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

Sarah Olney Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats support the extension of this legislation and its ambition to make our second Chamber more equal and representative. If passed, the Bill will extend the timeframe for the process of accelerating women bishops to the other Chamber, meaning that when a vacancy arises among the 21 bishops appointed by seniority, it will be filled by the most senior eligible female bishop, with the goal of reaching gender parity as soon as possible. We are glad of the intention behind the Bill to address the current stark gender imbalance among our Lords Spiritual. We support that aim and welcome steps to ensure that Parliament better reflects the country it serves.

Fundamentally, however, we want to see complete reform of the House of Lords, strengthening the authority of our second Chamber with a democratic mandate. Parliament should be a body that represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up this country, and we must do all we can to make that happen across both Houses.

The Bill aims to ensure significant female representation among the Lords Spiritual by extending the arrangements of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act by an additional five years, so that its powers continue until 2030. Without it, the position would return to the status quo ante whereby bishops became Members of the House of Lords according to their time in office. Given that the legislation allowing women to become bishops was enacted relatively recently, in 2014, it is vital that the provisions of the 2015 Act are extended in order to continue to address the historical inequality and accelerate the move towards gender parity in our upper Chamber. The extension of the Act is a positive step to ensure that bishops in the Lords are more representative of the country as a whole as well as their congregations, and the Bill, in supporting a move towards gender parity, is a significant step in moving towards a more representative Parliament.

Although we support the legislation and welcome all moves towards creating a more balanced Parliament, we must question why the latest legislation has been unsuccessful in reaching the goal of gender parity for bishops in the upper Chamber over the past decade. What further measures need to be taken to increase accessible routes to create a more equal Parliament? I ask the Minister why the legislation continues to be restricted with a time limit, and what conversations he has had with the Church of England regarding that. Does he believe that five additional years is sufficient time to reach equal representation, given the progress achieved by the original piece of legislation?

The 2015 Act allowed just six women bishops to take up seats in the House of Lords, although I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for her excellent speech, which really highlighted the successes of the women who have been able to take up those roles. We must question why the latest legislation was unsuccessful, and what other steps we should take in order to reach the goal of gender parity.

[Adam Jogee]

I acknowledge the temperate and sensible approach that the hon. Lady takes to these matters. Does she share my query about where all those who have shown an interest this week in the presence of bishops in the House of Lords happen to be this afternoon?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. There was a great flurry of interest when I was stood here on Tuesday, making many of these points about the make-up of the House of Lords. I agree with him that it is extremely strange that the people who spent such a long time discussing these issues on Tuesday afternoon did not want to take the opportunity to discuss them further today.

[Adam Jogee]

With no time limits.

[Sarah Olney]

I am sure that it is our collective loss that they did not take up the opportunity.

It is vital that we go further in moving towards equality in all aspects of public and political life. Broader reform of the House of Lords is an essential step in achieving that. I was glad that the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill moved through this Chamber earlier this week, if perhaps not with the speed that we might have hoped. With not a single current hereditary peer being a woman, that legislation is an important step in addressing the gender imbalance of the other place, and we support it.

This new Parliament has seen a series of firsts: the first time the proportion of women elected to the House of Commons has surpassed 40%, the first time this country has had a female Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the first time we have had a black woman leading one of the main political parties in this country. While I am glad to support today’s legislation, which will accelerate the move towards gender parity in our Lords Spiritual, it is vital that we continue to take steps to build a more equal and representative Parliament at all levels. In our recent general election, only 37% of candidates put forward by major parties were women.

We are grateful to organisations such as 50:50 Parliament and Centenary Action for their tireless work supporting more women into politics at all levels. Diverse Governments are more resilient and make better decisions. It is essential that our elected bodies are drawn from the widest possible pool of talent and experience, and that Parliament better reflects the country it serves.

More broadly, we are supportive of wider political reform, including of our upper Chamber. We believe that there are critical steps that the Government must take to strengthen democratic rights and encourage broader participation in politics. We will continue to urge the new Government to be bolder in modernising our upper Chamber, including by introducing the promised retirement age, implementing the findings of the Burns report and giving the Lords the proper legitimacy that our second Chamber should have through a democratic mandate. Political engagement is an historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001—fewer than 60% of eligible voters cast their ballot. It is vital that we do all we can to restore public trust in Government, and broadening equal representation across both Chambers is a crucial step in doing that.

We look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system, including by investing in electoral procedures to ensure that the electoral register is accurate and up to date. We will continue to call on the Government to scrap the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme, and to expand political and democratic engagement by extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.

In this year’s general election, the highest ever proportion of women were elected to Parliament, and women now make up more than 40% of the House of Commons for the first time. It is important that both Houses of Parliament represent and reflect the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. This legislation is important in moving towards more representative politics. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for significant reform of the House of Lords for decades. Although we are proud to support the Bill, and grateful that it will improve the gender balance in the other place, ultimately we would like our second Chamber to be given a proper democratic mandate, and we will continue to push the Government to introduce bolder and broader parliamentary reforms.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

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

[Gareth Snell]

I think the very fact that we that we would be seeking to expel the bishops, who are the representatives of the Church of England, from the national legislature, would by its nature start a consideration of that process. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may say that it does not, but he does not know that. I fear that a well-meaning amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge would create a more significant debate about the role of the Church in our country. Although we may want to have that debate, I am not sure it should be triggered on the back of an amendment to a short, tightly drafted Bill about the role of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk wants to bring something forward, I would be more than happy to talk to him about how I could support it, but it should not be tacked on to a Bill on which there is already clear consensus around the role and responsibilities of hereditary peers. That, I hope, deals with the point that he raised.

