House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Ellie Reeves ExcerptsTuesday 12th November 2024
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 November 2024 - (12 Nov 2024)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as I open this Committee of the whole House.
As I noted a number of times on Second Reading, this is a short and focused Bill. It delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the rights of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This Bill is a matter of principle. In the 21st century, it cannot be right for there to be places in our legislature reserved for those born into certain families. Having now seen all the amendments tabled by parties from across the House, it is clear that there is no principled objection to the aim of the Bill, which is to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. Therefore, I hope that all Members across the House can join Government Members in voting for this important and long-overdue legislation.
I look forward to hearing from hon. Members over the course of today’s debate, but I shall start with the detail of the Bill itself. Clause 1 is clear, straightforward and central to the overall purpose of the Bill. It removes membership of the House of Lords from the remaining hereditary peers. Specifically, clause 1 repeals section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, which currently provides an exception to the general exclusion of hereditary peers from membership of the House in section 1 of the 1999 Act. Under that exception, 90 hereditary peers and those hereditary peers holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain continue to be Members of the other place.
The clause is a core part of the Bill and delivers the Government’s clear manifesto commitment to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. It will result in the removal of the 92 reserved places for hereditary peers. There are currently vacancies in the seats reserved for hereditary peers—at present, there are 88 hereditary peers in the other place. Such vacancies would usually be filled by a hereditary peer by-election, but such by-elections have been paused until January 2026 by changes to the Standing Orders agreed by the other place in July 2024.
The Government value the good work done by hereditary peers, and we have spoken on several occasions about the individuals who have served in Parliament with duty and dedication. These reforms are not personal, but they are long overdue and essential.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government would find considerable sympathy for their position if they were to make provision for those hereditary peers currently in the House of Lords who have done good work and who have acquired a lot of experience by possibly introducing a phase-out or a generous allocation of life peerages to those who are considered worthy on the basis of their past record of participation.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. There would of course be no bar on the Leader of the Opposition nominating any of those who have served as hereditary peers for life peerages in the normal way.
Sir Julian Lewis
That sounds reasonable, except for the fact that, unless there were a phasing of the process, it would not be possible within the numbers available to the Leader of the Opposition to nominate more than a small fraction. Can the Minister offer any more flexibility on that?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but, with the greatest of respect, it is for the Leader of the Opposition to nominate those whom they consider appropriate for life peerages. On phasing out, the measures in the 1999 Act were meant only to be temporary ones. Twenty-five years later, we are still having these debates.
Clause 2 abolishes the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to hereditary peerage claims. I appreciate that the subject of hereditary peerage claims may be a novel one to hon. Members and one that was not discussed on Second Reading, so let me provide a clear explanation of what hereditary peerage claims are, why they are mentioned in the Bill, and why the Government are proposing to remove the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. A hereditary peerage claim—or peerage claim, as I will refer to them—is when a person seeks to be formally recognised as the holder of the title of a hereditary peerage. Usually, the claimant of the peerage is the undisputed heir and is simply entered on the Roll of the Peerage following an application to the Lord Chancellor.
However, there can be some cases where the claim is disputed or complex. Currently, these cases are usually referred to the other place to advise the Crown on how to determine the claim. The House also confirms undisputed successions of Irish peerages in parallel with an application to the Lord Chancellor. Complex or disputed peerage claims occur very infrequently. There have been fewer than 10 claims considered by the other place in the past 50 years. Given that the Bill removes the final link between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, it is no longer appropriate for these issues to be dealt with by the other place. That is why the Bill would abolish the jurisdiction of the other place in relation to peerage claims. The intention is that future complex or disputed peerage claims that would otherwise have been considered by the other place will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.
Undisputed successions to Irish peerages will, like other types of peerage, continue to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. As hon. Members know, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is made up of justices of the Supreme Court and other senior judges, already has a well-established constitutional role in advising the sovereign and is the appropriate body to consider these matters. The Government have discussed this matter with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is content to take on this function. Therefore, the Government believe that, following the removal of the hereditary peers, it is appropriate for the other place’s jurisdiction in relation to peerage claims to come to an end.
I thought that it would be helpful to briefly address amendment 26 to this clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The amendment makes it explicit that the jurisdiction for considering peerage claims would be transferred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government’s position is that it is unnecessary to expressly state in the Bill the transfer of the jurisdiction of peerage claims. That is because, as I have set out, matters such as peerage claims can already be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the Crown under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his amendment.
Turning to other parts of the Bill, clause 3 makes consequential amendments to reflect the repeal of section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999, and more generally on the basis that there will no longer be any Members of the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. The amendments reflect the fact that certain provisions in the Peerage Act 1963, the House of Lords Act 1999, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 are now redundant as a result of this legislation.
Clause 4 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and when it will commence. An amendment or repeal made by the Bill has the same extent as the provision amended or repealed. Subject to that, the Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There are those who believe that this reform is about making the House of Lords more democratic. Clearly, the Minister cannot be among them, because these provisions do not seem to make it any more democratic in a meaningful way. Can she confirm, therefore, that she is not in favour of a more democratically elected House of Lords?
Ellie Reeves
This legislation is the first step of reform of the House of Lords, as set out in our manifesto. In our manifesto, we committed to this reform immediately, which is why we are discussing it today.
On commencement, the Bill will come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it receives Royal Assent. If the Bill passes in this Session, hereditary peers who are Members of the other place will depart at the end of the Session. The timing of the implementation of the Bill ensures the delivery of the manifesto commitment for immediate reform in a timely fashion while not undermining the business of the House with the sudden departure of a number of hereditary peers in the middle of a parliamentary Session.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) touched on when the Minister thinks more legislation will be coming forward, and the Minister proudly boasted about delivering on one of Labour’s manifesto commitments. When, over the next two, three or four years, does she anticipate the other pieces of legislation will be forthcoming to deliver on the rest of the manifesto?
Ellie Reeves
We have made it clear that this is a first step of reform. We are committed to the other reforms set out in the manifesto, but it is important that there is proper consultation and that we take time to ensure that they are done in the right way. That work is ongoing.
Subject to the timely progress of the Bill, it will give due notice to existing hereditary peers, allowing for opportunities to give valedictory speeches, which is consistent with the approach taken in the 1999 Act.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
On the future reforms, does the Minister not accept that when House of Lords reform was discussed in 1998-99, the hereditaries were retained as a temporary measure, yet the Labour Government never came forward with the second stage? Does she appreciate that many of us are slightly cynical about this Government’s ever bringing forward a future stage, so the solution might be to delay commencement until they bring forward proposals?
Ellie Reeves
Opposition Members had 14 years to bring about reform of the House of Lords, if that was what they wanted to do—but alas, they did not. Instead, this Government are taking an immediate first step on the road to reform of the House of Lords. It is long overdue and we are getting on with it.
Clause 5 simply establishes the short title of the legislation as the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2024”. If the Bill is passed in 2025, the short title will automatically be changed to the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025”.
I note that a number of new clauses have been tabled. Of course, I look forward to hearing from the newest zealous member of the cause for constitutional reform, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), as well as from the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and others. I will not prejudge what they have to say on these matters, but I note again that this is a focused Bill that delivers on a clear manifesto commitment.
As I have said, the Bill is the first step in the Government’s broader plans to reform the second Chamber. We recognise that other elements of that agenda are more complex, and it is right that we take time to consider them properly.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Why are the Government proceeding with such timidity and “first steps” when they have such a large majority and could push through their will if they wanted to?
Ellie Reeves
This is an immediate first step on the road to wider reform, and one that is long overdue since the 1999 Act. It is right that we are getting on with it, and doing so in the first Session of this Parliament.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady has tried to paint the Labour party as a great reforming party; yet in 2012, when there was an opportunity to reform the House of Lords systematically, Labour Members voted against it. Why is she so scared to take on more bold suggestions to deliver her manifesto?
Ellie Reeves
Previous attempts to reform the other place all in one go have failed. We want to see immediate reform of the other place, which is why we are getting on with this straightaway. We can then engage and consult on how best to deliver the other reforms, which we have set out clearly in our manifesto.
Alongside the Bill, the Leader of the House of Lords is engaging in dialogue with the other place on taking forward reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. In fact, as we speak, she is leading a debate on that very subject in the other place. I look forward to further discussions on this matter in the House in due course, so that we get it right. None of the amendments that have been tabled contest the objective of the Bill to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. They should, therefore, not prevent us from making progress on this important and long overdue reform.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour to speak to the Bill in Committee. When we last discussed it, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—a very great man—set out why the Opposition do not approve of the way in which the Government are going about this change. We believe that this nervous little Bill is misconceived and perhaps, at its worst, dishonest.
Ellie Reeves
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for taking the time to debate these issues in Committee, and I have listened to their contributions with interest. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), as well as to other Labour Members, for providing a powerful voice in support of this important legislation.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who demonstrated on Second Reading that there is strong cross-party support for this first step in reforming the upper Chamber. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who has taken a surprising interest in these issues, and to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I stress that we are grateful to all peers, including hereditary peers, who have committed themselves to valuable public service. I reiterate that there is no block to hereditary peers coming back as life peers if their party wishes to nominate them.
