Lindsay Hoyle
Main Page: Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker - Chorley)Department Debates - View all Lindsay Hoyle's debates with the Cabinet Office
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the mover and the seconder of the debate, I want to announce the proposed pattern of debate during the remaining days on the Loyal Address: today—debate on the Address; tomorrow—foreign affairs and defence; Friday—planning, green belt and rural affairs; Monday—economy, welfare and public services; Tuesday—immigration and home affairs.
I now have the privilege to call Peter Dowd to move, and then Florence Eshalomi to second, the Address.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Happy birthday to Her Majesty the Queen today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] It is an honour to be asked to give thanks to His Majesty. I start by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your election and a warm welcome to new and returning Members, including my right hon. Friend the “late” Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). Congratulations to the Prime Minister and members of his new Government.
It is worthwhile putting into context how I came to be moving the motion on the King’s Speech this afternoon. Last Thursday morning, I was standing outside the Library minding my own business, watching somewhat bewildered hon. Members wandering up and down the corridors, tentatively putting their heads into the odd room that may or may not have been a broom cupboard. And they were actually the returning Members! [Laughter.] I cannot imagine what it must have been like for the hundreds of new Members. It brought back memories of when I undertook similar meanderings in the corridors of power.
Then came the call from the Chief Whip. My first thoughts were, “Oh dear, what have I done?” Or not done, as the case may be. Fortunately, those thoughts soon dissolved when he kindly asked me if I would undertake the Humble Address, which I was delighted and relieved to accept. Unfortunately, I am not the most competitive sort, which is just as well. I am afraid I cannot claim to be the first to achieve virtually anything in my family. It started at birth as I was the last-born child. Although I was a councillor at a relatively young age, alas, I was not the first, by a long measure, from my family. I was the leader of a council, but not the first in my family, nor even the first to unveil a plaque on a new public building—that was pretty routine among my forebears. Nor will I be able to look forward to being the first person in my family to reach 100 years of age—my late grandmother, Nin, ticked that box in 1984 and drove the point home by living until she was 105. As for being the first MP in my family, I cannot claim that accolade either as there were two before me. One was the Member—no prizes for guessing—for Bootle. Until today, my position at the back of the family queue has held sway for decades. Thanks to a good samaritan in the form of the Chief Whip, I am the first in my family to move the Humble Address to His Majesty. I am, as we say in Merseyside, made up.
It goes without saying that being a Member of Parliament is an honour, but representing the town I was born in is the icing on the cake. For those who do not know where my constituency is, it used to be a small fishing village before becoming a bathing resort for wealthy merchants just north of Liverpool—how times change. Today, my constituency comprises a number of close-knit communities that until after the war were on farmland. Ford, Litherland, Netherton and Old Roan housed thousands of families after the challenges of the war, and I think that vision can be renewed. Another part of my constituency, Seaforth, is home to the port of Liverpool, to which I will return in future debates.
The country home of the Gladstone family was in Seaforth. Indeed, Gladstone wrote about how he had seen
“wild roses growing upon the very ground that is now the centre of Bootle.”
Another community, Orrell, expanded as time went by. Then there is the lovely coastline of Liverpool bay, which has Waterloo and Crosby running along its shoreline, with beautiful views across to the hills of north Wales. It is also home to Antony Gormley’s “iron men” statues.
Bootle town centre is now home to many Government offices, including the Charity Commission, the Health and Safety Executive and even the Office for Nuclear Regulation. Given its location and major dock system, during the war, Bootle was a major target of the Luftwaffe. It was left badly scarred, with as many as 85% of buildings destroyed or damaged. It paid more than its fair share during that conflict. So I am proud of my communities and their history, and I want the content of the Gracious Speech to be part of their future.
As much as I would like to think that the Bootle constituency having the largest majority in the country, so I am told, is down to my character, charm and charisma —[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—which are well known to my colleagues, I really know that it is down to the ambitious programme trailed in the general election campaign and now formally set out in the Gracious Speech. I welcome a legislative programme based on security, fairness and opportunity for all, on investment, stability and reform—that is not a reference to the Members opposite—and, above all, on service to our communities, our constituencies and our country. It is about securing economic growth, raising living standards and getting Britain building again with planning reform and quality infrastructure, recognising the challenges of climate change and harnessing technology and the clean energy transition. Great British Energy advancing investment into renewable energy is fundamental.
If you like, Mr Speaker, it is a new social contract that delivers attainment in education, challenges antisocial behaviour, refreshes support for victims of crime, protects our borders, enhances renters’ rights, offers a new deal for working people and reinvigorates our NHS, among many other proposals. A renewed local democratic settlement through the devolution proposals set out in the Gracious Speech is welcome. In short, Westminster and Whitehall do not always know best.
On a day-to-day basis, I am looking forward to getting back to work, especially with new Members—the hundreds of them. I will continue to work on the various all-party parliamentary groups with which I am involved. The Gracious Speech includes proposals for a Bill to champion our armed forces and their families, with families being the key element in those proposals. I use that as a prompt to mention the armed forces APPG, of which I am a member. As an associate member of my local Crosby Royal Naval Association, I have links with local veterans, of whom there are over 12,000 in my constituency. In addition, members of my family have been in the armed forces, and my mother and grandmother both received war widows’ pensions for decades, so the least I can do is participate in the armed forces APPG.
