we spoke on the telephone, and we have since taken action by calling in that application.”

What discussions did Downing Street have with the Department about that call-in prior to the Deputy Prime Minister’s formal decision to call in the Chinese embassy planning application?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member will know very well that the application has been in for a number of years. It is something the previous Government were looking at, and it is being dealt with through the usual process.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Richard Holden Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his clear introduction of this legislation and for the praise that he gave to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I very much want to continue the work that my right hon. Friend did on the infected blood scandal with the Paymaster General, and I look forward to doing so.

May I also thank the right hon. Member for extending a warm welcome to me? I was a special adviser in the House of Lords in the months after the 2015 Act was passed and saw at first hand the introduction of the first female bishops. As Paymaster General, the right hon. Member has an important role. He will remember that Viscount Addison did it back in the 1940s, and became the first Labour Knight of the Garter, which I am sure the right hon. Member may be looking forward to in the future.

This is a straightforward Bill, limited in its scope, with the simple purpose of extending the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 by another five years. Introduced by the coalition Government, the 2015 Act complemented the legislation that had been brought in the previous year to allow women to become bishops in the first place. The intention was to ensure that those women had a fair chance of sitting alongside their male counterparts as one of the 26 Lords Spiritual. Overall, the Act seems to have been successful in doing so. The original legislation suspended the rules that automatically elevated the most senior diocesan bishop to the House of Lords, and instead elevated a female diocesan bishop, if one was available. This has meant that there are now six women bishops in the House of Lords, all of whom have made valuable contributions in the other place.

The extension of the Bill is even shorter. It simply extends the sunset clause that was agreed in 2015, and maintains the suspension in rules so that female bishops will join the Lords Spiritual slightly sooner than they would otherwise have done. Let me express the Opposition’s support for this simple piece of legislation.

When we first introduced this legislation, it was agreed that a 10-year span would give sufficient time to assess its effectiveness. And because we are here today, I believe that we can probably agree that that timeframe was fine. I would like to ask the Paymaster General when he expects this legislation to no longer be necessary. I predict that he might say 2030, as that is the date set for the sunset of this legislation. Can he confirm why it is this timeframe that has been selected? As I previously mentioned, there are six women bishops in the House of Lords, and I am glad that the legislation has supported them in contributing so meaningfully to Parliament, but can he tell the House whether he expects to see another five-year extension in a few years’ time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) made an incredibly moving speech. I remember her predecessor well; we served on the 1922 committee together. I thought her mention of the RNLI was particularly poignant. As a former transport Minister, I remember that the her predecessor and other hon. Members brought up the Tamar bridge regularly, and I am sure it is an issue that she will take forward. I was delighted to hear her mention pasties, a traditional food. I have my own pie and mash campaign at the moment, so perhaps we could work together on the protection of local foodstuffs.

The speeches from the hon. Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), mentioning some of the female bishops who have been trailblazers, were superb. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) about the former Prime Minister, who was our first British Asian Prime Minister, and about the Leader of the Opposition, who is the first black female leader of a major UK political party. I think we would like to say, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), that it is “not a big deal”, but that is the way things have worked out.

I caution the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is famous already for his slightly cheeky contributions in the Chamber, to be careful what he wishes for when he suggests he would like more Opposition Members to speak in debates about bishops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. That is why I am delighted that she is in the role that she now holds—I know that she will champion this issue really well. Representation at all levels is important, and I will be looking to see what the Church of England does to strengthen its diversity in that area.

This Bill is about the role of a number of Lords Spiritual. It simply aims to extend the provisions of the 2015 Act to ensure that more female bishops enter into the House of Lords.

[Mr Holden]

Reflecting some of the comments that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has made, would it not be great to see some more Cross-Bench peers in the House of Lords drawn from the retired bishops, particularly the female bishops? Perhaps they could go through the appointments process for people who have contributed to public life.

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank the hon. Member for that helpful suggestion, which could be examined at the next stage. I know that he did a lot of work in this area, particularly as an adviser when this policy was being taken forward in the House of Lords, so I welcome his insight into this area.

The contributions to this debate have been extremely powerful. I know that there have been lengthy conversations about this Bill in the other place.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Richard Holden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In a moment.