What has become clear during the course of this debate is that the Conservatives do not have a coherent position on House of Lords reform. It is not clear whether the Opposition Front Benchers want to retain hereditary peers; it is not clear whether they want faster and further reform; and it is not clear whether they agree with the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. But what is clear is that they cannot agree among themselves about the Bill—more division and chaos.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister will be aware that it has been over 100 years since Keir Hardie committed to abolishing the House of Lords so, to be clear, will we have to wait another 100 years for the Labour party to get around to it?
Ellie Reeves
We have taken an immediate first step, as set out in our manifesto, to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords. The hon. Member will know well that there were a number of other commitments in our manifesto, and we are considering the best way to implement them. It is right that we take the time to do that properly.
I will address the amendments. New clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), seeks to provide a description of the purpose of the Bill. The Government cannot accept his new clause. His explanatory statement says:
“This new clause describes the purpose of the Bill.”
For his benefit, I am happy to clarify the purpose of the Bill, which should be self-evident to anyone who has taken the time to read it. The Bill is designed to remove the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper Chamber. In 2024, no place in our legislature should be reserved for individuals who are born into certain families. I add that his new clause fails to take into account the presence of the Law Lords. Several such peers sit in the other place, and make a valuable contribution to its proceedings, as Members of the Lords Temporal under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. His new clause therefore falls at the first hurdle, and I respectfully ask him not to press it to a Division.
Amendment 25, also tabled by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, seeks to delay the Bill’s implementation. Delaying its implementation goes against the Government’s manifesto commitments. We were clear that we would implement immediate reform to the second Chamber by removing the outdated and indefensible right for hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Government set out in our manifesto a number of other commitments to reforming the other place, and it is right that we take the time to consider how best to implement them. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press the new clause to a Division.
Amendments 8 and 9, and new clause 7, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, seek to impose a statutory duty on the Government to take forward proposals to secure a democratic mandate for the House of Lords via the introduction of democratically elected Members. Although the Government agree with the hon. Member that the second Chamber needs reforming, we cannot accept this amendment. This is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
The Government have committed to more fundamental reform through the establishment of an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals in order to provide the public with an opportunity to give their views on how to ensure this alternative Chamber best serves them. Details of the process will be set out in due course, and the House will no doubt take a close interest in that process as it is taken forward. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement the other manifesto commitments, including our commitment to consult on an alternative second chamber, engaging with parliamentarians and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament. With that in mind, I ask the hon. Member to not press her amendments to a Division.
I now turn to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and new clauses 9, 10 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, regarding the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission in advising the Prime Minister on appointments to the other place. I thank the hon. Members for their interest in reform of the House of Lords’ appointment process. I think we are all in agreement that it is vital that peers meet the high standard that the public expect of them, for the good functioning and reputation of the second Chamber and of Parliament more broadly.
Constitutionally, it is for the Prime Minister—accountable to Parliament and the electorate—to make recommendations to the sovereign on new peers. As part of its role, the House of Lords Appointments Commission advises the Prime Minister on the propriety of nominations to the House. In that role, HOLAC considers whether a person is in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular, and whether the past conduct of that person would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute. The Prime Minister of course respects and values the commission’s advice, and will place great weight on it when making decisions on peerage recommendations. The hon. Members will be pleased to know that the Government’s manifesto committed to improving the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments, and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber so that it better reflects the country it serves. The Government are actively considering how this can be achieved.
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would remove the Prime Minister’s role in advising the sovereign on new appointments and hand it completely to the House of Lords Appointments Commission. That would be a significant change to the commission’s role, one that would require very careful consideration. This, however, is a focused Bill that delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. I therefore respectfully request that the hon. Members not press their new clauses to a Division.
New clauses 11 and 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, relate to Members or prospective Members of the other place who have made registered political loans or donations of over £11,180 since 2001. The Government believe that the second Chamber is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience in support of the House of Lords’ core functions of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account. The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for vetting all candidates for propriety, and considers party donations as part of that vetting. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member not to press his new clause to a Division.
Amendment 15 and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would prevent individuals who were Members of the House of Commons in the current or previous Parliament or in the previous five years from being appointed as, or remaining as, Members of the House of Lords. I should declare an interest: my husband, until recently the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, is now a Member of the other place and is also a Government Whip. This is recorded in the list of Ministers’ interests that was published last week.
I thank the hon. Member for tabling those amendments; however, the Government cannot accept them. As I said, the Government are supportive of the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds, and believe that the other place is enriched by Members who bring diverse experience. That of course includes former Members of this place. Former Members can bring valuable insights to the other place, particularly with their experience of the scrutiny of legislation. Denying such eligibility for a specific time period would be unnecessary and prevent valuable contributions being made. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.
Ellie Reeves
The Bill has the simple objective of removing the remaining 92 spaces reserved for hereditary peers in the House of Lords, thereby completing the process started in 1999.
Ellie Reeves
I was very generous with my time in my opening remarks and we have had a full debate.
Of course, the Government have committed to wider reforms to the other place, including establishing an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. The Government will consult on proposals to seek the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them. However, as I have set out, this Bill is not the vehicle for considering wider changes. I therefore respectfully request that the right hon. Member does not press the amendments.
Amendments 3 and 7 and new clause 3, which were also tabled by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, would introduce a retirement age of 80 for Members of the other place. Amendment 4 and new clause 4, which were also tabled by the right hon. Member, seek to impose a participation requirement on all Members of the House of Lords.
Ellie Reeves
The introduction of a retirement age or a participation requirement is not the purpose of the Bill. The right hon. Member, along with other Members of the House, will be aware that the Government included a commitment in their manifesto to introduce a mandatory retirement age, whereby at the end of the Parliament in which a Member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords. I am sure he is also fully aware that the Labour manifesto included a commitment to introduce a participation requirement for peers. The House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account, and the Government recognise the valuable contribution of many peers. It is important that all Members participate in support of those core functions.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. What is being proposed in these clauses is very much in the spirit of the Labour manifesto. I appreciate the fact that the Government are going to whip their party hard in order to defeat their own manifesto and any potential changes, but will she engage with me and other colleagues to discuss how she could implement these changes as part of the Bill in the other House, because there is an appetite for them and it is disappointing, especially on the Lords Spiritual, that they are going to impose a three-line Whip on an issue of conscience?
Ellie Reeves
It is good to see the right hon. Member’s enthusiasm for reform of the House of Lords; it is a shame that he has only found it now that he is in opposition, not over the past 14 years when his party was in government and could have done something about it. This is an immediate first step, as was set out in our manifesto. We have been clear that we will consult about the implementation of the other measures set out in our manifesto and we will do just that.
We have heard a range of views today on the Government’s other manifesto commitments, including exactly how a participation requirement might work. The debate has shown why it is exactly the right thing that the Government take time to consider how best to implement the other commitments, while starting with the immediate reform that the Bill will deliver.
In conclusion, the amendments tabled by Opposition Members are not appropriate for the Bill, which deals with one principal issue—the need to remove the outdated and indefensible right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is our objective and we are focused on delivering it. The Government intend to deliver the other manifesto commitments to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. We are also committed to replacing the other place with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. As I said, we will consult on proposals and seek the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.
Reform of the House of Lords is long overdue and essential. The Government are committed to delivering those reforms, and passing this vital legislation is the first step on that journey. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Extent and commencement
Amendment proposed: 25, page 2, line 16, leave out from “force” to end of line 17 and insert
“only when the House of Commons has agreed a resolution which—
(a) endorses the conclusions of the report a joint committee appointed for the purpose specified in subsection (3A), and
(b) determines accordingly that this Act shall come into force at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this resolution is passed.
(3A) The purpose of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords referred to in subsection (3) is to consider and report upon the Government’s stated plans for reform of the House of Lords, including—
(a) the removal of the right of excepted hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords,
(b) the introduction of a mandatory retirement age for members of the House of Lords,
(c) a new participation threshold to enable continuing membership of the House of Lords,
(d) changes to the circumstances in which disgraced members of the House of Lords can be removed, and
(e) changes to the process of appointment of members of the House of Lords.”—(Alex Burghart.)
This amendment provides that the Bill would only come into effect after the report of a joint committee on wider reforms of the composition of the House of Lords has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
We were elected on a manifesto with five missions to rebuild Britain and turn the page on 14 years of decline under the Conservative party. Those five missions offer real and tangible benefits to people living in every part of our country: higher living standards, cleaner energy, safer streets, longer and healthier lives, and a renewed confidence that the future will be better for our children. I am delighted to report to the House that we have already begun the change that we set out in our national missions, making our economy stable, launching a new border security command, setting up Great British Energy and setting out ambitious plans for housing.
Alan Gemmell
The excellent Ayrshire chamber of commerce is helping Ayrshire businesses to grow. After 17 years of the Scottish National party failing business in Scotland, businesses in Ayrshire need that support, as well as this Government’s five missions. Does the Minister agree that, to deliver the change that our country needs, we need a new way of doing politics, working in partnership with communities, business, civil society and trade unions?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and commend the work of the Ayrshire chamber of commerce and businesses in his constituency. The Prime Minister has set a clear direction for missions to mobilise action beyond Government, including across business, civil society and local government. Missions require wider sectoral and societal engagement and action across the UK; they are not simply tasks for one agency or sector. I am pleased by the progress that we are making in this area, and was delighted last week to see the launch of the civil society covenant, which marked a new beginning in the Government’s relationship with, and made clear the pivotal role of, civil society in delivering our missions.