In the last year, I have participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the RAF cohort, until that was so rudely interrupted by the general election. While I am always impressed by inter-service collaboration, I am even more impressed by the rivalry between the services. Before I bring a veil down on this part of my contribution, I want to relate to the House an anecdote—just one of many I could relate since participating in the scheme—about the nonchalant and insouciant rivalry between the services. When a Member joins the scheme—and it is well worth joining—they will be asked to go to the Wellington barracks, nearby, to be measured up for a uniform. When I arrived, I was led through the barracks to the stores. My conversation with a member of personnel who, it must be noted, was from the army went as follows:
“Good morning, sir. How can I help you?”
“Good morning. I’m here to be measured up for a uniform.”
“And which service will you be with serving with, sir?”
“The Royal Air Force.”
“In that case, sir, you’ll be needing a set of silk pyjamas and a smoking jacket.”
[Laughter.] They fit like a dream, Mr Speaker.
Our country faces so many challenges and I believe the wide-ranging proposals in the King’s Speech will go a good deal of the way to tackling those challenges, both at home and abroad.
Only on Saturday evening, I was at a function for one of my local charities, Sefton Women and Children’s Aid, at Liverpool FC’s Anfield stadium, which was a real stretch as I am an Everton supporter. While I was there, I paid a visit to the memorial to the 97 victims of Hillsborough, so I want to pay particular attention to the inclusion of what has become known as the Hillsborough law in the Gracious Speech. I thank the many individuals, families, survivors and the coalition of other organisations who have campaigned selflessly for decades to achieve this outcome, including Members of this House. It means so much to the families of the victims of those who died and the survivors, from our city region and beyond, that the Government will be fulfilling their promise to ensure a duty of candour on public servants. Justice and respect at last.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on his fantastic speech? As the eldest of three girls, we like the last ones because we can blame them for everything.
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend and to second the Loyal Address, not only for me but for my constituents across Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. When I was asked by the Chief Whip, my excitement was quickly replaced by fear because I remembered my attempt to make a Big Shaq reference during Second Reading of the Procurement Bill, which went completely over the head of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and indeed many other Members in the Chamber. I nearly backed out, but then I remembered that this is my opportunity to get on record that Nigerian jollof is the best jollof, before my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) puts forward any other ideas.
It is nearly 15 years since a Labour Member seconded a Loyal Address; the last Labour Member to do so was my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), my good friend. I have to say that the notices I receive when she visits my constituency are perhaps my favourite. I remember receiving a note from her office saying that she was going to tour the Beefeater Gin Distillery in my constituency the next evening and that I should join her. Sadly, I do not drink gin—but I know that she drank my share! I can only say that I look forward to welcoming other Members to my constituency many more times during this Parliament. Can I remind all Members that it is their duty to let me know if they are attending one of the many fabulous parties in Vauxhall and Camberwell Green—otherwise I will be complaining to Mr Speaker.
It truly is a wonderful constituency. We have the National theatre, the British Film Institute, the Southbank centre, the Young Vic and the Old Vic, which is currently hosting a play about the life of an MP in which James Corden turns out to be one of their constituents—although I believe he lives in California, so perhaps he should get in touch with the Leader of the Opposition.
We also have the London Eye. I am sure the whole House will be delighted to know that it received permanent planning status in May this year. That keeps it safe even from the clutches and planning reforms of the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister. We have communities from all over the world. Even among the sea of England shirts on Sunday, there were a few brave Spanish fans proudly wearing their colours—although they may have just been SNP MPs.
We are also home to a number of MPs, advocacy groups and journalists, which means, when I am trying to avoid a journalist or to politely decline an invitation, I often get hit with the dreaded line, “Oh, but I am a constituent as well”. I do warn journalists and Members that I shall continue my policy of giving no special treatment when they come up to me with any casework.
Like many continuing MPs, the area that I represent changed significantly at this election following the boundary review. Sadly, this means that I no longer represent one of the Brixton estates that I grew up on, my church and my old primary school. The church is central to my life and it is a microcosm of Lambeth. After mass, I can see the impatience on the faces of my family as I often discuss varied casework from the congregation. I just want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) that she is going to receive multiple blessings for all that varied casework. I know the wards that I have lost will be well represented by her. Then again, based on past experience, not all the lobby journalists will notice that anything has changed.
If the House will indulge me, I wish to speak briefly to a couple of policy issues that are close to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents and that I am looking forward to working with the new Labour Government on. As an MP, one of the hardest conversations that any of us will have is with the victims of violent crime. I have sat in many front rooms holding grieving mothers and fathers as they tell me about their loved ones who have been taken from them too soon. With every hug and tear wiped away, I can feel their pain and the impact that that has on the siblings and other family members. Crime rips communities apart, leaving too many people vulnerable and open to exploitation.
One area that I am proud to work on is preventing abuse of gang-associated girls. Sadly, their mistreatment is just one example of why our streets need to be safer. The Home Secretary’s commitment to halving rates of violence against women and improving the support for victims should be welcomed across the House.
Over the last couple of years, I have seen at first hand the impact of the cost of living crisis on my constituents in Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and on communities right across the country. We also know that tackling climate change is one of the most urgent issues facing the world, and that we cannot delay meaningful action any longer. I am therefore very pleased that the Government are committed to addressing both issues with an investment in the clean energy transition that will lower energy bills for households and restore the UK’s reputation as a climate leader.