It is not right that what was seen, even in 1999, as a temporary arrangement should persist any longer. This Government were elected on a manifesto that was explicit in its promises that we would bring about immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill has a tightly defined objective, and a clear focus and aim that delivers on that mandate.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Minister talks about piecemeal reform and says the argument is stale, but surely the really stale argument is Labour’s. The Labour party came into government with an enormous majority and wants to reform the House of Lords, so why does it not get on and do it? Why do the Labour Government not set out some cross-party work that we can all get involved with, and introduce proper reform measures, rather than just tinkering at the edges, as the Bill does, for pure political advantage?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Who exactly speaks for the Opposition? Who knows. Rather than put that point to me, the right hon. Gentleman should take it up with the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who proposed the amendment. Do the Opposition have any coherent position left?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate for decades. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. These measures are long overdue, and we are grateful that they have been introduced so early in this Parliament. Fundamentally, we Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege. The last significant reform of our second Chamber was introduced years ago. Although we would ultimately like to see a fully democratically elected upper Chamber, this legislation is a very welcome step to modernise the upper House.

In maintaining the right of hereditary peers to sit in our legislature, we are one of only two nations in the world in which membership of a second Chamber is decided by virtue of hereditary privilege. The principle of inherited membership of the other place is deeply antiquated, and we welcome the Government’s move to remove that ludicrous practice. Reform of our upper Chamber has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. In fact, our stance on reform of the second House outlives many of the historically significant peerages that the current hereditary peers establishment maintains. Forty-nine per cent of the current hereditary peerages were created in the 20th century, while only 29% of hereditary peerages predate the 19th century, and the most recent were created in 1964—post-dating the Life Peerages Act 1958—so this legislation does not wash away our history or destroy tradition. The statistics alone should dissuade any argument about upholding of heritage. This reform is simply a move towards a more democratic form of politics. We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics.

[Mr Holden]

How can the hon. Lady call it “more democratic” to have a purely nominated Chamber?

[Sarah Olney]

Regrettably, the right hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. Liberal Democrat policy is to have an elected second Chamber. We welcome these measures as a step towards a democratically elected Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. There will be more legislation. I am not a Front Bencher, but I know, because our manifesto said that we were committed to further reform, that that time will come. I am sure that there will be legislative time and that he will have an opportunity later in the debate to put the question to Labour Front Benchers directly, or perhaps to table a business question for a Thursday morning.

To draw my comments to a conclusion—

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

I would rather not, if that is okay—anyone else but the right hon. Gentleman. He was only 10 votes away from potentially getting a peerage himself, so perhaps for that reason he may not want to comment on the appointment process.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman has had a nice laugh at my expense, but he knows what it is like to lose an election and to move seats. He made a good point about the Labour manifesto including the removal of hereditary peers, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) made clear, the same paragraph includes the introduction of a retirement age at 80. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome any amendments to introduce that in this legislation?

[Gareth Snell]

Again, I am surprised I have to explain to the right hon. Gentleman how legislation works. A Government do not legislate on their whole manifesto in one Bill at the beginning of a Parliament. Those on my party’s Front Bench have said, and I fully accept that this is the right way to do it, that there will be a sequence of reforms over time, starting with the expulsion of the hereditary peers. That is the simplest way to start this process, allowing time and space for considered debate about the other proposed reforms that were in our manifesto and were supported by the British people.

In conclusion, all this Bill does is seek to end a 27-year anomaly that first came about when the Conservative party objected to previous reforms. By voting for it tonight, we can start to right that wrong, and we can start ourselves on a process of reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to welcoming all my new reforming friends to join us in the Aye Lobby this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow such a moving and strong maiden speech by the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). I could tell by how she spoke with such passion about Knowsley that she will always be a fierce advocate for her constituents, and make sure that their priorities are properly heard in this House and that the Government do everything they can in order to address them. There is a connection between the constituency I represented for 14 years and hers, as I had the great privilege of representing many of the Jaguar Land Rover workers at the engine plant, which fell within my former constituency prior to the boundary changes. It goes to show how important it is that we always work across parties in pursuit of our common interests, because the success of so many great engineering firms, such as Jaguar Land Rover and BAE Systems, has an impact on all our constituencies. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on many shared issues in the future.

This debate is an interesting one, because it offers the Government and this House the opportunity for real change—maybe I am like some of the people who read the Labour manifesto and believed that it was actually going to deliver change. The manifesto has an enormous number of pictures of the Prime Minister with a fine range of clothing provided by Lord Alli—32 pictures, I believe. Certain aspects of it give me real enthusiasm, and one is about constitutional reform. I appreciate that constitutional reform is probably not the thing that drove many people to vote one way or another, but it is a very important part of what the manifesto says. It sets out some important areas of change and reform.