Mr Charters
Brew York and Piglets Adventure Farm are just two examples of highly innovative businesses in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that, from lager to lambing, businesses will play a critical role in delivering the five missions, so business engagement is key?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work that Brew York and Piglets Adventure Farm do in his constituency. I absolutely agree that engagement and working with business will be key to delivering on all five of our missions.
Emily Darlington
I congratulate the Government on trying to use the missions to stop the siloed working between Departments in order to achieve the change that the country needs. On the housing mission, it is important that we link in the Treasury and the Departments for Health and Social Care, for Transport, for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Energy Security and Net Zero, to ensure that we build the 1.5 million homes that we need. In Milton Keynes, we have seen how house building can create opportunities, but public support is lost when the necessary vital public services and infra- structure do not come alongside new houses. How is the Cabinet Office bringing together all those Departments so that we can achieve our housing mission?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of housing, which is central to what we are doing in government. Each of our five national missions is ambitious and will require input and action from a number of Government Departments. That is precisely why we are running them as missions, and not in the traditional departmental silos. As would be expected, the Cabinet Office is key to supporting that; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is deputy chair on all mission boards, and myself are playing active roles in facilitating that cross-Government working, supported by a specialist mission delivery unit in the Cabinet office.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
The behaviour of Conservative Ministers in their 14 years in power—partying in Downing Street while people in the whole country sacrificed their freedom, handing lucrative covid contracts to friends and donors, and failing to expel MPs caught breaking the rules—shattered trust in politics. This new Government are determined to restore trust in politics. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he expects the highest standards from those who have the privilege of serving in his Government, and he will soon be issuing an updated ministerial code. Alongside this, we are taking a range of other measures to restore confidence in government as a force for good.
Dr Chambers
As a veterinary surgeon, I am expected to maintain the highest professional and behavioural standards at all times, as are those in many other regulated professions such as doctors and teachers, and if I fail to meet those standards I face the very real prospect of being struck off. Given the behaviour of previous Ministers and even a Prime Minister, does the Minister agree that, if we enshrined the ministerial code in law, that would restore trust in politics and ensure that people who lie and break the rules face very real consequences?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the Leader of the House has said:
“This new Parliament offers a chance to turn the page after the sorry and sordid record of the last.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 857.]
That is why we will be issuing a new robust ministerial code. As we promised in our manifesto, the House has established a Modernisation Committee, which will be tasked with driving up standards and addressing the culture of the House. That sits alongside the work the Cabinet Office is doing to improve standards and confidence in politics.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Opposition support the new Government’s aspirations for the highest ministerial standards, and we acknowledge the significant experience that the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff can bring to her role as envoy to the nations and regions. Why then, in breach of Cabinet Office guidance, have Ministers not published a word on her terms of reference, her new salary or her special adviser severance payment, and is she correct in her understanding that she is at the top of the list of new peers?
Ellie Reeves
Anything in relation to the former chief of staff will be announced in due course. It is not right for me to comment on the terms and conditions of any individual.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
We have seen record numbers of our fellow citizens—2.8 million—excluded from the workforce because of long-term sickness. This Government recognise that taking action to improve health outcomes and address economic inactivity is vital for achieving sustainable economic growth. We will produce a White Paper to get Britain working. That will support other steps that we are taking across Government, creating more good jobs in clean energy through our modern industrial strategy, making work pay and improving the quality of work through our new deal for working people. We are also committed to cutting NHS waiting times, improving mental health support so that we can tackle the root causes of inactivity and fix the foundations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), gave a very helpful reply to a question on infected blood compensation. What discussions has he had with victims and families of the infected blood scandal in Northern Ireland since the final report was published in August this year?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Ellie Reeves ExcerptsTuesday 15th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
It is a pleasure to close this important debate on the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) reminded us in his contribution that today marks three years since the murder of our friend and former colleague Sir David Amess. I am sure that the thoughts of all of us across the House are with his family.
I thank Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful and measured—at times—contributions to the debate. It has been a debate many years in the making, and it is an important moment in the history of this country’s legislature.
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate all the Members who made their maiden speeches today: my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone).
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire recalled campaigning at the general election in the great Welsh weather, which reminded me of the rally I did with him in the pouring rain on that first weekend. Happily, I remembered my umbrella.
I am sure that all those who made their maiden speeches today will make a fantastic contribution to this Parliament and to their constituencies, which they talked so passionately about, and I wish them all the best with their parliamentary careers.
As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, this important Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment and is the first step in bringing about wider reform to the House of Lords. We firmly believe that the time has now come finally to end the hereditary aspect of the other place—a feature of our constitution that makes us an outlier among nearly all other democracies.
Ben Coleman
We are talking not just about today but about what happened 25 years ago. Looking back at today’s debate, has my hon. Friend been struck, as I have, by Opposition Members’ saying that this reform has come too soon, that there has not been enough discussion, that it will cause dire consequences and that we should be looking wider? Those are not arguments from today but from 25 years ago. Does she not think that the Conservatives should be straight and not just fluff things—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions should be short.
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend is right. Listening to some of the contributions today, it is not clear where Opposition Members stand. They talk about reform being too fast and then not fast enough. They talk about it going too far, and then not far enough.
Shaun Davies
Is it not the case that the only time there is House of Lords reform is under a Labour Government? In 1997 we had a mandate to reform the House of Lords. In 2024 we have a mandate to reform the House of Lords, and we should get on with it.
Ellie Reeves
There is lots of talk of reform from Opposition Members. They had 14 years, but chose not to do it.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Conservative Government introduced a comprehensive Bill involving the election of peers. I was the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time. It failed—notwithstanding the fact that I thought it was awful—because Labour withdrew its support for the timetable motion, which meant, as a constitutional Bill, it would have taken the Government’s entire timetable. For that reason, the Government withdrew the measure.
Ellie Reeves
That was four Governments ago. It failed due to the timetabling motion and the fact that the Conservatives could not get agreement even within their own party.
There have been, and are, hereditary peers who have made real and lasting contributions to public life. However, this is a matter of principle. It is not right that anyone should be able to take up a seat in our legislature and vote on our laws purely by virtue of the family that they were born into. Instead, this Government are committed to a smaller second Chamber that better reflects the country it serves. This Bill brings us a step closer to achieving that aim.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Lady talks about the family that hereditary peers happen to have been born into, and says that therefore it is wrong that they should have any influence over legislation. Is she therefore questioning the principle of Royal Assent?
Ellie Reeves
Absolutely not. I listened to the hon. Member’s contribution; the royal family and the monarchy are one of our country’s greatest assets. The contribution of the King and the working members of the royal family to public life in the UK is incredibly significant. The Government have enormous respect for the unique role that the royal family play in our nation. This reform does not affect the role of the sovereign. Ours is a model of constitutional monarchy that continues to be practised worldwide. By contrast, the UK is only one of two Parliaments in the world that retains a hereditary element. To seek to make any comparison between the two is not credible. The sovereign is our Head of State and provides stability, continuity and a national focus. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
Let me turn to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition. The Government have introduced the Bill to end the outdated and indefensible right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important for Parliament to give proper consideration to the Bill, which reflects a Government manifesto commitment, rather than to dismiss it out of hand. Although the Government are grateful for the contributions that hereditary peers and their predecessors have made to the other place, it simply cannot be right that the second Chamber retains a hereditary element in the 21st century.
Let us be clear. Those on the Opposition Benches talked today about consultation and engagement. First, I will not take any lectures on consultation from the Conservative party, which rammed through a Budget without engagement with the Office for Budget Responsibility and proceeded to crash the economy that has left people in my constituency and across the country still paying the price in their mortgages and rents.
On the substance of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) could not even be clear, when asked, whether he is in favour of the principle of removing hereditary peers from the second Chamber. From the sometimes quite lively contributions from the Opposition Benches, one thing is clear: there is a wide range of views that are not always consistent with one another. The new-found, if at times slightly confused, zeal for the job of reform of the second Chamber is noted, yet Opposition Members had more than 14 years to bring about reform and never did so. Those on the Labour Benches laid out our commitments for reform in our manifesto, which was scrutinised by the public and then overwhelmingly voted for.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she tell the House whether it is still Labour’s ambition to abolish the House of Lords in its current condition and set up a democratically elected Chamber, yes or no?
Ellie Reeves
We set out in our manifesto that we want to see an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions. I will say a little more about that later.
Our manifesto was scrutinised by the public and then overwhelmingly voted for. This is a tightly drafted piece of legislation that directly makes provisions for the specific commitment to remove immediately the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I am confident that there will be no shortage of scrutiny from Members of this House and Members of the other place throughout the passage of the Bill. The effect of the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Hertsmere would prevent the House from scrutinising the Bill.
Sir Gavin Williamson
If amendments come forward in Committee of the Whole House that reflect the aspirations of what the Labour party set out in its manifesto, will the Government work with Members to ensure they become a part of the Bill?
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.
Sir John Hayes
I do not support the removal of those peers, but if it were part of a bigger package of reform, one could at least argue, from the Minister’s point of view, that it was a holistic measure in line with a manifesto commitment. This is a very partial reform, which focuses on the removal of those very hard-working and good hereditaries, rather than being part of a more creative and holistic solution.