But for millions of working people, real change will not come without action on housing. That is why I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans to build 1.5 million new homes across the country, including a new wave of council houses, like the one that gave me and my family security. I still remember that daily commute from a B&B in King’s Cross, and the excitement on my mum’s face when we received the keys to permanent housing—we no longer had to lug our belongings around in black bin bags. Sadly, in 2024, that is still the case for so many people. Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is also home to a high number of young people, many of whom are private renters. The power that section 21 gives immoral landlords to evict tenants for no reason is an outrage. I am glad that the Government will finally ban no-fault evictions for good.
Lastly, I am proud to be an advocate for the eradication of HIV and AIDS—an issue on which we have made so much progress recently. Alongside my fellow co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, in November last year I had the honour of hosting a reception in Mr Speaker’s House to thank Sir Elton John for his work in this field over the last 40 years. It was a fantastic event, at which our new Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment to ending new HIV transmissions in the UK by 2030. It also means that today’s royal event is the second in the last 12 months at which I have had the privilege of speaking—because we can all agree that Sir Elton is music royalty!
This Parliament sees a large churn of MPs, so may I take this opportunity to congratulate and welcome new Members? Don’t worry if you get lost; I have been here almost five years and I still get lost. My one piece of advice is this: make sure you know where Westminster Hall is, because you will always find the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) there, on hand to point you in the right direction—after he has finished speaking in whatever debate is going on that day!
Although it was wonderful seeing so many Labour MPs winning on 4 July, it was mixed with a slight sadness that we had to say goodbye to colleagues who worked across the House for their constituents with great dedication. Although I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) in her place on these Benches, I want to refer to the important work I did with her predecessor, my friend Nickie Aiken. As the two MPs responsible for Westminster bridge, we worked together in the last Parliament to commemorate the horrific 2017 Westminster bridge attack, in which six people sadly lost their lives, including the late PC Keith Palmer, and to improve the safety of a very busy and active part of London. Nickie also worked tirelessly to ensure that the Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 was brought into law, despite the persistent objections of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), which I am sure many new Members will also get used to.
I also pay tribute to the outgoing Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley. I remember, as a new MP, walking into a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on votes at 16. The room was buzzing with excitement, energy and all these young people, and—to my surprise—Sir Peter was in the chair; he really proved that age is just a number.
I must mention my good friend and former constituency neighbour, the new Baroness Harriet Harman. Her 42 years in office blazed a trail for the rights of women in politics and wider society. When Harriet was elected, just 3% of MPs were women; that figure now stands at 40%. While there is some way to go, that rise is a testament to Harriet’s unending work and drive never to take no for an answer. While I am daunted to have the responsibility of representing parts of her former constituency in Camberwell Green, I could not have had a better example to learn from. My pledge to her and my new constituents is that I will do my best to carry on her legacy and be a strong voice in Parliament for those communities.
Lastly, I cannot think of a more fitting replacement as the Mother of the House than my good friend, our auntie, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She was elected when I was just six years old, and seeing her in the media, making the voice of black women heard in Parliament, gave me the confidence that I could stand here and ensure people in my community had a voice in the decisions that impacted them. I say to her, “We stand on your shoulders, and we respect and salute you. Thank you.”
I welcome the Government’s plan to introduce draft race equalities legislation to build on that work, and I look forward to working with Ministers to develop it. We should not underestimate the difficulties that both Baroness Harman and my right hon. Friend have gone through to make their voices heard, or the challenges they face even now, but their trailblazing examples mean that those of us elected today face fewer challenges in representing our communities, and we have more friends to go through those challenges with. Because of them, Mr Speaker, a black working-class girl from a south London estate can stand before you today with the honour of seconding this Loyal Address.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Before I turn to the Address, I am sure the whole House would like to join me in paying tribute to His Majesty the King. It is typical of his dedication to duty that, despite the medical challenges he has faced, he was here today to open Parliament and will travel to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa and to Australia this autumn. The King is a true model of public service. I know the Prime Minister will value his audiences with His Majesty as much as I did. We all recognise that the King is aided by the constant support of Her Majesty the Queen, and I know the whole House will join me in wishing her a very happy birthday.
Today we also pay tribute to Tony Lloyd. Tony served the people of Greater Manchester for 45 years, and for 36 of those as a Member of this House. He was a great parliamentarian, kind and wise. His family should have enormous pride in the contribution he made to this place and to the community he loved and served. They are in all our thoughts today.
I welcome all new Members to their places. Being elected as a Member of Parliament is a great honour and a great responsibility. We serve our communities and our United Kingdom. I know, whatever our political differences might be, we are all motivated by a desire to make life better for our constituents and to make our country stronger. I know the whole House will join me in deploring the assassination attempt on President Trump. Our thoughts are with the victims. Violence and intimidation have no place in the democratic process.
I commend the proposer of the Address on his excellent speech. I know the whole House will agree that the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) has set a high bar for speeches in this Parliament. My little sister always reminds me that being the youngest means having to learn how to make oneself heard—well, the hon. Gentleman is the youngest of eight, and it really shows. I had the good fortune to get to know him when he was shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and he was always courteous and pleasant as my opposite number. As he outlined, he comes from a family committed to public service. Both his great-uncles were Members of this House and, although he was very modest about it, he has been in public service for more than 40 years. The new Members of the House have much to learn from him. I know that I speak for the whole House in saying how much we all admire his personal bravery in campaigning for more victim support following the tragic death of his daughter in a hit-and-run accident.