However, when we look at what the Government have brought before the House, we see that this Bill is not about radical change. It is not about trying to take the opportunity that has been talked about many times in the past, including by the coalition Government and the previous Labour Government. We have already heard about the history over many decades or even a century. Reform and change have been promised but not delivered, and I cannot help but feel that this is such a moment. The Paymaster General will know that parliamentary time is always scarce. We love to think that it can be manufactured, but he will know that he will not get many opportunities to bring forward legislation on the House of Lords. Indeed, I would expect this to be the one and only time he gets to bring forward such legislation.

On the composition of the House of Lords, the scope of the Bill is very wide, and I would argue that that opens the opportunity to take a slightly more radical step forward in this legislation. I have rarely been referred to as a Tory radical—I put this down to my socialist roots and my socialist family—but I feel that more can be done here. I want to speak on a number of areas. The first, which is particularly important to me, is the injustice of the fact that there are 26 bishops in the House of Lords. An Anglican could say, “Well, they are representing me well”, but I think it is fundamentally wrong that my children, who are Catholics, have no form of representation in that Chamber. Yet the Government will not eradicate this injustice. How can it be right that legislation that was passed in the 19th century is not looked at afresh? Why are English bishops allowed to sit in the House of Lords but not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish bishops?

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic point. He will know that it was in the Tudor era that reform of the House of Lords started, when the majority of bishops were removed, leaving these 26. The Paymaster General made a point about reforms not having been properly continued since 1999, but actually, when we are looking back to the 16th century, we can see that some of these reforms really need to catch up with modern times.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Indeed, and I want to encourage the Paymaster General. He has the potential to be known as a great reformer of the Labour party—he will write books about himself in the future—but he needs to be brave. He needs to be bold. I know that he can persuade his friends in the Whips Office to be bold. Fundamentally, we have a big opportunity. There is an unfairness. There is an injustice. So many people of so many faiths, and so many people of no faith at all, see that there are 26 bishops in the House of Lords. They do not reflect what the United Kingdom looks like today, so if the Government are not willing to table an amendment, I will table an amendment to remove those 26 bishops from the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called in this important debate. I have a little bit of experience of this issue, having served as a special adviser in the House of Lords, working with the now Leader of the House of Lords when she was on the Opposition Front Bench. I also worked with Baroness Stowell of Beeston and as special adviser to Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, as well as with some hereditary peers, including Freddie, Lord Howe and Patrick, the Earl of Courtown. It is important to acknowledge, as many Members have, the service that all Members of the House of Lords give to our country.

Ministers perhaps did not understand exactly where I was coming from when I intervened earlier, but my point has been made by Members from across the Opposition Benches. Why go for piecemeal reform when the Government have the space to ask the country what it wants? Why not put something forward with the legislative time available, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said? We could have a proper debate, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) said, on the future of the country.

[Gareth Snell]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of contributions this afternoon and I have listened to them all, but I am not clear whether he supports the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Perhaps before he concludes his speech he could put it very clearly on the record whether he supports the principle of removing hereditary peers.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I do support their removal, but as part of a broader package of measures. I think that is the issue at stake today which Members on the Opposition Benches are concerned about. This piecemeal reform, which will remove people who are there by an accident of birth, will leave people in the House of Lords who are also there by accident or, in the case of bishops, by faith. It will leave the issue the public are perhaps most concerned about, which is pure patronage. Those two issues have been left totally to one side in the speeches made by Government Members. If we are to look at this issue properly, we need to look at it in the round.

We have had piecemeal change over the last few years. I was working in the House of Lords when voluntary retirement was introduced. That was built on many measures over the years, including the Life Peerages Act 1958, which was passed by a Conservative Government. If we are going to consider changing the situation in the House of Lords and what it is going to be, other conventions will be called into question. Surely it would be better to deal with the whole issue and get it right, than to have to legislate two or three times, or make further changes down the line? Why not get something that the whole House and the country can have a proper debate on and reach proper agreement, and then legislate in one piece?