Finally, on Second Reading we heard a great deal about our manifesto and the Labour party’s commitment to House of Lords reform. The ’99 reforms were one of the most significant changes to our constitutional settlement that there had been for a very long time. It was not just about the expulsion of the hereditary peers, but the creation of the Lord Speaker and the removal of the Law Lords to sit in the Supreme Court. It was a package that came forward, over time, in a series of Bills to implement the commitment that we made at the ’97 election. That, for me, is the start of where we are today. We will put through the Bill that does the first part, bank that and then move on. I know that there is an appetite across the House for considerable House of Lords reform—that has been evident from Opposition speeches—but we need to bank what we have done and move forward.

I hope that today we shall pass the Bill through Committee unamended and on to Third Reading, so that it can make its way to the other place where, because of the commitment that I know the Minister will give in summing up later, the Salisbury convention will be engaged; that it can pass through the House of Lords quickly, without change; and that we can move on with the rest of the reform that we require.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, which stand in my name, and their associated consequential amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), simply because I think that much of what he said supports my amendments. Certainly some of the points he made, I shall be making also.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are proud that it is our party that has for decades led the call for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. However, we do believe that broader and bolder reform of our upper Chamber is needed, which is why I have tabled these two new clauses to extend the powers of this legislation. The new clauses would finally see the House of Lords with a democratic mandate and would ensure that the House of Lords Appointments Commission could never again be sidestepped and ignored by an unscrupulous Government.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s point about strengthening the House of Lords Appointments Commission, but at the risk of broadening the debate a little too far, can she explain why it would be a sensible idea to have a second Chamber of elected parliamentarians? It would be rather like more than doubling the size of this House, but with Members in two separate places, possibly elected by different electoral systems and at different times. It is impossible to imagine more of a recipe for deadlock and conflict.

[Sarah Olney]

I very much look forward to having that debate in a future Session of this Parliament and on a future piece of legislation. That is why I tabled new clause 7—to call on the Government to make a commitment to future legislation, so that we in this House can debate and support broader and further reforms to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the House of Lords.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recall that, in fact, we have had that debate? We had it last in a proper sense in 2007, on Jack Straw’s proposals when, on the basis of the consensus that we are trying to establish here, consensus there was none, and the thing descended into complete chaos. Would she remember that, when making her proposals? If she thinks there will be consensus on this extremely difficult issue of an elected House of Lords, I am afraid she is in cloud cuckoo land.

[Sarah Olney]

Well, how polite of the right hon. Gentleman to say so. Obviously, I do not personally recall what happened in 2007. What we are trying to establish today are the steps that can be taken to reform the House of Lords. We very much support the step that we are debating today—that first step upon which, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is broad consensus. We want to see broader reform of the House of Lords and we want the Government to bring forward further proposals in due course. New clause 7 is about pushing them to produce those further proposals in a timely fashion, so that we can hold that debate in this Parliament and progress the cause of measures on which we can find consensus across the House.

[Sir John Hayes]

Given that the hon. Lady’s amendments are not likely to be passed, I assume that, on the grounds of logic and consistency, she will vote against Third Reading of the unamended Bill. As I said earlier, and she implicitly conceded, as it stands, the Bill does not make the House of Lords one ounce, one iota, one fraction more democratic.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We intend to support the Bill, because we want to see the abolition of the hereditary peers; that is very much part of what the Liberal Democrats want. However, we want to see more; we want to go further; we want to see broader reforms. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have heard not only an appetite from all sides to support the Bill—as the Minister said, there is broad consensus across the House for that—but a great zeal on the Tory Benches for further reform. I therefore do not understand why there would not be broad support for my new clause, which calls on the Government to enshrine in this Bill a commitment to go further, because that is clearly what so many Tory Members are saying they would like to see.

With so much trust in politics having been destroyed by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government, we must take this opportunity to underscore the integrity of Parliament, with transparency and democratic authority in our second Chamber. We are grateful to the Government for introducing this legislation so early in the Parliament. Fundamentally, the Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege.

New clause 7 would impose a duty on Ministers to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords through introduction of directly elected Members. Around the world, trust in the institutions and levers of the democratic process have too often frayed over recent years. In our democracy, we must ensure that the vital link between the people and their institutions remains strong. A democratic mandate is central to that mission. Reform of our upper Chamber has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics after the chaos of the previous Conservative Government. By introducing a democratic mandate for Members of the House of Lords, we can ensure that trust in politics is strengthened.

The disregard with which the previous Conservative Government treated the public’s trust threatened to erode faith in our democracy. The Bill is an opportunity to underline our commitment to democratic values and to begin to rebuild that trust. The new clause would strengthen the democratic mandate of the second Chamber, and Liberal Democrats call on the Government to support it as well our calls for wider reform to modernise our electoral system.

We want to strengthen democratic rights and participation by scrapping the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I am sure that there is a lot on which Members of all parties can agree. As the hon. Lady noted, I tabled a new clause that would remove the bishops. Will the Liberal Democrats support that? It is a policy that Liberal Democrats traditionally supported. Will they support it today if it comes to a vote?

[Sarah Olney]

I am happy to say that we support that ambition long term. However, I do not believe that the Bill is the correct vehicle for it. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is currently a widespread consensus on the Bill and tacking on new clause 1, which the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) tabled, would threaten its passage in the other place. I want the Bill to be passed as quickly as possible, so we will not support that new clause today.