Not only is the hon. Gentleman one of the more popular Members of the House, as we heard, but he is also the most popular constituency MP, enjoying the biggest majority of any Member of this place. In a recent election, he even won an astonishing 84% of the vote. He might be the only person who can persuade Kim Jong-un of the benefits of democracy—although “The People’s Republic of Bootle” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was chosen to speak today to head off the reintroduction of his ten-minute rule Bill. I speak of course of his Bill for a four-day week. I am not sure whether he has consulted his Whips on how compatible that would be with their desire to make Fridays a new norm sitting day. I will say this to him: if they will not let him have his ten-minute rule Bill, he should work to rule—although I suspect that as a Labour Member for Merseyside he needs no tips on trade union organising from a former banker.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) spoke with typical verve. She is inspired by a desire to serve and her strong faith, but she never lets any of this go to her head. Today, she was chosen because of the high regard that she is held in, but she is also one of the kindest Members of this House, regularly baking Victoria sponges for her staff and others—although post the election result, perhaps red velvet might now be on the menu. She has campaigned bravely against gang violence, in both the London Assembly and this House, and she is so right that we must not become desensitised to knife crime. She represents the place where she grew up, and does so with passion and determination.
Now that I have a lot more time on my hands, I intend to be a regular visitor to the hon. Lady’s constituency—especially in the summer months. One of my favourite places to watch cricket is of course the Oval; as Prime Minister, I had the privilege of playing there with the wonderful Ebony Rainford-Brent and the young black cricketers of the African Caribbean Engagement programme. I applaud the hon. Lady for her work with that scheme. I can reassure her that I will not go as far as the last Conservative Prime Minister to speak from this Dispatch Box, who proposed removing that part of her constituency to a desert island, along with his eight favourite records.
The hon. Lady’s story is truly an inspirational one. To go from caring for her mother as a teenager to being a Member of this House shows what is possible in our country. But the online abuse that she has received—an experience that is far too common in this House—shows one of the challenges facing our democracy. The intimidation that some candidates received in this election, both physical and digital, was completely unacceptable and is a threat to our electoral process. There can be no excuse for threats of physical violence or intimidatory protests outside politicians’ homes.
The hon. Lady will have been picked to second the Loyal Address because the Whips Office has her down as one who will go far. May I offer some words of advice to Labour Members? On the Government Benches, life comes at you fast. Soon, you might be fortunate enough to be tapped on the shoulder and offered a junior ministerial role. Then, you will find yourself attending Cabinet, and then in the Cabinet. Then, when the Prime Minister’s position becomes untenable, you might end up being called to the highest office, and before you know it, you have a bright future behind you and are left wondering whether you can credibly be an elder statesman at the age of 44. [Laughter.]
It is right to begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on his decisive victory in the election. He deserves the good will of us all in this House as he takes on the most demanding of jobs in the increasingly uncertain world in which we now live. The Labour party has successfully tapped into the public’s desire for change, but it must now deliver change, and we in the Opposition will hold it accountable for delivering on the commitments that it made to the British people. In the national interest, we will not oppose for the sake of it, but when we disagree with the Government, it is our responsibility as the Opposition to say so. What will guide us will be our principles: sound public finances; a belief that people know how to spend their own money better than Governments do, and that private enterprise, not state intervention, is the key to delivering growth and prosperity; public services that work for those who need them; an education system that gives everyone the best start in life; secure borders; and a strong national defence.
I welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward Martyn’s law. I am sure that the Prime Minister will find, as I did, that one of the most humbling parts of the job is seeing people whose lives have been touched by tragedy not turn to anger or bitterness, but campaign to ensure that other families do not have to endure the same pain. I particularly commend Figen Murray for her work to get this law on to the statute book. I can assure her that this measure will command consensus in this House, and we will work with the Government to make sure that it becomes law as soon as possible.
I am also glad that the Government will continue with plans for a smokefree generation. I know there are deeply held views on both sides of this issue, and I have deep respect for those—especially on my own Benches—who disagree with me on this question. Measures that end access to products are never easy, but I believe that ensuring that our children can be the first generation that does not have to suffer the false choice between quitting smoking and not, because they will have never started, is a truly worthy aim. It will make us a healthier, fairer country where people live longer and better lives.
The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm, and we are fortunate in our country to be protected by armed forces who are unrivalled in the world for their professionalism, bravery and skill. I know the whole House will agree that they are truly the best of us.
Every month in my previous job, I became more concerned about the threats to our country’s security. We live in an increasingly uncertain world. We need greater investment in our military if we are to deter our enemies and defend our interests. As I warned earlier this year, there is an axis of authoritarian states that are a threat to our values—freedom, democracy and the rule of law—and we must collectively stand up to them. The world is more dangerous now than it has been at any time since the end of the cold war, so I urge the Prime Minister to commit to boosting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. If we lead the way on this issue, we can make 2.5% the new NATO benchmark for defence investment. That is the single best way to strengthen the alliance. It would show the Americans that we do not expect them to bear every burden, and would show President Putin that NATO is serious about bolstering its defences, and be the most effective way to deter further acts of Russian aggression.