Ellie Reeves
We said in our manifesto that removing the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the legislature was a first step towards achieving the reforms of the House of Lords that we wanted to see, and it is right that we do not delay that first step. The wording in our manifesto was clear: this would be an “immediate” first step, and that is what we are delivering in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), among others, talked about our traditions. Any suggestion that the Government are somehow against traditions or the ceremonies of our past is nonsense. We value and respect our history, and its continued inclusion in our national life makes our country all the better, but the continued reservation of those 92 seats for people who are simply there because of the families they were born into cannot be justified any longer. That is an important matter of principle.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), wondered whether hereditary peers could be given life peerages. As my noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon said in the other place when the Bill was introduced, Members who leave as hereditary peers can return as life peers. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so if their party wishes to nominate them in the normal way.
Simon Hoare
That is all clear and understood. The point that I was making, along with other Members, was that it would be a gesture of graceful good will to make life peers of those who are currently hereditaries. Placing them on a separate list, outwith new year, birthday or party leader nominations, would be an act of generosity reflecting the work that they had done, and would underline the Minister’s point that there is nothing personal in this.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and, indeed, for his contribution to the debate. That is not a commitment that we are in a position to make; it would be for the new Leader of the Opposition to nominate for peerages those whom he or she wished to nominate, in the normal way.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), talked about wider reform of the House of Lords. As set out in the Labour manifesto, the Government are committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations of the UK. That would be a major change to the functioning of our Parliament and our constitution, so it is right that it should be preceded by a significant period of detailed consideration and consultation. The Government will set out further details of that process in due course, including how we will seek the British public’s input on how politics can best serve them. However, that should not prevent progress on other important and long-overdue reforms, including through this Bill and other initial reforms, to help deliver a smaller and more active second Chamber. The Government’s manifesto made it clear that the measures in the Bill would be introduced to implement immediate reform, which is what we are setting out to do.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), too, talked about wider reform. I thank her for taking the time to meet me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office to talk about her concerns and her ambitions for further reform; I am grateful for that engagement. I want to stress that this is a new Government with a fresh mandate and a set of manifesto pledges that we are committed to implement. This Bill delivers immediate reform. As my right hon. Friend mentioned in his opening speech, part of the reason why there has been no further progress over the last 25 years is the argument that nothing should be done until everything has been done. We firmly believe in taking this first step as a matter of priority, and it is right that we take time to consider how best to implement other manifesto commitments that the Government have previously set out. We will engage with peers and the public, where appropriate, over the course of this Parliament and update the House in due course.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a point about the commencement of the Bill. The Bill will remove the remaining hereditary peers at the end of the parliamentary Session in which it receives Royal Assent. The timing of the Bill’s implementation ensures that the business of the House will not be undermined by the sudden departure of a number of hereditary peers in the middle of the Session. Subject to the timely progress of the Bill, we will give notice to existing hereditary peers to give valedictory speeches.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) raised some concerns about the balance in the House of Lords if this Bill is passed. It is important to point out that no political party has held an overall majority in the House of Lords in recent times, and this Bill will not change that. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and hold the Government to account in the context of the primacy of the House of Commons. The hon. Member is right to say that the Bill decreases the number of peers on the Opposition Benches, but the share of the Opposition’s seats in the Lords will reduce from around 34% to around 32%. Given that the Conservatives will remain the largest party in the second Chamber, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is hardly a power grab.
I very much look forward to engaging with the shadow spokespeople from the Opposition parties. I have welcomed discussing this matter with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and Members of other parties who made time to discuss the Bill at drop-in sessions last week. I look forward to further engagement with all those who attend the Committee of the whole House, especially given the important views that have been expressed today.
I stress again that this Bill is about finally removing an outdated and indefensible principle, and not about individuals. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office mentioned at the beginning of the debate, the current hereditary peers and their predecessors have made notable contributions to the other place, the merits of which we have heard in this House today. This is the first step in reform and not the last. The other reforms set out in our manifesto are more complex and it is right to take the time to properly consider their implementation. I know that the Leader of the House of Lords has outlined her commitment to meaningful dialogue with Members of the other place on further reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber.
The Government remain committed in the long term to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions and of how the public can have politics best serve them. As the manifesto makes clear, it is right to start with this immediate reform, completing the work that we began 25 years ago. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 453.
[Division No. 19, 6.55 pm]
Question accordingly negatived.
[Division lists were not available at the time of publication.]
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the reporting and acceptance of ministerial gifts and hospitality.
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
I wish to update the House on the action that the Government will take to enhance transparency in relation to ministerial gifts and hospitality.
Transparency is a critical part of restoring public faith in politics, and the Government recognise that changes are needed. Under the last Government, the rules for Ministers declaring hospitality were less transparent than those for other Members of Parliament. Lists of hospitality received by Ministers were published by Whitehall Departments only once a quarter and did not include the value. In contrast, MPs’ and shadow Ministers’ interests must be declared within 28 days, and must include the cost of the hospitality. Tory Ministers used this loophole even when events appeared to have had little connection with their Government roles. Both the House of Commons Committee on Standards and the Committee on Standards in Public Life have called for that disparity to be removed.
Under the last Government, Labour Front Benchers who attended events could end up sitting next to their Tory counterparts. Labour MPs had to declare details in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—importantly, including value—while Tory Ministers did not, under the equivalent ministerial process. The Government will correct this imbalance: the Tory freebies loophole will be closed. In the future, the Government will publish a register of Ministers’ gifts and hospitality on a basis broadly equivalent to that which is published in the registers of Members’ and Lords’ interests. This will bring the publication of ministerial transparency data more closely into line with the parliamentary regime for gifts and hospitality. The Government intend that these arrangements should be in place as soon as possible and will set out further details in due course.
The Prime Minister intends shortly to issue and publish an updated version of the ministerial code, in which he will set out his expectations for the conduct of all who serve in Government as Ministers. As well as confirming these new reporting arrangements, this will include additional guidance for Ministers on the principles that they should apply when considering whether to accept gifts of offers of hospitality, as part of the Government’s work to restore public faith in politics as a force for good.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her response. On the steps of Downing Street on 5 July, the Prime Minister pledged to put
“country first and party second”.
Labour Ministers have been beset by a series of scandals involving freebies. The Prime Minister has claimed that this was all a “perfectly sensible arrangement”. Does the right hon. Lady still believe that?
What gifts and hospitality can Ministers now accept? Can Cabinet Ministers continue to party in DJ booths in Ibiza? Will Ministers be banned from Oasis 2025 tour junkets, or was it just Taylor Swift that was a handout too far? What role did Downing Street play in the VIP escort for Taylor Swift, further to the free Taylor Swift tickets from Universal Music? Have all the political staff in the Prime Minister’s parliamentary office correctly declared their financial interests and hospitality received? The new chief of staff’s entry seems very empty. Have all ministerial donations in kind been declared at their full market value? Why do Ministers refuse to say, in answer to parliamentary questions, when the new ministerial transparency platform will go live? Is the sheer scale on which the Prime Minister benefits from others’ largesse now a conflict of interest? Will the hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister is taking a donation in kind of £100,000 a year from Arsenal football club, and will he now recuse himself from involvement in the football governance Bill?
Amid scandals such as “cash for croissants”, “free-gear Keir” and “passes for glasses”, where is Labour’s new ethics and integrity commission, and what have Labour donors got in return for their generosity? What discussions did the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have with Lord Alli on ministerial and public appointments? Will Ministers place in the Library all the documents relating to Lord Alli’s “Operation Integrity”? Finally, can the Minister explain to this House why the millionaire Prime Minister cannot clothe himself without gifts from others?
Ellie Reeves
As I said to the right hon. Gentleman in my first response, this Government are committed to rebuilding trust in politics. The Prime Minister has commissioned a new set of principles on gifts and hospitality, which will be published shortly. That will outlaw the Tory freebie loophole, because this Government are committed to being more up front and open than our predecessors.
We will take no lectures from the Conservative party on gifts and hospitality, standards in public life or trust in politics. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what shattered trust in politics: the behaviour of the Conservatives in their 14 years in power. They partied in Downing Street while the whole country sacrificed its freedom. They handed lucrative covid contracts to friends and donors, and failed to expel MPs who were caught breaking the rules. That is the difference between this Government and the last one.
We are strengthening the rules. When Owen Paterson was found to have broken the rules, the Conservatives tried to rip them up, and now they want us to believe that they care about trust in politics. This is utterly shameless. Of course, it was not just Tory sleaze and scandal that eroded trust; just as corrosive has been the complete and utter failure of Conservative politicians to keep the promises they made to the British people. Now the work of change begins. As I have already set out, it starts with rebuilding trust in our politics, which we are committed to doing. The cynical and confected outrage that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman today is fooling no one. If Conservative Members really want to help repair the damage they caused to trust in politics, they would do well to back the changes we are making, and to say sorry for the sleaze and scandal that plagued their 14 years in power.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The Conservatives have some brass neck criticising the Government on this subject when it was the Conservatives who set up the VIP lane for contracts during covid, and who accepted many gifts that they did not have to declare. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to close the loophole. I point out to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that he refused to vote for the Committee of Privileges report on Boris Johnson, who lied to this House. How is that improving standards in political life? What a performance!
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend is right to point out the VIP lanes for covid contracts. The fact is that Conservative Members had the opportunity to take a stand when Owen Paterson broke the rules, and they voted instead to rip up those very rules.
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.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will this Government’s ethics and integrity commission end the grotesque situation that arose under the endemic corruption of the Conservative Government, which saw a relative of someone who extended lavish hospitality to disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson put in the House of Lords against the advice of our security services?
