Covid-19 Inquiry
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the staff at St Thomas’ and other NHS staff across the country, who did so much to care for people during that very difficult period. I have visited the memorial wall in her constituency, and she is right: it is an incredibly moving and human experience. I am very happy to take up her invitation to visit again.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am covering for our spokesperson, who sadly cannot be here today.
I start by paying tribute to Baroness Hallett and all those who have painfully given evidence to this inquiry. It will not have been easy for them and our hearts go out to them. This will be a painful day. The inquiry’s damning findings confirm in clear terms what we unfortunately already knew, and this must be a moment for change. The country was badly let down during the pandemic and this new Government must ensure that lessons are learned swiftly. The Liberal Democrats called for this inquiry back in 2020 and we will continue to demand that the full facts be known about every aspect of this catastrophic failure.
One area of particular focus was the lack of leadership provided by the then Conservative Government. The inquiry found that proper scrutiny and accountability was often missed by Ministers. That is why Back Benchers across this House set up the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, which I was privileged to chair. Over 18 months we heard from frontline workers, public health professionals and bereaved families, and there was a deep frustration that they could see what was going wrong, but it was falling on deaf ears in Whitehall.
This is a moment to change how politics works, and I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Government will work across the aisle. What will the Government do to ensure that the right voices are in the room for future such health emergencies, and do they agree that we need a commissioner for ageing and older people, as the Liberal Democrats have been advocating?
Care homes were another area of critical failure. Many of those victims died not directly from covid but because of the lack of care. Do the Government agree that patients and care home residents should be given a new legal right to maintain contact in all health and care settings?
The third area that has been under-reported is long covid. Many of us will remember standing in the cold in November banging on our drums for frontline workers, yet they have not received compensation for a disability that has put them out of their beloved profession. Will the Cabinet Office work with the Department for Work and Pensions to progress the compensation scheme that is in train and to gather the right evidence to ensure that we get it right?
Layla Moran
Very finally, on the memorial, will the Minister implement the recommendations in the final report of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the Front Benchers that we are all learning, but we should do so by setting the best example? You are meant to have two minutes, not three. Please can we help each other? Otherwise, I will have Members complaining that they did not get in.
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Member for her questions and the spirit in which she asked them. The truth is that it is easy for any of us to say, “Lessons must be learned,” and whenever anything goes wrong, people say that. The proof is in the practice. Will it be shown in practice? That is the ultimate test for us all.
I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member that, just as I said to the Opposition spokesperson, yes, we are happy to work across the aisle on this and to consider suggestions. My colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are considering the recommendations on the memorial.
Debate on the Address
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 days, 14 hours 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.
Election of Speaker
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Ind)
First, I thank my constituents of Chorley for returning me to this House and allowing me to put myself forward again as Speaker. It is an honour to serve the people of Chorley, as I have done steadfastly for the last 44 years, as a councillor on the local authority and then as their Member of Parliament for the past 27 years. I also thank my wife Catherine and daughter Emma, and the staff in the constituency office in Chorley, for all their support.
Of course, it was the first time in my political career that I campaigned without hearing the wise words of my late father Doug, giving me his opinions on how to campaign—he was always going to give me that, whatever the polls were doing and whatever needed to be said. I can still hear him now, saying, “Don’t stop now. You have to keep going.” I must say, after 25,000 steps a day during the campaign, I certainly did that.
I want to give a warm welcome to all the new Members of the House. I also welcome Sir Edward Leigh to his new role as Father of the House, and Diane Abbott to her place as Mother of the House. Sir Edward, you have served this place and your constituents for 41 years. Diane, you have served for 37 years, and broken many glass ceilings along the way. I thank the former Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, and of course the former Mother of the House, Baroness Harriet Harman, for the support they gave me during my speakership.
Sir Edward, I know you are a man who respects traditions. Indeed, when you ran for Speaker in 2019, you were keen to bring back the use of the wig by the Speaker. Hopefully, though, you will look kindly on me and agree that I still have a decent enough head of hair, although not quite as luscious as that of the former Member for Lichfield—[Laughter.] You know I am only joking, Michael! I was thinking just the other day, Sir Edward, that you must be the only person who went to bed last Thursday evening as a father of six children, and woke up the father of 649.
On a serious note, it has been an absolute privilege to serve this House as the 158th Speaker. I must say that four and a half years have flown. With the authority of the Chair comes great responsibility, which is something I have never taken lightly or for granted.
I know from experience that decisions have consequences, but with experience comes wisdom, and if re-elected, I will be guided by that experience as I continue to be fair, impartial and independent.