In the past few years, there has been an impressive amount of consensus across the House on foreign policy—on the importance of supporting Ukraine, and on the centrality of NATO to our national defence. In that spirit, I commend the Prime Minister for his work at the NATO summit, and I am glad that he and the Secretary of State for Defence have taken such rapid steps to demonstrate that, although the Government have changed, this country’s commitment to Ukraine’s security remains constant. I also welcome the visit of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to the middle east. It is of fundamental importance to this country that, as we make real progress towards a two-state solution, our friend and ally Israel has a right to defend itself and to live in peace.
Let me turn next to another crucial issue facing not just our country but the broader western world: illegal migration. The fundamental question is what to do with people who arrive here illegally but cannot be returned to their home country. Our approach was to send them to a safe third country; the Prime Minister was clear that he would scrap those plans, and I acknowledge that. Our fear remains that without such a deterrent the country will end up having to accept that a large number of those who cross the channel illegally will end up remaining here. How to prevent that is something that the Government, I know, will soon look to address. When it comes to legal migration, I urge the Home Secretary to retain the measures that we implemented, which are forecast to halve net migration in the next 12 months.
If I may turn next to the economy, I understand well that the Chancellor is keen to paint as bleak a picture as possible, but I would gently point out that that is not exactly what the facts say. With inflation at 2%, unemployment at 4% and the fastest growing economy in the G7 so far this year, the Labour party has inherited an economy that is already on an upward trajectory.
The Government have set out plans to strengthen the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and we will examine those proposals carefully, but the work of the OBR already means that Labour Members had the full details of the public finances when they set out their manifesto. The OBR has rightly taken away from Governments the ability to make forecasts say what they want them to say, but that has also taken away from Oppositions coming into government the ability to say that they did not know the true state of the public finances. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
“The books are wide open, fully transparent.”
In his words, trying to pretend that things are worse than expected “really won’t wash”.
Labour Members promised no tax rises on working people and no plans for tax rises beyond what is in their manifesto in full knowledge of the public finances. It would be difficult for them to claim that things are worse than they thought and then renege on those pledges, and we will hold the Government to their promises come the Budget.
I note the plans for new employment legislation. In this country, our unemployment rate is far lower than the European average, and that is thanks in part to our flexible labour market. I urge Labour not to impose new burdens on businesses. Business leaders themselves have warned of the unintended consequences of those plans—that they could lead to firms being less likely to invest and less likely to hire, so increasing unemployment in the long term.
I further note the Government’s desire to impose new, potentially rigid legislation on technologies such as artificial intelligence. We are third only to the US and China in the size of our fast-growing technology sector, and we lead the world when it comes to AI safety. We should all in this House be careful not to endanger this country’s leading position in this field, which will drive growth and prosperity for decades to come.
Although today’s King’s Speech contained a slew of Bills, what was missing was a concrete plan to tackle the unsustainable post-covid rise in the welfare bill. Without action, the cost of providing benefits to the working-age population with a disability or health condition will rise to £90 billion—more than we spend on our national defence, schools or policing. That is not only unsustainable, but unfair to taxpayers. That is why in government we had laid out a plan to reduce the welfare bill significantly, but crucially to support all those who could do so to go back into work. I hope the Government look at those proposals when they have the time to study them in detail. On the Conservative Benches we will continue to advocate for a welfare system that is compassionate and fair to those who need it, but fair too to those who pay for it.
The Government have set out plans to change the planning system. We will of course study those thoroughly as well, as we all wish to see more homes built and the planning process speeded up. However, I would say that a system that does not allow local people to have a say will damage public consent for more housing in the long term. I regret that there was no mention in the King’s Speech of farming and rural communities, much like my own, but I hope in time that the Government will bring forward proposals.
Turning to net zero, this country has decarbonised quicker than any other major country, and we have managed to do that while growing the economy. As a country and across this whole House, I know we will all be proud of that achievement. The Government plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030, but there is a real danger that, if the Government put the speed of doing that ahead of family finances and our energy security, we will again lose public consent for the measures necessary to ensure that we actually reach our 2050 net zero target —a target on which there is genuine consensus between our two parties. As even one of the Prime Minister’s own supporters has warned, this 2030 plan
“just means we have to import our energy. Strategically we become more vulnerable. We pay more money for our energy.”
I hope that the Energy Secretary reflects on those thoughts.
Lastly, the Government have set out plans for reforms to the other place. Looking at the Government Benches, there can be no doubt about their ability to get them through this House, but the effects of the changes will last long beyond this Parliament and long beyond our tenures in these jobs. I would suggest that, when it comes to constitutional reform, it would be good to proceed on a cross-party basis, rather than to use a simple majority in this House to push things through. That consensus should include the Cross Benchers, whose convenor would be removed by the Government’s proposals.
I also suspect that the public would prefer the Government to prioritise practical, real-world issues over constitutional wrangling. However, I welcome the news that the Government have paused their plan to force Members of the other place to retire at 80. That proposal always felt like it would be a blunt instrument. Indeed, in the Dissolution honours, the Prime Minister nominated, rightly, the former right hon. Member for Derby South, who will be a strong addition to the other place, despite the right hon. Lady being already over the retirement age that the Labour manifesto proposed.
Let me close by saying that we of course recognise that the British people have entrusted the Labour party with the task of governing our country. On our side of the House, we will fulfil our duties, as the loyal Opposition, professionally and effectively. Across this House, we are all, first and foremost, patriots. We all wish to see our country and our people flourish and succeed. In that spirit, I wish the new Prime Minister and the new Government well.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He talks about priorities. Of course, people in rural communities around the country see the vast majority that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has assembled, and they are afraid. They see a manifesto in which just 87 words are about farming. They see a King’s Speech with no mention of rural communities or priorities. Will the Prime Minister please take this opportunity to reassure people in rural and farming communities that his Labour Government will take notice of them?