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend will know that, as well as dealing with these issues, we are seeking to reform the House of Lords and improve the transparency of the appointment process.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
On the tickets that were given away for free, there is a lot of concern among constituents about the way that the Government seem to have been involved in compromising the operational independence of the police. I appreciate that the Minister cannot set out the Attorney General’s advice, but can she explain to the House why the Attorney General was asked to give advice, and what question the Attorney General was asked to answer?
Ellie Reeves
Policing is an operational matter for the police, and so not something that I can comment on directly.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that if the Opposition really wanted to make progress with standards in public life, they would reflect on their own record, including the VIP lane, partygate and their determination to lose by-elections as a result of the conduct of Members of Parliament from their party? Does she also agree that we are making progress on this issue through our plans?
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 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.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I must have missed a trick, because it seems like just a couple of years ago, there was this sort of behaviour from Conservative Members on an industrial scale. Prime Minister Johnson received a £58,000 donation to turn his flat into some sort of crack den or party central, and then he was offered £150,000 by the same person to build a treehouse for his son. I welcome what the Minister says. Does she agree that the approach and the principles that she is setting out are totally different from what went before?
Ellie Reeves
I repeat that we want to make the rules more transparent. We have clearly set out how we intend to get transparency on gifts and hospitality, which has been lacking for too long.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Government guidelines for the self-employed are very clear:
“You cannot claim for everyday clothing (even if you wear it for work).”
Yet we have heard that Cabinet Ministers declared clothing donations as donations in kind for undertaking parliamentary duties and, further,
“to support the Shadow Chancellor’s office”.
Does the Minister think that these were transparent donations, or were they designed to deceive?
Ellie Reeves
No Member sets out to deceive the House, and donations have been made in the right way. There is no suggestion that donations have not been declared properly or transparently. We are seeking to align the rules for Ministers with the rules for MPs, but I do not think there has been any suggestion that declarations have not been properly made.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
If the newspapers are to be believed, several Members on the sparsely populated Conservative Benches are considering standing down if the Government’s reforms to clamp down on second jobs are delivered. Will the Minister confirm her commitment to delivering these reforms to restore standards in public life, despite the sad possible loss of Conservative Members?
Ellie Reeves
Of course the Modernisation Committee will look incredibly closely at the issue of second jobs.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
In June 2022, the now Deputy Prime Minister said:
“Honesty matters, integrity matters and decency matters. We should be ambitious for high standards, and we should all be accountable”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 680.]
Labour promised change, but the truth is that this is not that different from the sleaze that went before. What the public see is the Labour party saying, “It is our turn now.” The parties are acting like peas in a pod. Can the Minister tell us why, having showered an assortment of gifts on the Prime Minister and other Cabinet colleagues, Lord Alli was given a triple-A pass to Downing Street? Who requested that the pass be given, and exactly what was the pass used for?
Ellie Reeves
I agree with those words from the Deputy Prime Minister. What I do not accept is the suggestion of equivalence with those on the Conservative Benches, when the former Prime Minister was fined for breaking lockdown rules. While people up and down the country were sticking to the rules, often at great personal sacrifice, those in No. 10 were partying and breaking the rules, and at the same time their friends and donors were given fast-track routes for their covid contracts, so I do not accept that there is equivalence. Everything has been properly declared and we want to make the rules around transparency even greater.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Will the Minister remind Members of this House which Prime Minister was rewarded with a holiday to Mustique? As hon. Members may remember, there was a lot of mystique about Mustique at the time. I will give the Conservatives a hint: it was not a Member on the Labour side of the House.
Ellie Reeves
As I recall, it was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who benefited from that holiday to Mustique.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister has said he has been transparent, broken no rules and followed all ordinances, yet he has paid back £6,000 out of that £100,000. Can the Minister tell us why he has chosen to do that, which rules he was following, which guidance he means and which other member of the Cabinet will also be paying back money for tickets?
Ellie Reeves
That is a personal matter for the Prime Minister, but we have made it clear, and the Prime Minister has made it clear, that we are going to make the rules around transparency more aligned with those for MPs and reform the code, with a clear set of guidance in relation to the receipt of gifts and hospitality. In the meantime, the Prime Minister has paid back a number of items while the new code is being finalised.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
If brass neck were an Olympic sport, the Conservatives would all be gold medallists. They presided over a carnival of corruption. Does the Minister agree that it was their partying in Downing Street, their contracts for their mates and their constant failure to deliver that undermined trust in government, and will she join me in calling on them to apologise for their years of mismanagement?
Ellie Reeves
Of course, the Conservatives created and presided over this loophole in the rules. They broke the rules during covid lockdown and gave fast-track passes to their friends and donors for covid contracts, so we will not take lectures from them on this.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the use of police outriders, whistles and sirens to facilitate the ferrying of the favoured few around capital cities characterises the capital cities of less enlightened realms and not—until this point—our own? Does she also agree that the special escort group needs to be used sparingly, and not to ferry entertainers around, regardless of the number of free tickets dispensed to senior members of the Government?
Ellie Reeves
As I said in a previous answer, that is an operational matter for the police and not something I can comment on further.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
On the Prime Minister’s first day in office, he prioritised meeting the independent adviser on ministerial standards. Does the Minister agree that that stands in stark contrast to the approach of the previous Government, which saw two independent advisers on ministerial standards resigning and the post sitting vacant for six months?
Ellie Reeves
The Prime Minister has it made clear, both in those meetings and in what he has said, that cleaning up and restoring trust in politics is incredibly important. I know that the Modernisation Committee is looking at a number of measures. We have also set out how we intend the ministerial code of conduct to strengthen things. I think that is incredibly important, particularly in restoring the trust that has been eroded so much over these past 14 years.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
After years of Conservative sleaze and scandal, we need to reset MPs’ and Ministers’ relationship with standards in public life. Therefore, will the Minister commit to enshrining the ministerial code in law?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. There are no plans to do that at this stage.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I am sure that many Members will share my disbelief and that of my constituents at reports in The Times today that as many as one in 10 Conservative Members are considering standing down early because of the closing down of loopholes on second jobs. Regardless of political affiliation, one of our most important responsibilities is making sure we build and maintain our constituents’ trust in politics. Whether it is by tightening up the rules on second jobs or making sure we clamp down on some of the loopholes on Ministers’ declarations that we had under the last Government, will the Government remain resolute in ensuring that when we come to this House, we do so to serve our constituents and not ourselves?
Ellie Reeves
As I said in answer to a previous question, the Modernisation Committee is looking at the matter very closely. Being a Member of Parliament is a huge privilege and an honour. It is a full-time job, and then some. It is important, and it is also important that we look closely at the appropriateness of second jobs for Members of Parliament.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Why has the Prime Minister paid back some gifts that he has received since he became Prime Minister but not those he received as Leader of the Opposition? Is there a different standard for Government Ministers and for the Opposition?
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Is this not another example of this Labour Government having to clear up the Conservatives’ mess? They voted against suspending Owen Paterson from this House when wrongdoing was demonstrated. Does the Minister agree that both candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party should declare their full hospitality over the past 12 months or more?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting suggestion. It is right that we look at all those things. He referred to Owen Paterson. After that, it felt like lessons had not been learned, because soon afterwards Scott Benton had to stand down from Parliament for breaching lobbying rules as well. It seems like there was something of a pattern.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Does the Minister not agree that this is about not just transparency but hypocrisy? When my constituents, because of Labour’s scrapping of the winter fuel payments, have to choose between heating their homes and clothing themselves, they can see the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister in getting tens of thousands of pounds for clothing and glasses. When they have to decide whether to send their children to an independent school for special educational needs and disabilities because the Labour party is going to add VAT to school fees, while the Prime Minister can rent out a flat costing tens of thousands of pounds for his children, they smell hypocrisy. When will the Prime Minister come and apologise for that and when will he return all of that money?
Ellie Reeves
Let me say something about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when people in Downing Street, including the former Prime Minister, were partying during lockdown as my constituents and people up and down the country were making the greatest sacrifices, with fathers not being at the birth of their children and people not being able to say goodbye to their loved ones. I will not take lectures on hypocrisy from the Conservatives.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is shameful that the Conservatives left the role of the Prime Minister’s UK anti-corruption champion vacant for two years?
Ellie Reeves
Is it any wonder, given the sort of things that went on over the past 14 years? The former Prime Minister Boris Johnson had to apologise to the Commons for failing to declare more than £50,000 in outside income. There was also that £15,000 trip to a luxury villa on Mustique. No wonder they could not keep their ethics advisers in place when that sort of behaviour was going on at the heart of Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is a duty on all Members and Ministers to ensure transparency regarding gifts received. Does the Minister agree that more work needs to be done to clarify the rules around the declaration of hospitality and gifts to ensure that the rules are equal and fair for all, regardless of parliamentary status?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Member for his helpful contribution. That is exactly what we seek to do through these changes.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the conversion of the Conservative party to transparency and ethics. Whether it was wallpaper or weddings, or Pincher, Paterson or Benton, Conservative Members were sadly silent when they thought that one of their own should get away with things. May I suggest that my hon. Friend retrospectively apply the new rules to the last 12 months of every serving Member who was a Minister? They should have to declare every piece of hospitality and gift that they received as Ministers, so that we can see exactly what their own record was compared with our cleanliness.