We want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. We also want this new Labour Government to be bold in transferring more powers from Westminster and Whitehall. We believe that local authorities know best what their communities and towns need, and we want the Government to acknowledge that by boosting their authority and powers.

We continue to support the findings of the Burns report in 2017, which recommends cutting the House of Lords to 600 peers and outlines ways in which to ensure that that happens. Although the removal of hereditary Members is an important step in that process, we will continue to push the Government to make further reforms in future. In particular, we look to them to uphold their manifesto commitment to introducing a retirement age, a measure which would further aid the reduction and subsequent management of the size and membership of the upper House.

We want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy. Ultimately, we want to move towards replacing the House of Lords with an elected Chamber. We believe that moving to a fully democratic, elected Chamber is essential to strengthening the integrity of Parliament and the authority of our second Chamber. New clause 7 would enshrine a democratic mandate for our second Chamber in the Bill, thus strengthening the integrity of our Parliament.

New clause 8 would prevent a life peerage from being conferred on a person if the House of Lords Appointments Commission recommended against the appointment. We have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which ingrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system.

We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not follow in the footsteps of the previous Conservative Government, who allowed the other House to balloon in size, and that they will do everything possible to prevent a culture of sleaze and cronyism from developing in their Administration, as we saw under the previous Conservative Government. As former Prime Minister Boris Johnson proved by becoming the first Prime Minister to ignore the advice of HOLAC, making deeply inappropriate appointments to the other House, it is far too easy for a culture of sleaze to develop in the heart of Government.

It is essential that we strengthen and improve public confidence in politics. I hope the Minister agrees that accepting this amendment would strengthen the integrity of any Government and prevent the kind of behaviour I have described from returning to Westminster. The new clause would ensure that recommendations made by the House of Lords Appointments Commission could no longer be bypassed by the Prime Minister, improving the integrity and democratic powers of our second Chamber.

I am glad that the Government have indicated that the Bill is a first step in reforming the other place, and that in their manifesto they committed to reforms such as changes to the appointment process. I am grateful to the Minister for the Cabinet Office for his recent commitment to consider improving the mechanisms for reviewing appointments to the other House and implementing safeguards to protect against cronyism. If the Minister and the Prime Minister are sufficiently convinced that they will never override HOLAC—which they should be—do they agree that enshrining that principle in law is a good thing?

New clause 8 would strengthen the powers of HOLAC and I urge the Minister to support it to remove the perception that the House of Lords will now be more subject to patronage. I also ask him to set out a timeline for introducing broader reforms, which would bring the appointment of peers more in line with those of other honours, such as knighthoods, which require an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate.

We are clearly living in a new era of politics. Political engagement is at an historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001, with fewer than 60% of eligible voters casting their ballot. It is vital that we do all we can to restore public trust in Government.

It is also important that Parliament represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. Currently, not a single hereditary peer is a woman. The privilege of hereditary peer membership exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber. The Bill, which removes the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step in moving towards a more representative Parliament.

I hope we can all agree on the inappropriateness of hereditary status as a qualification for membership of a second Chamber in a modern parliamentary democracy, and that being the son, grandson or great grandson of a former courtier, colonial administrator, or 20th-century businessman is neither reason nor justification for a seat in a democratic Parliament.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the Bill and we are grateful to the Government, because in the legislation and subsequently we hope to see the most significant modernisation of the upper Chamber in a quarter of a century.

Income tax (charge)

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate in response to the first ever Budget delivered by a female Chancellor. This Government have inherited a mess, and we know that the cause of that mess is the legacy of reckless economic mismanagement left behind by the previous Government.

The Liberal Democrats are glad that the Chancellor has listened to our calls for investment and support for the NHS to start repairing all the damage done to local health services by the Conservatives. We will continue to stand up for our constituents, and press the Government to act with urgency and to provide the support to public services that is so desperately needed. The NHS has been stretched to its limits after years of Conservative neglect, and the Liberal Democrats have been tirelessly campaigning for an emergency health and social care budget to get it back on its feet. We therefore welcome yesterday’s announcements. However, we need to see outcomes, including people being able to see a GP within 7 days, cancer treatment targets being met and people having a dentist appointment when they need one. We will hold the Government to account for delivering on these issues.

Millions of people have a long-term health condition that makes them too ill to work and millions more are stuck on NHS waiting lists. Many others cannot leave hospital because there is no care provision. The Liberal Democrats have always understood that we cannot have a thriving economy and strong public finances until we fix the crisis in health and social care, so we welcome some of the steps that the Government announced in this direction yesterday. The Liberal Democrats have campaigned on improving support for carers. While I am glad that the Government’s review will look again at getting rid of the cliff edge for carer’s allowance and the earnings limit, I hope that the Chancellor and her colleagues will consider a broader review to give family carers the support they deserve. We will hold them to account for ensuring that this new funding is delivered for patients and carers, including through extra GP and hospital appointments.

I also welcome the promise made by the Chancellor yesterday of full compensation for the victims of both the contaminated blood scandal and the Horizon scandal, and I hope that that can be delivered quickly to bring the victims closer to the justice they deserve. The previous Conservative Government yet again showed themselves to be totally shameless with the revelation that, while they promised to compensate the victims of the hideous infected blood scandal, they entirely neglected to set aside the funds to actually pay for them. It is essential that there is transparency in Government spending, and we are glad that the Government are strengthening the powers of independent bodies, such as the OBR, to ensure that taxpayers receive value for money.