[Dave Robertson]

I am taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s talk about getting it right, which was a phrase also used by the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). They both suggest taking the time to get it right, but surely that is what the Government are committed to doing. The Government are committed to the removal of hereditary peers, as was made very clear in the Labour party manifesto that was so widely supported across the country. Wider reform of the House of Lords should surely be subject to consultation, not just with people in this place but around the country. Surely, if we are to get this right, we need to take time over the consultation.

[Mr Holden]

I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that the Bill has not been subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny that would normally come forward, because of the broader implications for the second Chamber. I want it done properly, as a full package. I do not think slice-by-slice reform is what the country wants. I have some sympathy with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench who see the Bill as a step in the right direction, but I fundamentally disagree with them. We need a full package of reforms to see where we wish to end up.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Andrew Rosindell]

rose—

[Mr Holden]

I will make a touch more progress before I take another intervention from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend is making some extremely valid points. I agree with him that if there is going to be change, it should be done altogether, but I am slightly concerned by the radicalism of this measure. I did not find that anybody on the doorsteps in Romford actually wanted to make this such a big issue and radically change our constitution. Did he find that in Billericay?

[Mr Holden]

I certainly did not find it in Basildon and Billericay—or in Romford when I visited it with my hon. Friend, or, indeed, in other seats across the country—and I think that our constituents will be slightly baffled. When it comes to a big piece of constitutional reform, why should this Government want to come forward with, potentially, a multiplicity of different Bills throughout the current Parliament, rather than putting something to the public to have a look at now, and then having a look at it right at the end? What constituents have been mentioning in recent weeks and months is their concern about the winter fuel payments or about what might be in the Government’s new Budget, particularly the jobs tax, which they fear will hit jobs throughout the country.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Holden]

I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time, so I am trying to reduce the number of interventions that I take.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) hit the nail on the head when he said that this was a proper missed opportunity, but my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made some important points. As he said, when we legislate we have to do so carefully, because we are fundamentally changing the nature of what we are looking at. Proper reform has been wanted by generations of politicians on both sides of the House, but particularly those in the Labour party. I do not understand why at this stage, with such a large majority and with time on their side, the Government are not seeking to put those changes through properly.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Mr Holden]

I will give way again.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can help him. As a former special adviser in the House of Lords, he will know that carrying out reform in that House is incredibly complex. There appears to be a general consensus across all parties in this House on the eradication, or rather the expulsion, of the hereditary peers. If it were part of a larger combined bid, the right hon. Gentleman would risk losing that principle, because there would be more for us to fall out over and disagree on. Inevitably, his party would vote against it in Committee and on Third Reading, which would leave the whole package potentially at risk.

[Mr Holden]

I think that the hon. Member is missing my point. We have to see this as part of a package. Lord Irvine spoke about it in 1999. The hereditary peers were being kept there as the stone in the shoe, and should not be removed until the wider reform was settled. The Government have a very large majority in this House. They can certainly get stuff through if they wish, and I urge Ministers to consider that comprehensive reform. I understand what the hon. Member is saying—why not do it slice by slice?—but I think that the entire point of the hereditaries being there shines a light on the greater issues we are facing in the House of Lords, as was mentioned earlier by, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) when he was talking about the religious Members of the Lords. If we are going to do a package, let us do a proper package.

It also concerns me that, having proposed a retirement age in their manifesto, the Government are apparently not seeking to legislate on that now. Why not? The scope of the Bill in relation to membership of the House of Lords is clearly wide enough for the purpose. In the Canadian upper House, for instance, the retirement age is 75, and in this country there is a mandatory retirement age of 75 for judges. I should be interested to hear from Ministers how they can justify a mandatory retirement age of 75 for those who interpret the law, but cannot justify it for those who make the law—not democratically elected, as Members well over that age have been in this House, but appointed. That is where the similarity with judicial appointments comes in. If the Bill is passed, Members of the House of Lords will be purely appointed. Obviously, there is already a retirement age for Lords Spiritual.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member has made repeated references to the grand package of House of Lords reform that he would like to see. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has already highlighted the problem, but we have seen it historically. In the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats put forward their historic package of reform, and it was the Conservatives who put the bullet in it, because they did not agree with everything in it. Surely it is much better to get done what we all agree on than to present a package of reform that ends up dying at the hands of those who disagree with it.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I know there have been fractures in Downing Street recently, but I do not think that anybody would suggest that the Labour party, with a majority of over 170, is a coalition in the same way that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition was between 2010 and 2015. The Government have the time and space to introduce change. The key point is that it has to be part of a package, which is what Lord Irvine said in 1999.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Our majority is 174, but who’s counting? As far as I can tell, the Conservative party’s manifesto did not mention House of Lords reform—I may have missed it, so I apologise if it did mention that. Could the right hon. Member please tell me the Conservative thinking on House of Lords reform? A big package of House of Lords reform has been mentioned, but I am not any clearer about what that might entail.