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. That is certainly something that I can take back to be looked at.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I listened with interest to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), talk about integrity in politics. My mind went back to a defining image from the last Parliament: Her late Majesty saying goodbye to the Duke of Edinburgh in April 2021, abiding by every single rule, as she always did. We found out later that the previous night there had been parties in Downing Street. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no comparison between this Government, who are clearing up the mess, and the one that went before us?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his important comments. I do not think that the public will forget that image of the Queen sitting on her own. The idea that there is any equivalence between the rule breaking during covid, and the fast track for VIPs, and us now trying to sort things out by making the process more transparent is frankly indefensible from Conservative Members.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The shadow Minister may remember that he failed personally to support the suspension of Owen Paterson after he was found guilty of lobbying and being paid thousands of pounds to raise questions in Parliament. Does the Minister agree that today’s conversion to standards and integrity rings completely hollow?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I had a look recently at the record of Conservative MPs in that vote to rip up the rules on standards, in effect, to get Owen Paterson off the hook. Overwhelmingly, those on the Opposition Front Bench voted to rip up the rules on standards.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Later today, we will debate a Bill to protect entertainment events from terrorism. It comes in the aftermath of the terrible terrorist attack on an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. In more recent months, Taylor Swift has had to cancel a concert, owing to the risk to her life and the lives of concert-goers. Does the Minister agree that when we debate the Bill, it is important that we take the politics out of the debate, recognise the real risk to life, proceed with due caution, properly talk about the loss of life in Manchester, and aim to avoid any future loss of life at entertainment events?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point. The Bill will put Martyn’s law on the statute book, for which victims of the awful Manchester Arena terror attack have campaigned long and hard, and I hope that it will be debated in the tone and spirit that my hon. Friend set out.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
The Government will always aim to secure value for money in meeting their facilities management requirements. Our plan to make work pay is clear that we will call time on the previous Government’s ideological approach to outsourcing and ensure that decisions are based on robust assessments of value for money, service quality, social value and, crucially, delivering the best outcomes.
Jon Trickett
I thank the Minister very much for her response and I welcome the whole team to the Front Bench. The problem with outsourcing is that, normally, the outsourcers will drive down pay and conditions for the workforce, thereby creating a two-tier workforce; they are not properly accountable to Ministers; they are exempt from freedom of information requests; and finally, there is the question of public service centres. Will the Minister confirm that we will proceed with abandoning the previous Government’s ideological obsession with outsourcing?
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend is right that too many decisions about outsourcing were ideologically driven under the previous Government, without consideration for things such as social value or service quality. That is why we have said that we will do things differently. Social value and outcomes will be at the heart of that. Our new deal for working people will transform the world of work.
Kim Johnson
The outsourcing of facility management services roles such as cleaning, catering and security has disproportionately impacted women and black workers, who have suffered a reduction in their pay, terms and conditions. The Government have promised to bring about the biggest wave of insourcing of public services in a generation. With that in mind, will the Minister agree to examine the benefits of insourcing facilities management services, particularly with regard to performance and tackling discriminatory outcomes on pay? Will she meet representatives of the Public and Commercial Services Union to discuss this matter further?
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend is right that under the previous Government, too many jobs such as cleaning and security were insecure, with a race to the bottom on standards and pay. Our plan to make work pay will ensure that all jobs are secure, fulfilling and well-paid. My hon. Friend also mentioned the disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities and women; that is why we said in the King’s Speech that we would introduce an equality Bill to enshrine in law the right to equal pay for ethnic minorities and disabled people, and introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay reporting.
Lucy Rigby (Northampton North) (Lab)
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
The commitment to a mission-led Government sets out a new approach to governing that is focused on the outcomes that will make a meaningful difference to people’s lives. It means a new way of doing government that is more joined-up, breaks down silos and pushes power out to communities. Earlier this week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sat as deputy chair on the first mission board on growth, chaired by the Chancellor. As part of our plans to deliver mission-based government, we will hold further mission boards as we approach the summer recess.
Patrick Hurley
I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced that he would personally chair new mission delivery boards to ensure that Labour’s key manifesto pledges are implemented. But if we want to deliver our manifesto pledges effectively, we are going to need effective communication between central Government and devolved bodies. Could my hon. Friend tell me what steps are being taken to ensure that devolved Governments are involved in the new Government’s mission delivery process?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and he is right to point out that we have started to deliver on our promises. For example, the Chancellor launched our national wealth fund just this week. He is also right to say how important it is that we work with the devolved Governments to deliver missions. The Government have set out our intention to work closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as metro mayors and local council leaders in England, to deliver the missions. One of the Prime Minister’s first actions was to meet all the First Ministers on his tour of the UK. We know that meaningful co-operation will be key to delivering change across the entire United Kingdom.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I made a statement on the CrowdStrike IT outage in this House on Monday. There will be a lessons-learned process as a result of that, and also a Bill going before Parliament to ensure that we are resilient in relation to our cyber-security. That will strengthen our defences and ensure that more digital services than ever are protected.
CrowdStrike: IT Outage
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
On Friday 19 July, we saw a CrowdStrike software update on Microsoft systems result in a major global IT outage. It caused significant impacts around the world. Impacts were seen in the transport sector, with flights grounded in Europe and the US, and delays and cancellations here in the UK. Live train departure boards were impacted during the morning rush hour, and some media outlets lost the ability to provide live coverage. The outage caused substantial inconvenience for passengers hoping to travel for the summer holiday getaway on the busiest travel weekend of the year. Airports and airlines across the UK had measures in place to maintain safe operations, support passenger welfare, extend operating hours and deploy additional staff to support late-running operations and keep people moving where possible. As with all incidents, the sector will review its response and implement any learnings.
More concerningly, large parts of the local UK healthcare system lost access to test results and appointment information, affecting mostly GP services. Tried and tested NHS contingency plans were enacted and services are expected to be operating at full capacity in the next few days. Small businesses without dedicated IT support systems were heavily impacted due to disruption to card-only payment systems and ATMs, with many resorting to operate cash-only while firms worked to fix their systems. Many firms were able to get back online quickly and the remainder are expected to restore operations this week.
Officials from the National Cyber Security Centre quickly established that the outages were not the result of a security incident or malicious cyber-activity. The cause was instead identified to be a flawed CrowdStrike software update that caused Windows machines to crash.
On Friday morning, CrowdStrike issued guidance on how to solve the problem, giving users a manual fix for each affected device or system. I now believe that CrowdStrike is in the process of implementing an automated update, which can be applied remotely and should therefore speed up recovery. However, there are still residual impacts from the failed update, and it is important that we continue to monitor the situation and the longer-term impacts to UK sectors and secondary impacts from international disruption.
Ever since the incident occurred, the Government have worked closely with both Microsoft and CrowdStrike. My Cabinet Office officials have been leading co-ordination of the Government response across all impacted sectors of the economy. That included close monitoring of affected public services to ensure that business continuity plans were enacted and services were supported as they came back online. Two Cobra senior officials meetings were also convened on Friday to co-ordinate the response, and officials from across His Majesty’s Government met over the weekend to continuously monitor the impacts and the recovery process. I am pleased to say that Government services and the online services that the Government provide were and remain largely unaffected. My colleagues including the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Health Secretary and the Transport Secretary attended briefings with officials throughout, and the Prime Minister was kept informed.
The majority of the sectors that were impacted have now mostly recovered. The UK transport system—aviation, rail, road and maritime—is running normally. NHS staff worked hard over the course of Friday and the weekend to quickly apply the fixes required, and my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care have confirmed that systems are now back online, including for GPs. Their advice is that patients should continue to attend their appointments unless told not to. There may still be some delays, and GPs will need to rebook appointments that could not be made during the IT outage. The public should continue to contact their GPs in the normal way.
As IT systems are complex, we can expect that minor disruption will continue in some areas while systems continue to recover, but my officials expect those to be resolved in the next couple of days. I would like to thank everyone who has worked so hard to get systems up and running again, and all staff who have worked tirelessly to support individuals impacted by the outage.
Following this incident, the Cabinet Office will work with the National Cyber Security Centre and other partners across Government to review the lessons learned. The Central Digital and Data Office will work with the NCSC to implement any improvements to the existing response plans to cover both technical resilience features as well as cyber. The Cobra unit will work with Departments to support their processes for establishing how the organisations and sectors they represent manage the impacts of the outage and what lessons have been learnt.
As soon as the Government were elected, we took immediate steps to begin legislating to protect public services and the third-party services they use. Our cyber-security and resilience Bill, included in the King’s Speech, will strengthen our defences and ensure that more essential digital services than ever before are protected. For example, it will look at expanding the remit of the existing regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and increasing reporting requirements to build a better picture in Government of cyber threats. Technology failures can be as disruptive as cyber-attacks, and the move to create the centre for digital government within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is aimed at creating a more resilient digital public sector.
What this incident shows is how dependent the modern world is on complex and interconnected IT systems and how essential preparedness for such events is, including business continuity planning. Notwithstanding the immense frustration and inconvenience that the outage has caused, I am pleased to see that effective contingency plans mitigated the very serious impacts that the outage could have had. I am pleased also that there is to be a comprehensive process to identify the lessons from this episode. I hope that they will lead to improvements that both help prevent similar incidents and further improve our resilience to system outages and the impacts they can have. In that spirit, I commend the statement to the House.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her role and thanking her for advance sight of the statement? In that role I know she will be supported by a dedicated team of civil servants, who represent the very best of public service. I have no doubt that they will serve her as well as they did me.