We were glad that, during the Chancellor’s Budget, she committed to investing to modernise the systems of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs using the very best technology, and we are glad that she has committed to recruiting additional HMRC compliance and debt staff. Investing in HMRC reduces the risk to businesses and individuals in navigating the bureaucratic and often complex processes associated with this service. I have heard from businesses in my constituency of the risks they face by not being able to directly speak to someone at HMRC. Strengthening these services with greater resources should benefit not only businesses, but all those required to complete self-assessment. Greater resources will protect citizens from unfair charges, including the loan charge, and allow people to access clear advice and support, making our tax system more efficient.

While I am pleased to support many of the announcements made by the Chancellor yesterday, I am concerned by her decision to raise employer’s national insurance contributions. I fear that this will be deeply damaging to many already struggling small businesses and care providers, so we urge the Government to at least consider exempting social care from the employer’s national insurance tax rise. The Chancellor has provided extra funding for the NHS and other public sector organisations to cover the cost of the tax rise. However, the vast majority of care providers are in the private sector, so will not benefit from this help.

Small businesses are the beating heart of our local economies. For years under the last Conservative Administration, these businesses have struggled, having to carry the burden of rising energy prices, interest rates and the red tape of the Conservative’s Brexit deal. I urge the Government to go further than the announcements made yesterday on business rates by fundamentally overhauling the broken business rates system, which is destroying our high streets and town centres.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there are much fairer ways of raising revenue. Our manifesto set out our calls for a fairer tax system, including raising money by reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for the big banks, or by asking the social media giants to pay a bit more. We do not believe that it is right or fair for the Government to instead increase the burden on small and medium-sized businesses, which are the engines of our economy and which are already struggling under the unfair tax system set out by the last Conservative Government.

We welcome yesterday’s news of increased funding for schools. Supporting children and young people must be central to any Government policy. After schools were left to crumble by the last Government, we are glad to see an increased investment in education. However, the Liberal Democrats oppose ending the VAT exemption for independent schools. We do not support taxing education, and we believe parents should have a choice about how they educate their children.

We were disappointed that at no point in the Chancellor’s Budget was there a mention of Europe. The Government cannot indefinitely ignore the damage that the Conservative’s shambolic Brexit deal continues to have on our economy.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Do you not think the fact that you are supporting all the spending commitments but none of the tax rises is the reason that the Lib Dems will never be in government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am not going to allow the hon. Gentleman to continue.

[Sarah Olney]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. I refer him to our general election manifesto in which, as I have already said, we set out a range of tax-raising measures, including reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts on big banks and taxing the social media giants. There are plenty of ways that the Government could have raised taxes more fairly than by placing additional burden on small businesses, which will be the engine of economic growth.

Brexit is another reason why our economy is not growing in the way it should. I urge the Government to acknowledge the seriousness of yesterday’s report from the OBR outlining the continual damage that Brexit red tape causes UK businesses, and the OBR finding that weak growth of trading, exacerbated by Brexit, will reduce the overall trade intensity of the UK economy by 15% in the long term. We understand that rebuilding our relationship with Europe is a gradual process. However, we are disappointed that the Government have ruled out joining the single market in the future, even when relationships improve. We urge them to consider the breadth of benefits that a strengthened trading relationship with Europe would bring. The Liberal Democrats want to forge a new partnership with our European neighbours —built on co-operation, not confrontation—and to move to a new comprehensive agreement.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the new Government say they want to reset their relationship with Europe, if the No. 1 thing on the European Union’s mind is a youth mobility scheme that the Government are ruling out, they are not going to get very far?

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and she is absolutely right. The first thing we should be doing is negotiating a youth mobility scheme. We owe it to our young people, who are struggling more than most in the current economic environment.

The mismanagement of our economy by the outgoing Conservative Government has left deep challenges, and we understand that undoing that damage will not be easy. Nevertheless, it is not right for the consequences of these decisions and for this burden to be carried by some of the most vulnerable in our society. In July, I urged the Chancellor to remove the two-child limit on social security payments in her first Budget, and we are disappointed that this did not happen. No child should grow up without adequate food, a warm home or security for their future. Currently, 1.6 million children are affected by the two-child benefit cap. Parents subject to these limitations have less available income for childcare costs, and therefore experience barriers to employment. The Liberal Democrats believe that removing this cap is the most cost-effective way of immediately lifting children out of poverty and getting more parents back into the workforce.

I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have also listened to our constituents and heard from countless pensioners who are worried about how they will afford their energy bills this winter. Since the cut to the winter fuel payments was announced, I have been inundated with expressions of local people’s disappointment at this decision. We will continue to urge the Government to give their full support to measures to boost the uptake of pension credit, and to ensure that all those eligible for pension credit claim both the benefit itself and the winter fuel payments.

For years, the previous Government failed to keep our communities safe from crime. It is vital that the new Government urgently restore the proper community policing that local people deserve. I ask the Government to clarify how and when the Chancellor will fund the thousands of new neighbourhood officers that her Government have promised. The Metropolitan Police Service has drawn on its financial reserves, slashed spending and sold off assets. During the election, our constituencies were promised more community police officers, but the Met has already made cuts and savings of over £1 billion, and next year it is facing a funding gap of over £450 million.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the Chancellor’s goody bag of infrastructure projects, yet I personally was disappointed that this did not extend to funding for Hammersmith bridge. Some 22,000 vehicles a day used to cross the bridge, and those cars are now causing gridlocked traffic throughout my constituency in Mortlake, East Sheen and Barnes. It will cost £250 million to fix Hammersmith bridge, a sum no local authority can afford to pay, so I hope the Government will consider what more they can do to assist with the bridge’s reopening.