Reading the 1999 debate on the House of Lords reform that was pushed forward by the Blair Government, I was struck by the fact that many Conservative Members opposed that reform on the basis that it did not go far enough. Is the call for further reform actually a smokescreen to do nothing and, therefore, to preserve the hereditary principle? All of us, including the right hon. Member, would agree that we should eliminate that principle.

[Mr Holden]

What we are discussing today is a policy of the Government. My party is in opposition, because its manifesto was rejected by the public at the last general election. We are discussing a policy of the Government and what was in the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood. It will be interesting to see whether he and others will back the manifesto on which they stood if amendments are tabled by the Opposition. We will have to see about that over the coming weeks.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Holden]

Not again.

Currently, Members of the House of Lords are there by birthright or appointed by God, as it were, or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is going to pull out the hereditary peers, so it will just be him and God appointing people if this legislation goes through unchallenged. Putting even more power in the hands of the Executive—they have a majority of 174, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said, although some of their Members come and go at the moment—is a really dangerous thing to do, and we are not looking at the comprehensive package of reform that was promised.

Labour Members have talked about things that happened 25 years ago, when I—even though I might not look it—was still in short trousers. We need to reflect on the fact that this is a very different time from then. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will consider what those on the Opposition Front Bench have mentioned today and look at the broader package, rather than looking at this issue in isolation, because they have the time and space to do so. I think the public would like to see a proper package brought forward, and the Government should concentrate on the people’s priorities, which are the cost of living and taxation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves]

What I am interested in is whether the right hon. Member, with his new radicalism, will be voting with the Government tonight.

The Government are committed to House of Lords reform and the Bill is the first step in that process. It has been said by Opposition Members that the introduction of the Bill breaks a commitment made in 1999 to retain the hereditary peers in the House until the second stage of House of Lords reform has been completed. That agreement, to the extent that it was ever binding, was not entered into and does not bind this Government. It is not right that a discussion between political parties a quarter of a century ago should still somehow mean that it is illegitimate for the Government to bring forward the Bill today. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement our other manifesto commitments, engaging with peers and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady has made the point at the Dispatch Box that conventions from 25 years ago should not stand today. Does she agree that that should also apply to other conventions made with the House of Lords, such as the Salisbury-Addison convention, which ensures that legislation gets through?

[Ellie Reeves]

The Salisbury convention means that measures that were proposed in manifestos cannot be blocked, but an agreement made a quarter of a century ago cannot now bind this Government and this House. This measure was a clear manifesto commitment, and it is important that we proceed with the Bill.

We heard a great many speeches today. Members including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)— I know he is keen to intervene—spoke of the experience and the contributions of hereditary peers. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Bill is not about individuals, but about fulfilling a manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Of course this Government value the contribution of hereditary peers, but retaining 92 of them was always intended to be a temporary measure, and now is the right time to introduce this reform. The Government were elected with a clear mandate to address the issue, and the Bill is delivering on that.

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for those important points. The actions of the Conservative party have led to the erosion of trust in politics, and that is the issue that Labour Members now seek to clear up.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Thank you to Opposition Members for their support for those on the Government Front Bench today. [Hon. Members: “We’re the Government now.”] The Government have been totally tone deaf in their response to the situation, which was revealed not as a result of the Government’s transparency—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not need any help from Labour Members. Hand signals do not impress me in the slightest.

[Mr Holden]

The situation was revealed not because of the Government’s transparency but through our popular press. The amounts of money declared in the register seem to be at odds with true market value, particularly for the short-term lease of flats. Will the Minister provide clarity on how we can ensure that the true figures are represented in the register?