The hon. Lady will be aware of the enormous challenges facing this Government and those around the world in relation to cyber-security. As I warned when I was the responsible Minister, threats to public services and critical national infrastructure come from a range of challenges, from hostile state actors to human error and design flaws. Last week we saw those challenges vividly brought to life. Following the corrupted antivirus update by CrowdStrike on Friday, 8.5 million Microsoft devices globally were rendered unusable. That left airports disrupted, patient records temporarily lost and GPs unable to access important patient data, creating significant backlogs. That is more than an inconvenience.
I pay tribute to all those working in our public services for the efforts they undertook over the weekend to restore those services, and to the work of dedicated cyber specialists across Government, including in the National Cyber Security Centre. In government we undertook a wide range of measures to enhance the nation’s cyber-security: creating the National Cyber Security Centre, introducing secure by design, setting cyber-resilience targets, launching GovAssure and transforming the oversight of governmental cyber-security.
I note, as the hon. Lady said, that the Government intend to build on that progress by bringing forward a cyber-security and resilience Bill. Will she therefore outline the timetable for the Bill, and will the Government consider mandatory cyber-security targets for the UK public sector? Are the Government considering obligations to ensure that infrastructure is designed to be resilient against common cause problems, such as this one? What steps are being taken to enhance cyber-security in the devolved Administrations and in parts of the public sector such as the NHS, which are operationally independent?
Specifically in relation to this incident, what assessment has been made of the prevalence of CrowdStrike within critical national infrastructure? What further reassurance can the Government give in relation to the timetable for full recovery of key systems and data? In particular, can the Minister assure employees that this month’s payroll will not be adversely affected?
Britain’s cyber industry is world leading. Cyber-security now employs more than 60,000 people and brings in nearly £12 billion-worth of revenue annually. This transformation was in part due to our £5.3 billion investment, which launched the country’s first national cyber-security strategy. I therefore urge the Government—I see the Chancellor in her place—to continue such investment.
Incidents such as that of CrowdStrike should not deter us from the path of progress. We must embrace digitalisation and the huge improvements to public services that it offers. The adoption of artificial intelligence across Government is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet for public sector productivity. However, if we are to command public confidence, people must be assured that technology is safe, secure and reliable. Such incidents demonstrate how reliant the Government and public services are on large technology companies, and how much responsibility they have for the services that have become critical to people’s lives and livelihoods. That is why, in government, I called for us to work more closely with leading technology firms to address these shared challenges. The best solution is partnership. To that end, what further engagement will the Minister undertake with Microsoft, CrowdStrike and the wider sector to ensure that there is no such recurrence?
The task for us all is to build on existing progress that has transformed Britian’s cyber defences, and to enhance protections for British families, businesses and the very heart of Government. In that mission, the Government can rely on the support of the Opposition.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and his questions. In particular, I echo the thanks to all those in Departments across the civil service who were involved in dealing with the outage last Friday and in mitigating its effects. I set out in my statement that our cyber-security and resilience Bill, which was included in the King’s Speech, will strengthen our defences and ensure that more digital services are protected. That is a priority for this Government. The Bill will look at expanding the remit of regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and increasing reporting requirements, so that the Government can build a better picture of cyber-threats. We will consider the implications of Friday’s incident as we develop that legislation, but rest assured that we are working across Government to ensure resilience.
As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in his statement on the covid inquiry module 1 report, he will lead a review assessing our national resilience to the full range of risks that the UK faces, including cyber-risks.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Minister in her place. As she said, the CrowdStrike outage is a reminder not only that technology is so integrated into all our lives, making them better, but also of our dependence on the standard of development, deployment and integration of new technology, which is largely not visible to us. I was reassured to hear about the steps that the Government and businesses have been taking to mitigate the impact, but I fear that small businesses and consumers do not have the same resources. Does she agree that people should not have to be able to reboot from a blue screen in order to enjoy the benefits of technology? Will her Government move to ensure that consumers are better protected?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I want to acknowledge all the work that she has done in this area. It has been hugely valuable. She makes really important points about ensuring that consumers and small businesses are protected, as well as Government Departments and bigger businesses. I am sure that will form part of the lessons learned from this incident, and will feed into the Bill that we will introduce.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
This is my first opportunity to welcome Ministers to their places. I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I want to focus on the impact on the NHS. My thanks, and I am sure those of the entire House, go to all NHS staff who have been scrambling to deal with urgent inquiries from distressed patients.
I wonder if I might press Ministers for assurances on two patient groups who need time-critical care. First, some patients require blood test results before they can commence urgent treatment or have operations. Are there any assurances on the attention that they will be given by the NHS, both now and in any future scenarios? Secondly, there are patients at great risk of becoming extremely ill from getting covid. Since the previous Government scrapped the covid medicines delivery unit, many vulnerable patients have been struggling to get the anti-virals that they need from their GP in time. That situation is made much worse when this kind of disruption happens. Can the hon. Lady provide assurances about any attention that NHS England has given to those two patient cohorts? If not, is she willing to meet me to discuss what we might do in future?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Member for her question highlighting the issues facing vulnerable patients. I am pleased to report that there was no reported impact on 111 or 999 services, and that patients were able to access emergency care. The majority of the impact on GP services was in accessing patient records, GP appointments and prescriptions. Patients who could not access GP appointments were able to attend urgent care services, and GPs were able to issue paper prescriptions. However, I will pass on the hon. Lady’s concerns to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, because they are incredibly important issues and we need to ensure that vulnerable patients are protected, going forwards.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your very temporary position, and to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her role? Can she give the House any further details of the impact of this outage in Scotland, and what conversations has her Department had with the Scottish Government in recent days?
Ellie Reeves
I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House; it is fantastic to see her, rightly, in her place. I thank her for the points that she raised, which are important and will be taken into account in the review of the lessons learned.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. Does she agree that these events demonstrated that we are very far from being in a position to move to a cashless society? Given that the Chancellor is present, will the Minister confirm that her Government will do everything that they can to support the continued use of cash, which is so important to some of the most vulnerable people in society?
Ellie Reeves
Cash remains the second most commonly used form of payment in the UK, and we remain committed to ensuring that individuals and businesses have access to it. We have committed ourselves to providing 350 banking hubs, so that cash remains available to them.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister to her position, particularly as she is sitting alongside the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I welcome the points made about resilience in public services, but can she assure me that similar efforts are being made to ensure resilience of IT in a defence context?
Ellie Reeves
As I said in answer to an earlier question, as soon as this Government were elected, we took immediate steps to start legislating to better protect all our public services and the third-party services that they use, and the cyber-security and resilience Bill will come before Parliament.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister to her position. Congratulations are due to her: I understand that she was in charge of the Labour party’s election campaign, so she can take some credit for its success. It is good to see a reward for endeavours, and for hard work. I say to her: well done.
On airlines, as 171 flights were cancelled, some of my constituents were stuck in London and could not get home to Belfast. When it came to banks, some of my constituents who were out shopping found that their credit cards did not work because the system was down. When it came to the health system, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland said that hospital services and about two thirds of GP surgeries faced problems; there had been, for instance, problems getting patients into operating theatres and with accessing staff rosters. The whole system was in absolute chaos.
Does the Minister not agree that the issue has underlined the necessity of ensuring that we are prepared for cyber-breakdown, whether caused by an intentional attack or caused unintentionally? Can she say something about our preparedness for situations such as this, and about our resilience in moving forward from these technological problems, for the benefit of those in all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Member for his kind comments. I am sorry to learn that some of his constituents were unable to secure flights home or GP appointments. In my statement, I spoke about ensuring that we expand our cyber-resilience, put regulators on a stronger footing and obtain a clear picture of cyber-threats and how they can be dealt with, and he raises important points in that regard.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
This was an extremely serious incident that I suspect may well be detectable in the next GDP figures that come out of the Office for National Statistics. I have two questions. The hon. Lady said that she was “pleased to say that Government services, and the online services that the Government provide, were and remain largely unaffected.” Could she tell us which services were affected, or is “largely” just a euphemism for “not affected at all”?
Secondly, it is quite difficult for Members to get a handle on the full impact and spread of this contagion. Will she commit to laying before the House some kind of report detailing the sectors that were affected, how seriously they were affected—including Government systems—and whether and how there will be any resolution in the future? Obviously, we need to report to our constituents that these things are less likely to occur in the future.
Ellie Reeves
I set out the impact that the incident had on, for example, GP services, but things like the emergency services remained unaffected, as far as we are aware. We are learning the lessons from the incident, and I am sure that we will report back once that has been completed.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Like so many others, GPs in my constituency were affected on Friday, and I thank them for the work they did. Even though patients were not able to get test results and appointments were missed, GPs managed to make sure that people received the best care possible. What assurances can the Minister give me that the lessons learned from Friday will mean that patients can continue to receive care when they need it?
Ellie Reeves
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House, and I place on record my thanks to GP surgeries in Maidenhead, which did what they could to make sure that the disruption for patients was at a minimum. We will undertake the lessons learned exercise from this incident; I hope that offers some reassurance to his constituents, as well as the Bill that will be going through Parliament.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am aware that the Minister is new to her role, so I will ask her to consider things, rather than to commit to doing things. Will she please consider continuing with the annual statement to Parliament on civil contingencies and risks, which the previous Government committed to? When she looks at the cyber-security and resilience Bill, will she consider assessing whether there is widespread use of certain software or hardware that could cause mass outages in the event that it is affected, as happened with CrowdStrike? I am not aware that we have seen an analysis of that in previous outputs by the Cabinet Office, and it would be incredibly helpful for us to be aware of where those risks are.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the hon. Member for those suggestions. I am very happy to consider the points that she has raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)
I cannot be the only Member who thinks how proud Mr and Mrs Reeves must be today.