We all agree that we need economic growth and a stable economy after the chaos caused by the last Government. We know that this dire economic situation requires tough decisions. I welcome many of the steps that the Chancellor announced yesterday, but the Government must ensure that this does not come at the expense of the most vulnerable. I ask the Government to set out a timeline for the delivery of their proposals for investment, and I urge them to act with the urgency required to ensure that people can access the services they need when they need them. The cost of living crisis will not be solved by hitting families, pensioners, family farms and struggling small businesses, and our economy will not grow strongly again unless we repair our broken relationship with Europe.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a sad state of affairs when the run-up to the Budget of this new Government so closely resembles that of the previous Government, with consistent leaks and briefings to the media rather than announcements being made where they should be—in this House—so that Members can scrutinise them on behalf of their constituents. The previous Conservative Government did so much damage to trust in politics, including by consistently undermining the ministerial code. Will the Minister put things right and toughen up the status of the code by enshrining it in law?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have already said that the Prime Minister will publish an updated ministerial code shortly. There is a stark difference between this and the previous Administration. The approach of the previous one is probably best characterised as, “If you break the rules, try and change the rulebook,” but we on the Labour Benches take the ministerial code seriously. That is why we want to ensure that it is fit for purpose, deals with problems such as the Tory freebie loophole and meets the high standards that the Prime Minister expects of all who have the privilege of serving in his Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I offer the congratulations of Liberal Democrat Members to our hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the safe arrival of his baby son yesterday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I offer our very best wishes to David, Gemma and all the family.

I am sure the Government agree that support to provide opportunities for young people should be central to the policy of any Government. We are glad to see the new Government working to build closer economic and cultural ties with Europe. We want to forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, built on co-operation, not confrontation, and move to a new comprehensive agreement. We must rebuild confidence by agreeing partnerships or associations, helping to restore prosperity and opportunities for British people. Will the Minister consider the extension of the youth mobility scheme and acknowledge the breadth of ways in which it could strengthen our cultural, educational and economic links with Europe?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, I add our congratulations to the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the safe arrival of his new baby.

On the specific point that the hon. Lady makes, we will not give a running commentary on the negotiations. We will obviously consider EU proposals on a range of issues, but we are clear that we will not return to freedom of movement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Last week’s legislation was welcome and was supported by the Liberal Democrats, and we were glad of the Government’s suggestion that these were initial steps ahead of broader reform. Will the Minister outline a timeframe for when further legislation will be brought forward for democratic reform of our upper Chamber, and can he assure me that safeguards will be put in place to protect against cronyism, with improved mechanisms to review appointments to the other House?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive approach to this matter. Clearly, we want to see the current Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. We will then move on to the second stage of our reforms, looking carefully to build a consensus to have that smaller, better value, active House of Lords that we all want to see providing more considered scrutiny of this House. We will certainly consider her specific points about the appointments process.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation and the establishment of the infected blood compensation scheme. We are glad that it will move the victims of this atrocity, both those infected and affected, closer to long-overdue justice and compensation. Victims and their families have been waiting decades for answers and for recognition of the suffering that they have endured. Liberal Democrats welcome the findings of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report, which vindicated so many of those people affected. We voted last December for the amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, requiring the Government to set up the compensation scheme, and we are glad that this motion establishes that.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

This is a deeply sad scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need reassurance from the Minister that there is adequate capacity to process the applications at pace?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It goes very much to the heart of the remarks that I shall make about ensuring that the compensation scheme established through this legislation is indeed adequate, not just in its resources but in its powers to fully address the magnitude of the justice and compensation that is owed to the families who have suffered.

Although we are grateful that the Government have brought this legislation before Parliament at such an early stage, we want to ensure that these proposals go far enough, and ensure that all those affected get the justice they deserve. The Liberal Democrats will work with the Government to ensure that the provision for fair and proper compensation is implemented as quickly and effectively as possible.

More than 3,000 deaths are attributable to infected blood and blood products, over 30,000 people were infected with hepatitis C or HIV after receiving infected blood transfusions, and many thousands more have been affected by the suffering that has been caused. This scandal is a chilling story of people being failed, not only by the medical professionals who treated them but by the NHS—which should have been responsible for the safety of their treatment—and by a series of Governments whose integrity and diligence should have precluded such an atrocity from ever taking place.

Over the decades when this was happening, children were subject to unsafe and deeply unethical clinical testing. Senior doctors in British hospitals administered experimental treatments while knowing the significant risk of contaminated products, and staff in haemophilia centres across the country used blood products even though it was widely known that these products were likely to be infected, as was so vividly highlighted by the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden).

The scope of the negligence goes far beyond the medical administration; the infected blood inquiry report reveals a culture of covering up. We must ensure that there is transparency in governance, especially given the disregard with which the last Conservative Government treated the public’s trust. The Liberal Democrats support the survivors’ call for a duty of candour on all public officials, as well as the introduction of increased legal protections for whistleblowers. We must do all we can to ensure that we have an honest political culture in which concerns are listened to and questions answered, so that nothing of this nature can ever happen again. We are glad that the report has made public the extent to which people were failed, and that there is support across the House for acknowledgement of the injustices that have been suffered, which this legislation begins to rectify.

However, while we are grateful for the Government’s action in response to Sir Brian’s inquiry, particularly the Minister’s extension of the scheme beyond the initial commitments from the previous Government, we are concerned that the legislation does not go far enough. Financial compensation cannot make up for the years of injustice and the unimaginable distress that so many thousands of people have gone through.