[Ellie Reeves]

I am not sure about the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, but at the heart of this is our aim to increase transparency in the reporting process. There is a disparity between what MPs declare and what Ministers declare. The Tories did nothing to fix that in 14 years in government, and that is what we now seek to change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am delighted to congratulate Joseph, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s drawing his achievements to our attention. I spent an inspiring few days at the Paralympics in Paris not long ago. It was partly inspiring because we came second behind only China—ahead of the USA, and ahead of all the other European countries as well. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of this issue. We are going to work with disabled people and their organisations to make sport more accessible and to remove the barriers that are too often in place.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to implement the recommendations of the Cass review.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

The Cass review is a robust report backed by clinicians and firmly grounded in evidence. The Government and NHS England will be implementing Dr Cass’s recommendations in full, so that children and young people get the safe, holistic care and support they need.

[Mr Holden]

Dr Cass’s review was an important moment for services for young people in this country. Will the Minister restate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that all the review’s findings, which are based on evidence ahead of ideology, are implemented? Does the Minister also reject calls from various vested interest groups to pause implementation, and press ahead as quickly as possible to protect vulnerable young people in our country?

[Karin Smyth]

As I said in my original answer, the Government are absolutely committed to implementing all of Dr Cass’s evidence-based review in full.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and that is why we are working with allies, including the United States, on seeking to bring it about.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

There have been 1,200 butchered and more than 250 hostages taken, more than 100 of whom are still there, including Emily Damari, a 28-year-old British citizen. Will the Prime Minister recommit himself today to doing whatever it takes—to leaving no stone unturned —in ensuring that she is returned to her family, and that, if necessary, British assets are used to help to extract her?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, absolutely; that is the commitment I gave to her mother and the other families I met last week, and on various other occasions before that. I have sat with her mother and seen at first hand the utter agony that she is going through, as any parent would in those circumstances. I gave her that commitment and I repeat it here.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises valid points on behalf of her constituents. Yes, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will have dedicated trained caseworkers available. Their purpose is to make this process distress-free and as accessible as possible. That is hugely important for the work of the scheme.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I welcome broadly what the Paymaster General has outlined, but I have a couple of points to make. One is around those children and adults who were infected. The £10,000 and £15,000 seem relatively small sums, compared with the overall package, particularly given what those people were subjected to. Secondly, and more broadly, the Paymaster General has outlined the start dates of the process. Is there an end date that he can point to, so that we will know when all the financial compensation is delivered to the victims of the infected blood scandal?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, the Government have accepted the figures suggested by Sir Robert Francis in full, and I re-emphasise, because it is so important, that these awards are a small part of the overall awards. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the tariffs for the core route to see the amounts of money that will be paid out. I am not suggesting for a moment that they can make up for what has happened, but that will give a sense of how much £10,000 or £15,000 is in the totality of the award. He asks for a bit more information about completion. Clearly it is for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to work as speedily as it can. As I have said, I would expect the infected core route final payments to be made by the end of the year, and payments to the affected to start next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and thank him for his earlier public service in the Royal Marines. I agree with the points that he has raised, and I, too, thank the key workers for all that they did to support and protect us during the pandemic.

The Government will certainly ensure that lessons are learned from the inquiry and the response to the pandemic, and we will take the necessary time to consider the inquiry’s report and assess our resilience in respect of the full range of risks that the United Kingdom faces. Last week the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced that he would chair a committee for resilience, which will improve our health sector, increasing public trust in the Government and kick-starting our economic growth, as well as improving resilience across the UK.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Resilience is incredibly important for our country, and it is key to ensure that people in government are working towards that. The last Government mandated that every civil servant had to be in the office for at least three days a week, moving back from what we saw during the covid pandemic. What will the Government do to ensure that our entire civil service workforce is on the frontline and working closely together to ensure that national resilience is embedded across our public sector?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. As I said, it is important that, as a Government, we work strongly together across the UK. As the Prime Minister mentioned on day one, he will be working with his devolved Government counterparts, and he has announced a Council of the Nations and Regions. That will include our working across all civil service departments to make sure that we learn from the lessons of the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question; I know that the issue is close to his heart, as it is to mine. The publication of the report will mark an important milestone for the Grenfell community, and Parliament will have the opportunity to provide the full and proper scrutiny that the issues deserve. As my hon. Friend said, it is important that bereaved families are also part of that process, and we will work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that all those residents are part of it. The Government will do everything possible to drive the change to ensure that lessons are learned and that a tragedy such as the Grenfell Tower fire can never happen again.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

T7. In 2005, the tax gap was 7.4%; in 2022-23, the previous Government cut it down to 4.8% Is there a cross-Government mission or target to close the tax gap further?