Mr Speaker
Order. Interventions are one thing, but this is not the best time to actually make a speech.
The Prime Minister
Let me take this opportunity to reassure those in rural communities. I grew up in a rural community myself. If we look at the places now represented on the Labour Benches, we can see the reassurance that has been given and will be given again.
The King’s Speech that we have brought to the House today is a marker of our intent: not only a certain destination for the future of this country, but a new way of governing; a Government of service guided by clear missions, with a long-term plan to fix the foundations; a plan that starts, as it must, with our economy. Under the watch of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the last Parliament was the first in modern history to leave living standards in a worse place than it found them—the consequence not just of Tory irresponsibility, but of a more pervasive inability to face the future; a ducking of the hard choices; eyes fixed always on the horse trading of Westminster politics, rather than the long-term national interest.
Jim Shannon
May I commend the Prime Minister? There are many in this House, on both sides of the Chamber—not only in his party, but on the Opposition Benches—who welcome his election as Prime Minister and look forward to the delivery of some feel-good factor for all of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Better together is what I always say. Perhaps even those in the Chamber who have different ideas think the same. In my provincial paper two weeks ago, it was recognised that Northern Ireland was very much part of the Prime Minister’s 10-year plan. Will he outline exactly what that plan will be for Northern Ireland? Can he ensure us that our position will never weaken and always get stronger?
Mr Speaker
Jim, you will definitely be at the bottom of the list now—don’t worry!
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for that intervention. It was very important to me, and to my Government, that within days of being elected I went to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales with that message about working together. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I worked in Northern Ireland for five years on reforms to the Police Service in Northern Ireland. It matters to me that we make progress on all matters across all our nations, and that is the way in which we will operate as a Government. It was a statement of intent that I made in those early days, and let me say, in direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, that I will continue in that vein.
As well as maintaining our plan to cut waiting times, we will modernise the Mental Health Act 1983 and finally drag it into the 21st century. We will raise standards in our schools and improve the confidence, the wellbeing and the happiness of our children, because that is so often the barrier that holds them back. We will also work on landmark legislation on race equality, and tackle the structural injustice of unfair, discriminatory pay. Britain has come a long way on such matters—one look at this Parliament shows that we are moving forward, and I recognise the efforts of so many in this House, on all sides, to tackle this injustice—but we can still do more, and therefore we must and we will. We will also begin work on banning conversion practices, and will bring forward tough new protections for renters. Those are promises that have lingered in the lobby of good intentions for far too long.
We will signal our intent to transform society with measures on crime and justice that will not only rid our streets of antisocial behaviour, but launch a new mission to reduce violence against women and girls by 50%. In this, we are inspired by the work of unbelievable campaigners: Mina Smallman, Claire Waxman, Melanie Brown, and my friends John and Penny Clough. I will never forget the day John and Penny came to my office and told me what they had been through just to get justice for their daughter Jane, murdered in the car park of the Blackpool hospital where she worked by the man awaiting trial on multiple charges of raping her. I gave them my word then that I would do what I could, not just for John and Penny and Jane but for all the Johns, Pennys and Janes in our country; but it is an enormous undertaking. I wish it were not, but it is. Just listen to the contribution made every year in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), a grim reminder of just how many women are killed every year by domestic violence. And yet, as everybody who works in public service knows, Government can make or break a life. I have seen it myself, as a public servant, and I also know from those campaigners what service can do when it listens and empowers people far beyond the walls of the state.
So this is how we will go about our business: mission-driven, focused on ambitious goals, bringing together the best of our country, committed to the practical difference—big and small—that we can make together. That is the reward and the hope of service, the business of change, and the work of this Government of service that we will take on. We will stop the chaos, fix our foundations, and take the brakes off Britain. This is a King’s Speech that returns politics to serious government, that returns government to public service, and that returns public service to the interests of working people. That is the path of national renewal, the rebuilding of our country, and we take another step today.
Mr Speaker
Order. I call the Leader of the—[Interruption.] Order. Please, let us show respect to each other. Let us not set off on the wrong foot; we want to be on the right foot. I call the leader of the Lib Dems.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but I confess I am a little disappointed with him because today he walked into the Chamber. He could at least have tried a bungee jump or maybe freewheeling on a bicycle. I applaud him for his efforts in the campaign; they kept us all entertained and, looking at the number of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches, clearly paid dividends.
I welcome and thank my hon. Friends who proposed and seconded the Humble Address, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) that he may be the youngest of eight, but I am the second of 10. New Members of the House will hear a lot about Big Brother, but I can tell them that they have a big sister here to support them; I am sure my hon. Friend will support them too. After 19 years in this place, I know my way around a bit, although I too still get lost, so they should not be worried about that.
I was delighted to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). I first came across her when she was a Member of the London Assembly. I knew then that she had something special about her and we saw that here today.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I spent nearly a decade chairing the Public Accounts Committee in this place, in the last Parliament and the previous two. In that role, I saw many egregious examples of incompetence, bungling and waste, whether it was water companies, school buildings with reinforced concrete and other things falling down, the running sore of rail infrastructure, the national embarrassment of defence procurement and the scandal of personal protective equipment procurement during covid. Time and again, we saw Government bungles, poorly drafted contracts, lack of oversight, dodged responsibility, endless excuses, and the taxpayer picking up the tab. No wonder people were so angry at the election. No wonder they voted for change and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister.