The compensation scheme is an important step in acknowledging their suffering, but I urge the Minister to see it as the first step in the process of compensating victims. We want to see legislation that compensates the children who, without consent, were tested on with contaminated blood but did not go on to develop a disease. We want to see recognition of the family members who saw loved ones suffer, and in some instances pass away, but who will receive no compensation because they were over the age of 18 at the time of infection. We want to see a clear and explicit explanation of the payment bandings that have been set out, and we want to see engagement with the affected community at all stages.

It is vital that the scheme acknowledges the trauma experienced beyond the physical suffering caused by the infected blood. Not only were so many lives cut short or destroyed by the hideous physical illnesses that contaminated blood caused, but unimaginable psychological distress has been caused by experimentation on unconsenting and often unaware patients. We urge the Government to ensure that this scheme encompasses all those who suffered owing to the infected blood scandal, and that any further legislation is developed with the close engagement of those who best understand that suffering.

Our principal concerns lie with the transparency of the calculation of compensation payments. It is crucial that the scheme does not establish a hierarchy of suffering, and I ask the Minister to outline the process by which these tariffs were decided. The compensation for people treated with infected blood products who “self-cleared” hepatitis C is very low, and does not account for the health impacts that they have experienced or the psychological damage that they have experienced. There is also a significant discrepancy between those infected with hepatitis C and those infected with HIV. Although we welcome the initiation of compensation payments, we believe that there must be greater transparency over how they have been calculated. We urge the Minister to engage with the affected communities, and to ensure that there is clear communication explaining how these decisions have been reached.

The complications caused by the decades of defensive cover-up have not only exacerbated the trauma experienced by victims, but affected the estates of those who have died. In the intervening decades, some estates have become contentious and the question of the rightful recipients of compensation has therefore become unclear. In some cases, the compensation could be entailed away from those on whom a person’s infection or death has had the greatest impact. It is vital for the IBCA to have the necessary resources and powers to support victims through the process, to ensure that appropriate compensation is received by all those affected.

The burden of the administrative concerns and queries from affected families is currently falling on overstretched charities. Has the Minister considered the creation of a dedicated unit to deal with inquiries, working alongside the IBCA? We must support the work of these vital organisations—the charities providing support—and engage with them to understand exactly the needs of those affected. The motion sets out the possibility of future legislation, and we hope that the Government will follow up this legislation with vital community engagement. We urge them to ensure, as the scheme progresses, that there are mechanisms in place to enable the concerns of charities, organisations and affected individuals to be heard.

We are also cautious about the structural limitations of the IBCA. Given the many years over which the scandal took place, the six-year timeframe of the authority as a legal entity does not seem appropriate. The equivalent scheme set up by the Irish Government in the 1990s is still active, and it is crucial that the IBCA exists for long enough to ensure that the full compensation scheme and associated processes can be carried out effectively.

The Liberal Democrats are glad to see the introduction of this legislation. We welcome the Government’s swift creation of a compensation body, the IBCA, to implement the report’s recommendations and begin payments to the victims of this scandal. It is essential that people begin to receive the compensation that is so long overdue, and it is vital that that is done in the most compassionate and effective way. While we hope that the Government will go further in ensuring that the affected community are fully engaged and consulted in this process, the infected blood compensation scheme will allow victims, both infected and affected, to move, at last, towards justice.

Let me finally take this opportunity to thank Emily, Eleni, Pipsy, Claudia, Harry and Orlando, who are A-level students in my constituency and have been gaining work experience in my office this week. It has been a pleasure to host them, and they have worked very hard in helping me to put my speech together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He took exactly the same approach that I did to the expert group. I accepted, as I told the House, 69 of the 74 recommendations, including, crucially, the continuation of the support schemes. On the other five, there were reasons of simplicity or speed—of getting compensation to people more quickly. I hope the House will take the assurance that there is that imperative to act as quickly as possible.

[Sarah Olney]

I am exceptionally grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s explanation of how the different tariffs have been arrived at, which aids comprehension. However, will he also explain a little more about what the expert group did to engage with the affected communities so that they can better understand the tariff for themselves?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and I have indicated, Sir Robert Francis engaged extensively around the country during the general election. The point the hon. Lady makes about continuously trying to make what is a complex scheme open and transparent is entirely fair and I share the desire to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has constantly been a powerful voice for victims of the infected blood scandal. I have indicated in previous remarks that we will engage with the charities and groups on what more support we can give to them. On the 20 cases, that is about a test-and-learn approach to try to be able to ramp up the scheme and make it operate more quickly.

On the unethical research—an appalling and dreadful practice—the Government have accepted the amount of money that was suggested, but it should be emphasised always that these are not payments in isolation; they are just a part, and in the vast majority of cases will be a small proportion, of the amounts of money that will be paid out.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke powerfully, and I echo his words about the former right hon. Member for Horsham, with whom I had a number of conversations about this matter. I know that he was concerned and wanted to drive the matter forward. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford spoke powerfully about the two cases in his constituency and the need for closure, which is a hugely powerful emotion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke powerfully about Jane Fitzgerald. She also spoke about Ronan Fitzgerald, who I understand is in the Gallery today and who is continuing the extraordinary fight for justice in which he has been engaged for so long. My hon. Friend asked a series of questions. If she writes to me with each of them, I will ensure that she receives a response.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), who is back on the Liberal Democrat Benches, raised the issue of siblings, which I addressed a moment or two ago. He is entirely right to highlight the importance of communications and transparency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) steps into giant shoes as the chair-designate of the APPG, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) did an extraordinary job in taking this matter forward. He talked about different Government Departments. The Cabinet Office has led on this issue because of the history of the Department of Health in the 1970s and 1980s. That is why I and the previous Paymaster General took on this responsibility. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that we should continue to engage with the infected blood community; that is a discussion I frequently have with the chair of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, who I know shares my hon. Friend’s desire to do so.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me about legal support, and we have accepted that it should be provided. He talked about my powers in that regard, which have been exercised. That legal support will happen, and it is hugely important that it does. We want the tariff scheme to be as quick and accessible as possible, and we want people to have that level of support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) spoke powerfully of people’s scepticism about state institutions. The introduction of a duty of candour is hugely important with regard to not only this scandal, but others such as Horizon and Hillsborough. His point about document destruction was very well made, but one of the reasons for using a tariff-based scheme, rather than having thousands of individual court cases, is precisely that the documents that are available can be treated more sensitively and on the basis of the balance of probabilities.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) spoke extraordinarily movingly about her constituent Graham Knight, his wife Sue and the support that she provided.