Next General Election
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) set out the real sense across the UK that it is time for change. In my constituency alone, 768 people have signed the petition we are debating.
People do not have to follow politics closely to see that this is a withering Government at the end of their days. The sooner the public can have their say, the better. Yet our unelected Prime Minister is too scared to commit to a date for the election. He is clinging on to power, hoping things will get better, but the writing is on the wall and his party knows it. Just look at the events of the last three weeks. We have seen a Tory MP resigning over the party’s direction and another senior Tory MP calling on the Prime Minister to stand down, and now we learn that there is a group of ex-advisers, Tory donors and rebel MPs in the shadows trying to topple him. No doubt the leadership campaign domain names are already quietly being purchased: MoveOverForMordaunt.org,BelieveInBadenoch.co.uk and BowDownTo Braverman.com. But no matter who the leader is, the one thing these Tories have in common is that it is party first, country second.
For years now, our politics has been held hostage by the factionalism inside the Conservative party. This chaos is unsustainable and we can no longer afford it. For once, the Conservatives should put the country first and call an election, because people are crying out for change. The mandate for this is clear. Even the Prime Minister knows it. It explains his inability to stick to a strategy as he attempts to match the public mood. This time last year, he was branding himself as Mr Competent. He was all about delivery. Remember the five pledges? Well, the only one he delivered on was the only one that was not actually in his control, so at conference he switched to being Mr Change, correctly putting forward the argument that the country needs change, but incorrectly —and staggeringly—putting forward his answer: five more years of the Conservatives. And then what did Mr Change go and do? He hired a former Prime Minister as his Foreign Secretary. With the Mr Change narrative not sticking, what has he now settled on? Mr Continuity: “Stick with me, because it is better the devil you know.” Well, he had better call an election soon, because at this rate he is going to run out of new Mr Men to choose from.
Despite the Prime Minister trying to say the answer to the question of change is another five years of the Conservatives, we will not be fooled. Just look at the last 14 years: failure on the economy, on the NHS and on tackling crime. None of that would change with a fifth Conservative term. The Conservatives have no right to complain that they have the solutions to the problems they created. Remember that the Conservatives chose, through ideology, to crash the economy with their mini Budget. Families up and down the country are still paying the price through increased mortgages and rents. As we enter the election year, the Conservatives may masquerade as tax cutters by reducing national insurance, but this is the biggest tax-raising Parliament in living memory. For every 10p by which they have increased working people’s taxes, their tax gimmick gives only 2p back. The average family is set to be £1,200 a year worse off under the Prime Minister’s tax plan, at the very moment that we are also living through a Tory cost of living crisis. We can look far and wide, but they have no plan for the economy.
The chaos does not end there. The Conservatives have also pushed our NHS on to its knees. They have wasted £3 billion on a top-down reorganisation, instead of investing in the equipment and technology that a modern health service requires. Millions of patients have been waiting two weeks or more for a GP appointment, but is that really a surprise, given that GP numbers have been cut by 2,000? Overall, across the NHS, waiting lists have hit record levels, yet the Government throw their hands up and say it is not their fault. It is a simple equation: the longer the Conservatives are in government, the longer patients wait. And sadly, the longer they are in power, the more political chaos we experience. Since 2015, we have had five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors and 13 Housing Ministers. Government cannot run effectively with that kind of churn. Imagine a financial adviser trying to get someone to invest in a business that had that kind of turnover in its leadership. They would run a mile.
That is not even taking into account the misconduct and sleaze: £3.5 billion-worth of covid contracts awarded to Tory-linked firms, Tory MPs facing accusations of cash for access and favours, and of course partygate, which shows as clearly as possible that, with the Conservatives, it is one rule for them and another for the rest of the country. They have fundamentally broken the trust the public should be able to have in their leaders.
Indeed, while the economy flatlines, the only thing that continues to grow—aside from NHS waiting lists—is the number of factions of Conservative MPs. They have the New Conservatives, the No Turning Back group, the Conservative Growth Group, the European Research Group, the Northern Research Group and—wait for it—the Common Sense Group. Then, just last week, we saw the launch of the Popular Conservatism group, led by a former leader who was so popular that they were outlasted by a lettuce. That splintering is emblematic of a failed political force. None of them can agree on the direction of their party, let alone the direction of our country. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Tories are not governing for the country. They are not even pretending to fight for the British people. It is all about their party; it is all about a game for power.
Meanwhile, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has changed the Labour party. He has put it back in the service of working people: a party that is proud, does not take its support for granted and will always put the country first. It is a party that has the direction and hunger to actually effect change. That is captured in our long-term plan for the country—a plan to turn the page on the last 14 years and change the country for the better.
We need a mission-driven Government who can deliver a decade of national renewal, financial stability and strong fiscal rules so that we never have a repeat of the disastrous Tory mini Budget. We will build 1.5 million more homes over the next Parliament, with first-time buyers given first dibs. We will get the NHS back on its feet, and deliver 2 million more operations and NHS procedures to cut waiting lists. We will deliver 700,000 new dental appointments and take back our streets from gangs, drug dealers and fly-tippers, with stronger policing and guaranteed patrols in town centres. We will provide opportunity for every child through free breakfast clubs in every primary school, more specialist teachers, and better training and apprenticeships, so that every young person is ready for work and ready for life. We will make work pay through our new deal for working people, banning zero-hours contracts and outlawing fire and rehire. That is what a serious, united party can deliver.
Our country is crying out for change after the last 14 years of chaos. In just 94 days, on 2 May, we will have local and mayoral elections. Throughout the country, voters will be going to the polls for local councils and nine combined authority mayors. Thousands of candidates of all persuasions will be putting themselves forward so that voters can give their verdict. They should all be commended, and the winners will have a mandate. That is more than the Prime Minister currently has, which is why he should call a general election. No one voted for the third Tory Prime Minister of this Parliament—not even his own party. He has no mandate, which is why he has no authority and why the Tory soap opera continues. He should have gone to the country when he became Prime Minister, but he denied the public their say. Bottling it again would be to hold the country in contempt, condemning us to more of this unnecessary and counterproductive Tory in-fighting.
We need to have our say on the last 14 years. Do we want another five years like the last, with chaos, decline and failure, or do we want real change and national renewal with a mission-driven Labour party? This is the question when the election comes. The Government should call a general election now, so that people can have their say.
Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
When the Home Secretary was the Attorney General, she tweeted her support for Dominic Cummings driving to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight. When she was Home Secretary under the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), she was sacked for sending sensitive Government information from a personal email address. As Home Secretary under the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), she faces allegations of instructing civil servants to arrange a private speed awareness course. Every step of the way, it is one rule for members of this Government and another for everyone else. What will it finally take to get an investigation?
Jeremy Quin
An investigation will be dependent on the information gathered. The Prime Minister will gather that information, and he will take a decision on the back of the information that he has received.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Heaton-Harris
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and hope that all is well with the shadow Minister he is replacing, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). The hon. Gentleman has big shoes to fill, but that is a good start. I thank him for noticing what is going on in the other place, where we have already tabled amendments that seek to address a number of key issues raised by the stakeholders we have been meeting, including compliance with the European convention on human rights, strengthening the commission’s independence, sanctions for individuals found guilty of lying to the commission, and stronger incentives for individuals to engage with the commission. We will table more such amendments on Report, when I hope we can get everybody on board, or at least to acknowledge that we are doing a decent job.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
The UK Government are steadfastly committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the institutions and rights established by it. We recognise the importance of the right safeguards and equality of opportunity provisions within the agreement to the people of Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State discusses the subject regularly with Cabinet colleagues.
Ellie Reeves
The Good Friday agreement led to peace in Northern Ireland and enshrined human rights in Northern Irish law, yet the Tories’ Bill of Rights is nothing but a rights removal Bill. Does the Minister recognise that the proposed Bill would therefore be a breach of an international agreement, the Good Friday agreement?
Mr Baker
No, not at all. I confess that I thought the hon. Lady was going to ask me about the Bill of Rights provisions in the agreement itself, but she ought to know that the parties have been working together towards that Bill of Rights and it will need consensus to deliver a framework in Northern Ireland. Of course the UK continues to be committed to the ECHR.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Reeves Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Kemi Badenoch
I do not recognise any of the hon. Gentleman’s statistics. With all due respect, I have seen all sorts of Labour analysis that misuses and abuses statistics to the point where we honestly cannot take it seriously. If he does have real evidence, I am keen that he sends it for the equality hub to analyse. Those figures do not represent anything we have found across Government.
Ellie Reeves
Closing the gender pay gap would add £600 million to the UK’s economy by 2025. Labour has a plan to do this by requiring large firms to publish gender pay gap plans, permitting equal pay comparisons, extending statutory maternity and paternity leave, and strengthening protections for pregnant women. Will the Government finally accept our proposals?
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid that the Government will not accept those proposals. The hon. Lady conflates equal pay and gender pay gap reporting, which are not the same thing. This is an area that has a lot of nuance, and Labour needs to do a little more homework.