Now the true extent of the Tory mess is coming to light. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has revealed, it is even worse than we thought. She has opened the books, looked under the bonnet and seen the true extent of the mess that is now for a Labour Government to clear up. The previous Government partied, squabbled and helped their mates, but they did not fix the roof when the sun shone. They trashed the joint. From austerity to the PPE scandal and Trussonomics—remember that?—they weakened the fundamentals of our economy and stretched our public services to breaking point.
In my annual report, which was one of my last reports as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I listed what I called the “big nasties”, some of which the Chancellor is revealing to us now: 700,000 pupils are in schools that are not fit for purpose; there were in fact far fewer new hospitals than the 40 that were much vaunted and they were never going to be delivered to the promised timetable; and the gaping hole in our defence budget. I certainly applaud the approach of this Government, and it seems some consensus from the Opposition Benches, that we need to see an increase in defence spending.
The consequences of the mess that has been left behind by the previous Government are human. According to the House of Commons Library, nearly one fifth of children in my borough of Hackney live in absolute poverty. Four in 10 children in Hackney live in poverty after housing costs are taken into account, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent figures. My constituency is in the top 5% of English constituencies with children who are income deprived. That is the shameful legacy of 14 years of failure.
In one of the world’s greatest and richest cities—a bus ride from the financial powerhouse of Liverpool Street—no child should be cold or hungry, or lack a winter coat or decent shoes. Schools in Hackney have kit rooms for the children who turn up without the requisite uniform and lend it for the day in return for a token like their Oyster card. No parent should be having to skip meals to feed their kids, which is happening too often in Hackney and elsewhere in the country. No child should be arriving at school with a rumbling tummy, which is why I welcome the breakfast clubs that we already have in Hackney and the fact that one of the first acts of this Labour Government will be to make sure that every child in primary school has a decent breakfast.
When we talk about stagnant wages, low productivity, flattening growth, lack of investment in skills and schools, the abolition of Sure Start, and the gig economy, there is this human cost. Right now, in a Hackney school, there is a hungry child whose huge potential is being wasted, whose opportunities are stunted and whose life chances are hobbled. When I first arrived in this place 19 years ago, I had to tell people about the good things that were going on in Hackney, because people had written off my borough as a poor and deprived area where things did not happen. Now people think of the Shoreditch hipster, the tech companies and the city fringe, but underneath that there is this huge poverty and opportunity being stunted for our children. This is the mess that this Government now have to clear up.
Another example of that is the housing crisis. A safe, warm and affordable place in which to live should be, and is, a basic right. We all need a roof over our heads before we can do anything else in our life—whether it be study, work, or bringing up our families—yet, after 14 years, my constituents face a housing crisis whatever the tenure.
According to Hackney council, the median household income in Hackney is just under £36,500 a year, yet the median house price in my constituency—which has doubled since 2010—is £610,000. For those who have not caught up on the maths yet, this means that a house costs more than 16 times the median household income. According to the Land Registry, the average first-time buyer in Hackney paid just under £600,000: over half a million pounds for a first-time buyer. Well, that’s not most first-time buyers, is it? It is the lucky few who either have a very good job, or have got help from the bank of mum and dad or other family members. I do not deny them that help, but it should be an opportunity available to all.
It is utterly ridiculous that we are in this situation. Young professionals with double incomes are simply unable to afford a deposit to get a place of their own and are often stuck living with family members into their 30s. Others are forced into rented accommodation, with no security of tenure and rents so high that there is no spare money to save to get on the housing ladder.
According to the work of the Public Accounts Committee, around 13% of privately rented properties—589,000 properties—pose a serious threat to health, so landlords are getting the rent but landing their tenants in hospital with lung diseases, mental illness or physical injury. I hope the Chancellor’s ears are pricking up, because the Public Accounts Committee estimated that this situation costs the NHS £340 million a year. That goes to the broader point: economic inefficiency, child poverty, the housing crisis and failing public services all cost us more money. The economics of decline is an expensive business, but—we see hope now, with this Labour Government—investment in jobs, homes, schools, skills, roads, the NHS and tackling crime saves the public money down the line. As I was often saying when I had the honour of holding the role of Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, a penny of waste is theft from working people’s pockets, and a fair economy is also an efficient one.
I warmly welcome the measures in this King’s Speech under a Labour Government; how nice it is to say those words after 14 years. Since 5 July my colleagues in the Cabinet—I was about to say the shadow Cabinet; old habits die hard—including Labour Secretaries of State, have moved into action from the inertia of what went before, and that means that we are on the road to recovery. It is going to be a long haul, but I welcome the measures to support start-ups and tech companies, particularly as I represent Shoreditch, where so many are based; to revive skills; to modernise our health services, particularly prioritising mental health; to get more teachers into Hackney schools; and, crucially, to build more affordable homes.
We need many affordable homes in inner London, in constituencies such as mine, where social housing is the only option for so many people. Only last week, a woman came to my surgery who had four children in a one-bedroom flat, and her elderly, sick father had had to come to live with them. That is how the family lived —four children in a one-bedroom flat—and it is not uncommon at all. We need to drive change to deliver housing around the country, but particularly in the inner city.