It was a privilege to listen to a fantastic maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), who is the first female Member of Parliament for her constituency. She spoke with great Yorkshire pride and about her constituents understandably feeling let down in the past. She certainly did not let them down today with her maiden speech, which was positive about the way that politics can deliver real change. I am sure it is the start of a very fine parliamentary career. Her grandmother, Marjorie Simms, would have been extraordinarily proud of her today.

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) spoke about her constituent Philip, who summed up one chilling aspect of this scandal when he said,

“our ignorance was engineered by those in power.”

It is worth reflecting on that sentence as we look at the changes that we will need to make, beyond ensuring that people receive compensation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) spoke powerfully about his constituent, Roberta, and the stigma that she suffered. He also spoke about the Murray family, and if he writes to me about their specific circumstances, I will ensure that he gets a response.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) spoke movingly about family members and carers, and I agree with her about their huge importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) spoke about the Blake family. I think that caseworkers will be hugely important in the work of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

I note that, understandably, the first constituent the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned did not even want her name to be mentioned. That is an indication of the ongoing pervasive nature of this scandal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) spoke for all of us when she said it had taken far too long to reach justice. She is welcome to write to me about the point she raised. I think she was talking about legal fees that have already been incurred, but if she writes to me I will ensure that she gets a response.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I have long advocated—with, I think, the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis)—the abolition of the House of Commons, the abolition of the House of Lords, and instead four national Parliaments, each with a First Minister, and an upper House dealing solely with defence, foreign policy and macro-taxation, which was the original purpose of Parliament. Why is the hon. Lady prepared to go half hog rather than the whole hog?

[Sarah Olney]

I must say, I regret that the Conservatives did not win a mandate in July for the kind of wholesale reform that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing. As I say, the Liberal Democrat policy has always been for an elected second Chamber. That is not what the Bill delivers, but we are looking for the Government to go further—far further than the Conservatives did in the previous 14 years. [Interruption.] I find it so extraordinary that Conservative Members are suddenly all converts to the cause of Lords reform when they have done nothing about it for a decade and a half—it is insane. I say to both right hon. Gentlemen who have intervened on me that Liberal Democrat policy is for an elected upper Chamber, but getting rid of the hereditary peers is a welcome first step, and that is why we will support the legislation.

We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics after the chaos of the last Conservative Government. By removing this unelected and undemocratic aspect of our Parliament, we will move closer to that goal.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s argument would hold far more water if the Liberal Democrats adopted the position of not nominating anybody for the upper House until it was wholly elected. However, every single council leader up and down the land who has led a Liberal Democrat-Conservative group—sometimes of only three people—has suddenly found themselves draped in ermine and voting in the upper House. Her principle and her party’s actions are very wide apart.

[Sarah Olney]

I want to be very clear: the Liberal Democrats support the idea of a second Chamber. Under the current system, it is an appointed and elected Chamber; we are here today to support the principle of an elected second Chamber, and we are supporting the first step in that direction. We support the principle of an upper Chamber, and are very glad that there is Liberal Democrat representation within it, but that does not mean that we do not support the idea of changing the way in which people are introduced to the upper House. That is the principle that we are here to support.

Honestly, I am finding it difficult to work out what the Conservative argument is here. Do they want to abolish the House of Lords, do they want it to be elected, or do they want to keep everything exactly as it is? We support the Bill because it is a welcome first step towards a broader range of reforms that we have supported since 1911—which, as I have said, pre-dates many of the hereditary peerages that Conservative Members seem so keen to maintain.

Not only is the concept of inherited privilege one of fundamental, antiquated inequality, it exacerbates the distinct gender imbalance of the second Chamber, with not a single woman among the current hereditary peers. Removing the right of those peers to sit in the other place would make that gender imbalance slightly less severe, moving from 70% of peers being men to 67%. Parliament should be a body that represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. This legislation, which would remove the last remaining hereditary peers’ membership of the other place, is a significant step towards a more representative Parliament.

If successful, the Bill would have a significant impact on the size of the House. In 2017, we supported the findings of the Burns report, which recommended measures to manage the exponentially increasing membership of our second Chamber. By removing the right of hereditary peers to sit in the other place, we would see a significant reduction in the size of the House, moving it back towards a more sensible size. Liberal Democrats are supporters of that change and the move towards a smaller upper Chamber.