To say that I had the most unusual speakership in the last Parliament is an understatement, from ensuring that the House could function during the covid pandemic —new Members might want to google the Rees-Mogg conga—to adapting technology developed during covid to allow President Zelensky to be the first world leader to broadcast to MPs in this Chamber. It was, of course, an honour to represent this House at the lying in state of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, to present the address to the new King in Westminster Hall, and to attend his coronation. Needless to say, in this role, you need staying power. I have already been Speaker during the tenure of three Prime Ministers, two monarchs—and one Jim Shannon! [Laughter.]
There has never been a dull moment; it is an incredible job, which I want to continue. There is so much more still to do, because I care about the reputation and the standards of this House. I care about enabling the Government to do their job in this Chamber, and about enabling the Opposition to hold the Government to account. I care about supporting Back Benchers to pursue issues that are important to their constituencies— as someone who was a Back-Bench Member for many years, I know how important that is—and I care about you individually, both as Members who have a job to do in this building and as people trying to do those jobs with constituents, staff and families to consider. I have worked tirelessly, and will continue to do so, to keep Members safe, which is the fundamental part of protecting democracy. On that basis, I submit myself to the House as your Speaker, seeking to be your champion.
Cat Smith
We have a Bolton Wanderers fan.
We should note that that team has both blue and red on its crest, and I think that exemplifies Mr Speaker’s even-handedness. As a proud champion of Lancashire’s rugby league tradition, outside Westminster his favourite place is cheering on Warrington Wolves, and in the summer months Lancashire county cricket club. Like all good sports people, Lindsay knows fair play and hard work. For all those reasons and so many more, I am proud and honoured to propose that Sir Lindsay Hoyle takes the Chair today.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 1A), That Sir Lindsay Hoyle do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
Question agreed to.
Sir Edward Leigh left the Chair, and Sir Lindsay Hoyle was conducted to the Chair by Cat Smith and Sir David Davis.
Mr Speaker-Elect
(standing on the upper step): Before I take the Chair as Speaker-Elect, I wish to thank the House for the honour it has again bestowed upon me. I am aware that it is the greatest honour it can give any of its Members. I propose to do all within my power to preserve and cherish its best traditions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I also thank both Cat and David.
The Speaker-Elect sat down in the Chair and the Mace was placed upon the Table.
Mr Speaker-Elect
Before I call the Prime Minister, let me just say that we have a busy day ahead of us, with further ceremony in the House of Lords and the most returning hon. Members to be sworn in. I therefore encourage the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other leaders to be quite brief today. I hope that Members respect the fact that only leaders will make speeches; I am sorry for other Members who may wish to speak.
I have to say a big thank you to the staff of this House for the way they have brought all new Members in and shown them the way around. I hope that the buddies and everybody involved have made a real difference. I must say it is light years from 1997 when I first came in, and long may we continue that.
I call the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Mr Speaker-Elect, on behalf of the whole House, may I be the first to congratulate you on your re-election? Those of us who were here in the previous Parliament will always remember the wonderful support you provided to the former Conservative Member, Craig Mackinlay, and his inspiring battle to overcome his injuries from sepsis. All of those returning will remember, as I do, the speech he gave just a few weeks ago, which was inspiring and moving. We wish him well; I had the privilege on that occasion to meet his family and young daughter.
That support, Mr Speaker-Elect, was characteristic of your profound care for the interests and welfare of all Members, especially Back Benchers. I am grateful that new Members will be able to look to you as they begin the great privilege of serving their constituents in this House. May I, too, welcome each and every one of the new Members who is here for the first time, starting their great responsibility?
I also thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for presiding over this election, and congratulate him on becoming the new Father of the House. More than 40 years of continuous service is a stunning achievement. Back in the 1970s, Sir Edward wrote a book described as
“a personal collection of quotations dating from 3000 BC to the present day which might be said to cast some light on the workings of the Tory mind”.
After the last six weeks, it might be time for a new edition.
Mr Speaker-Elect, you preside over a new Parliament that is the most diverse by race and gender that this country has ever seen, and I am proud of the part that my party, and every party, has played in that; and this intake includes the largest cohort of LGBT+ MPs of any Parliament in the world. Given all that diversity, Mr Speaker-Elect, I hope that you will not begrudge me a slight departure from convention to pay tribute to the new Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has done so much in her career, over so many years, to fight for a Parliament that truly represents modern Britain. We welcome her back to her place.
As in any new Parliament, we now have the opportunity and responsibility to put an end to a politics that has too often seemed self-serving and self-obsessed, and to replace the politics of performance with the politics of service, because service is a precondition for hope and trust, and the need to restore trust should weigh heavily on every Member here, new and returning alike. We all have a duty to show that politics can be a force for good, so whatever our political differences, it is time to turn the page, unite in a common endeavour of national renewal, and make this new Parliament a Parliament of service.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Mr Speaker-Elect, I am pleased to join the Prime Minister in welcoming you back to the Speaker’s Chair, and may I also praise the wonderful speech from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith)?