I also recognise the lead and step change in tackling the issue of net zero to decarbonise our economy with investment in renewables, insulation, carbon capture, and green jobs—things I have examined a lot over the last decade and on which we have seen the previous Government fail so often.
Above all, I welcome the commitment of His Majesty’s Government—our Labour Government—to kickstart growth in our economy. Without steady, sustainable economic growth and without the proceeds of growth fairly shared across the nation, we will continue our national decline. Instead, in this King’s Speech, we are offered a hopeful prospectus for change, the prospect of progress, and a new sense of national renewal and hope after 14 years. We know it will not be easy, nor will it be as quick as we all impatiently want it to be. As a former Minister and having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for 13 years, I know that modernisation and reform can be frustratingly slow. I have seen many good ambitions frustrated by poor delivery.
If I may proffer a word of advice for those on the Treasury Bench, finding themselves newly surrounded by eager officials, many of whom came in front of my Committee, and red boxes, it is this: “Please stay focused. Look up at that horizon. Think of the people who sent us here, who voted for that change you want to deliver and we all want to see. Keep an eye on that guiding goal of growth. Test every proposition that comes across your desk against that simple question, ‘Does this promote or hinder growth?’”
Successful government, as the Prime Minister said, is mission led. Of course we want to tackle poverty, build homes and transform our NHS, but the main mission is growth, because without that we cannot deliver any of the others.
Stephen Flynn
I would be more than happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman in that regard. As he knows, in the UK, we have reserved policies and we have devolved policies, and some 70% of welfare policies are reserved to this Parliament. The Scottish Government have sought over recent years to mitigate the worst excesses of the Conservatives. With some £8 million-worth of money that we could spend on other things, we choose to mitigate Tory policies—including, of course, the likes of the bedroom tax; I am sure he would be keen to see those on his own Front Bench mitigate and end that particular policy.
However, we do that within the confines of the financial remit set, in large part, by this place.
If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—and I am sure some of his Scottish colleagues would agree with him—that the Scottish Government should mitigate, he and the Government should outline where that money should come from. Should it come from Scotland’s NHS, our schools, our police or our budget for young people? The reality is that the constraints placed upon Scotland by this place do not afford us the opportunity to mitigate, and frankly, I find it absurd and deeply disingenuous to suggest that the remit of Scotland’s Parliament should be to mitigate Westminster. Our horizons should be so much greater than that.
I return to the point that I was making. Scottish Labour Members supposedly agree with the Scottish National party that the two-child cap should and must be scrapped, so how will they vote? Will they follow the lead of their Prime Minister in London, or will they follow the lead of the leader in Scotland and respect the views of the people they were sent here to represent?
Despite my great disappointment, there is one area in which I hope the Prime Minister can put a smile on my face: GB Energy. I am moderately surprised that we have not yet had an announcement that it is to be headquartered in Aberdeen—perhaps in the Aberdeen South constituency that I represent. Indeed, Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce hired a van that has been patrolling the streets outside Parliament today calling for it to come home—that is the only time I will ever use those words—and it should come home straight to the energy capital of Europe.
Although I would welcome GB Energy’s placement in Aberdeen, I also want to see much more detail about what it will deliver. If I have read correctly, a cumulative £8.3 billion will go towards GB Energy over the next five years—£1.6 billion each and every year—but one hydro pump storage project in Scotland would almost blow that entire budget apart. We know that GB Energy will not sell energy, we know that it will not distribute energy, and it appears that it will not generate energy. It has been suggested that it will be an investment vehicle for projects to go forward, but if it is capped at £1.6 billion a year, I must question the Government’s ambition. How does that deliver the change that is required? The change that they previously agreed to requires some £28 billion each and every year. What a contrast with the ambitions that they once had. Of course, net zero will be absolutely crucial to our economic future—to the growth and prosperity that we all want—but ultimately that growth can come about only through productivity.
I would like to hear more from the Labour Government, who have a significant majority, about what they will do to reverse some of the Conservative party’s policies on migration. Migration dramatically and drastically impacts on higher education institutions in Scotland and in the constituencies of each and every Labour Member. We know that universities are a key driver of productivity. I wish to seek consensus across the House on migration, which might be moderately difficult given some of the people who now sit behind me. We need to stand up and be bold and brave in the face of those who seek to demonise migration and other those who come to work in our public and private sectors, care for us in our hospitals and teach our children. We should seek to increase migration, increase our economic output, grow our economy and enhance our communities. Brave politicians would do that, and I hope that Labour Members share that bravery.
Of course, our economy is not just about net zero, productivity or migration; it is also intrinsically linked to our relationship with the European Union. I look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with in respect of their proposed new relationship with our friends and allies in Europe. We should be seeking to rejoin the European single market; we should be seeking to rejoin the European customs union. It makes sense to all of us. The politicians in this House are afraid of doing so, but they will come to realise that the only way to achieve the aims that they want to achieve is to do just that.
On all those issues and so many more, we will seek to be a voice of reason in this House and to work constructively with Government Members. Over the coming hours and days, I look forward to hearing their contributions and what they intend to bring to our national discourse, as we all try to improve the lives of the people who we are so fortunate to represent.
Mr Speaker
I gently say to Members that we have a lot to get in today, so I would be very grateful if they tried to keep speeches below, or up to, eight minutes.