While we are grateful to the Government for the introduction of this Bill and intend to support its progress through the House, we also recognise and acknowledge the commitment, wisdom and contributions brought by some hereditary Members of the upper Chamber. We thank them for their work, yet hope they can agree that we can no longer ignore the entrenched inequality that the continuation of hereditary membership of their House brings. The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing commitment to reforming our second Chamber with a proper democratic mandate. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, both in this Chamber and the other place, are working together to push for broader reform as soon as possible. We are glad that the Government’s manifesto committed to other reforms, including changes to the appointment process, addressing the national and regional composition of the second Chamber, the introduction of a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, and we ask the Minister to set out a timeline for those reforms.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently spoken out against the current system of prime ministerial appointments, which engrains patronage, reinforces the elitism of British politics and contributes to so many people losing faith in our system. We would like the Government to reassure us that they will not be following in the footsteps of the former Conservative Government, who ignored the findings of the 2017 Burns report and presided over a House of Lords that has ballooned in size. There have been suggestions that the Government’s plans for reform of the other place include a requirement for any nomination for a peerage to be accompanied by an explanation of the candidate’s suitability. Will the Minister commit to that requirement, bringing the appointment of peers more in line with the process for other honours—such as knighthoods—with political parties providing an overview of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the candidate?

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Could the hon. Lady tell the House how many life peerages were given out by the California lobbyist Sir Nicholas Clegg?

[Sarah Olney]

No, I cannot. That happened in a previous Parliament and has no relevance to this current piece of legislation, which is about abolishing the hereditary peers.

[Luke Taylor]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is surprising to hear the confusion from Conservative Members regarding our position on this Bill? We have figured out how to win under first past the post, costing so many of their colleagues their seats, but we come here with the ambition to change the voting system to a much more progressive, fair and proportionate one. In the same sense, the way to deliver a fully reformed House of Lords is to engage in the process and change it from within.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my colleague for his intervention, which underlines that what the Liberal Democrats want is a fully reformed House of Lords—an elected second Chamber. We think that that will better serve the people of this country, restore some of the gravitas and dignity of the House of Lords, and make it a more effective second Chamber. Ultimately, that is what we should all be looking to achieve.

The Liberal Democrats continue to support the findings of the 2017 Burns report, which claims that the House should be cut to 600 peers and outlines ways to ensure that happens. While the removal of hereditary Members is an important step in that process, we will continue to push the Government to continue with further reform in the future. In particular, we look to them to uphold their manifesto commitment to introduce a retirement age, a measure that further aids the reduction and subsequent management of the size and membership number of the House of Lords. We also want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I am curious as to whether the Liberal Democrats would be open to amendments that look to take the reforms proposed by the Government that step further. It is very important that we work together to make sure we get the best form of upper House.

[Sarah Olney]

We will certainly be participating fully in Committee, scrutinising the legislation to see whether suitable amendments can be tabled, but that will be a Liberal Democrat initiative. It is something we will certainly play our part in.

We want the second Chamber to have proper democratic legitimacy, ultimately moving towards the replacement of the House of Lords with an elected Chamber. We believe that moving to a fully democratic, elected Chamber is essential to strengthening the integrity of Parliament and the authority of our second Chamber.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. The Liberal Democrats clearly have a very formed view of the reforms that they want, so what number of Lords would be in the elected upper Chamber? [Interruption.]

[Sarah Olney]

I have to confess that I missed the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I was distracted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I will just reiterate that we want to see broader reform of the House of Lords, with a democratically elected second Chamber.

[Dr Spencer]

rose—

[Sarah Olney]

I am not giving way again. More broadly, we are supportive of wider electoral reform, and look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system. We want to strengthen democratic rights and participation by scrapping the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme, expand political and democratic engagement by extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, and take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. We call on the Government to enshrine the ministerial code in legislation, giving Parliament the powers to hold Ministers to account and protecting politics from corruption and sleaze, and we want this new Labour Government to be bold in transferring greater powers away from Westminster and Whitehall. We believe that local authorities know best what their communities and towns need, and we want this Government to acknowledge that by boosting their authority and powers.

I hope we can all agree on the inappropriateness of hereditary status as a qualification for membership of a modern parliamentary democracy—that being the son, grandson or great-grandson of a former courtier, colonial administrator or 20th-century businessman is neither reason nor justification for a seat in a democratic Parliament. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues therefore welcome the Bill and are grateful to the Government for taking swift action to make our political system fairer. Through this legislation, we hope to see the most significant modernisation of the upper Chamber in a quarter of a century, and while we will continue to push the Government to introduce bolder and broader parliamentary reforms, this legislation signals a serious move towards more representative, more democratic and fairer politics. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are proud to support this Bill as it moves through the House.

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Olney.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I must say that I am startled to see Conservative MPs acting as though they were defenders of standards in public life. Under the last Government, Ministers were subject to less transparency than Back-Bench MPs. We will never know the interests of some of the Ministers who served under Liz Truss, because their ministerial interests were never published. However, I say to the new Government that if Ministers do not treat the need to restore standards with the urgency that it deserves, there will be no sympathy for them from the public, either. The independent adviser on ministerial interests has made it clear that the current system produces a list of interests, not a full register. Will the Minister guarantee that we will now see a full register published, just as there is for MPs, and set out the timescale? Will the Government rectify the fact that we went months under the previous Government without a list of interests being published by retrospectively publishing those interests? Will the Government enshrine the ministerial code in law, and include in that law timescales for regularly publishing a register of interests, so that we can have confidence that it will be published? Finally, will the Government make the role of the ethics adviser truly independent by empowering the adviser to begin their investigations and publish their own reports?

[Ellie Reeves]

The hon. Member makes a number of important points. In relation to value, yes, this is about a closer alignment of the two schemes. MPs need to declare value at the moment, but value does not need to be declared under the ministerial scheme. That is the loophole that we are looking to close, and we will do so as soon as possible.