I start by congratulating the Prime Minister on his election victory; as he takes on his formidable task, he and his family deserve the good wishes of all of us in this House. In our politics, we can argue vigorously, as the Prime Minister and I did over the past six weeks, but still respect each other, and whatever disputes we may have in this Parliament, I know that everyone in this House will not lose sight of the fact that we are all motivated by our desire to serve our constituents and our country, and to advance the principles that we honourably believe in.
I welcome to their places every Member, new and old, and congratulate them on their results; to be sent to this place by one’s constituents is the greatest honour, privilege and responsibility. I know that every one of us will try to repay the trust placed in us, and I look forward to continuing to represent the interests of my rural north Yorkshire constituents. One of the great aspects of our system is that no matter how high you rise, you still have that constituency, which keeps you grounded, and my advice to all Members is to appreciate the role that you have, every day that you have it.
For those of us in my party, let me begin with a message to those who are no longer sitting behind me: I am sorry. We have lost too many diligent, community-spirited representatives whose wisdom and expertise will be missed in the debates and discussions ahead. It is important that after 14 years in government, the Conservative party rebuilds, so we will now take up the crucial role of His Majesty’s official Opposition professionally, effectively and humbly. Restoring trust begins with remembering that being here is an opportunity to do what those we serve expect from us. In our case, that means holding the new Government to account.
May I congratulate the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? He has given 41 years of remarkable, dedicated service to this House and his constituency. I know full well how ferociously my right hon. Friend fights for the interests of his constituents, and I applaud him for that. He is also testament to the benefits of an early morning dip in the Serpentine. Members may be interested to note that the Bottomleys have had a big influence on my right hon. Friend’s career: in 1974, my right hon. Friend ran against Arthur Bottomley in Middlesbrough in his first effort to enter this place. Today, he takes over from Sir Peter, who will be missed. May I also congratulate the new Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)? We have our differences on policy, but no one can deny the right hon. Lady’s important role in this House, and the inspiration she has provided for so many young women of colour. The right hon. Lady is truly in every sense of the word a trailblazer.
May I join you, Mr Speaker-Elect, in thanking House staff for their hard work in welcoming our new colleagues to this House and their service over the coming Parliament? Finally, may I congratulate you, Mr Speaker-Elect? When you first ascended to the Speaker’s Chair, you did so with a healthy majority, and that was testament to your wide appeal and the confidence that this House places in you and your judgments.
The last Conservative Prime Minister to speak from the Opposition Benches, the right hon. John Major, said about the role of the Speaker:
“The job specification is pretty daunting: the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon are only the basic requirements. We demand also impartiality, independence and fairness.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 9.]
Mr Speaker-Elect, you have shown over the past four and a half years how to protect that careful balance. The past few years in this House have been at times difficult, and you, Sir, have always brought this House together. That was clear when we lost our colleague Sir David Amess. I know your guidance and support for Members then was greatly appreciated.
It is a privilege to be in this House. Our democracy is powerful and, as we have witnessed, it can be definitive, but I know that this House will, true to its best traditions, hold the Executive to account, and that Mr Speaker-Elect will facilitate that. In conclusion, I have no doubt that we will face difficult days together in this place, but I also know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we will all welcome your leadership and guidance in the months and years ahead.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As the first Back Bencher to speak in this Parliament, let me say that I seem to remember that almost the very first thing you said in your distinguished career as our Speaker, Mr Speaker-Elect—you said it almost before you arrived in the Chair—was that your primary job was to defend us Back Benchers, and I know that you will do that with enormous spirit and diligence. This place is primarily about great events and the Opposition holding the Government to account, but it is also about the right and duty of all us Back Benchers to have our views and our say, even if some of our views are a bit idiosyncratic. We all welcome the fact that we are such a diverse Parliament in every single way, but above all, we are a Parliament of a diversity of views. We are all equal. To be fair, some are more equal than others, but you, Mr Speaker-Elect, will defend our right to speak our mind and to hold the Government to account.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Peter Bottomley, who gave such wonderful service to this House. He sent me a lovely little note today. He said, “Have fun, do some good, and make people happy.” You, Mr Speaker-Elect, cannot make all of us happy all the time, but every single day, you try to make most of us happy for most of the time.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I congratulate the Speaker-Elect on his election. He has been Speaker through tumultuous times, but he has never failed to serve with grace, expertise and fairness. I also congratulate the 304 new Members entering Parliament after the election, and say to them: it is a great job, and you will never regret coming here. I congratulate the officers of the House, who have organised such a meticulous and careful induction. When I was a new MP, they just gave you a bunch of keys and told you to get on with it.
When I was a new Member in 1987, there were only 40 female Members of Parliament. Today, we have 264. Some of us are glad that we have lived to see this. I cannot speak about the increased number of female Members of Parliament without referencing my predecessor, Baroness Harriet Harman, who did so much work to have an equal and diverse House.
We are going into very tumultuous times. Historically, the House has played a role in events both national and international. I am sure that it will be the same going forward, and that we will be presided over excellently by the Speaker-Elect.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Mr Speaker-Elect, it is a real pleasure and privilege to say, on behalf of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, congratulations on your re-election. You know only too well how tough a task you are taking on, so thank you for agreeing to serve. You have shown time and again your commitment to the vital role that the House plays in holding the Government of the day to account. As the Mother of the House said, the new Government face a difficult task in clearing up the mess they have inherited. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will hold the Government to account; that is our job. We will focus on the health and care crisis, on ending the sewage scandal, and on helping people with the cost of living crisis.
Mr Speaker-Elect, the new Government have a huge majority, so it will be a particularly difficult job for the Speaker to help the Opposition parties as they do their job of holding the Government to account. I am sure that you will do it with independence and impartiality, as you always have. We want to work constructively with you on that, as the largest third-party force in this Parliament for over 100 years.
For the benefit of new Members, may I say, Mr Speaker-Elect, that you have always been a real champion of the security and safety of all Members and staff, as well as looking after our health and welfare? We are grateful to you for doing that, Sir. Just yesterday, you asked after my health following my active campaign. The House may be interested to know that after I had reassured you about it, you expressed real enthusiasm about bungee jumping. May I congratulate you again, and wish you the very best for this Parliament?
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker-Elect. I wish to begin by welcoming all new Members to the Chamber, in particular those from Scottish constituencies. There are probably a few more new Members from Scottish constituencies than I would have liked, but I look forward to working constructively with them to deliver in the best interests of the people we are all so fortunate to represent.
To you, Mr Speaker-Elect, I think it is safe to say that you and I did not always see eye to eye during the course of the last Parliament. But in politics, and in life, it is important to let bygones be bygones and to focus on the future. Events of that time showed us that we have quite a lot in common, both then and at the general election, because despite the best efforts, and indeed the best intentions, of certain people, we both managed to hang on to the seats that we hold so dear. I look forward to working constructively with you over the coming weeks, months and years, to allow us to best represent the people we respect and the finest traditions of this House.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Congratulations, Mr Speaker-Elect. We are thrilled to see you back in the Chair. Some new Members of Parliament who have yet to understand just how this place works will learn through time that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) needed no further encouragement. While the reference was appreciated, no doubt, by his mother and others, Members will see the consequences.
We have all survived, and some of us even enjoyed an energetic election campaign. All of us will have experienced the odd one who approached us and said, “I’m not voting for you.” I had my fair share, and there is no surprise in that. But in the Guildhall Square in Londonderry— somewhere I would not expect to get too many votes—this man came up and said, “I’m not voting for you; I’m voting for Lindsay Hoyle.” He was a Chorley man, and he impressed upon me the constituency grounding you have, your commitment to the community, and the length of service you have given him, his neighbours and your neighbours. He impressed upon me how fondly you are thought of within your home constituency.
I, in turn, was able to reflect to him how you have risen within the office you hold; how over the last number of years we have seen just how important it is to have a true champion of Back-Bench representatives in Parliament. You have given us that. It was a pleasure for me to reflect to him, and to you and the House today, just how fond we are of you. You bring solemnity to the office you hold, but you never lose the steadfast and chirpy nature of your Lancashire roots. Thank you for putting yourself forward and for being prepared to serve us—this House and democracy—in this way. On behalf of my party colleagues and, I trust, those others representing Northern Ireland constituents, I wish you well and thank you for it.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
Mr Speaker-Elect, thank you very much. We are the new kids on the block. We have no experience in this Parliament whatsoever, even though some of us have tried many times over the years to get here, so we cannot judge you from working in this place, but we can judge you from how the outside world sees you. I mean not just the United Kingdom but the world, because Prime Minister’s question time is global, box office politics. It is pretty clear to everyone that you act with great neutrality and that you have brought tremendous dignity to the role as Speaker, so we absolutely endorse you entirely for this job. That is, I must say, in marked contrast to the little man who was there before you, who besmirched the office so dreadfully in doing his best to overturn the biggest democratic result in the history of the country. We support you fully, Sir.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. I, too, rise to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker of this House, and to wish you well in presiding over this historic Session of the new Parliament. I am heartened that, for the first time in history, the proportion of women elected here is over 40%. More than half of those are new to this House. It is fantastic to see steady progress towards proper representation.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate not just the incoming Government on their victory, but the smaller parties in this place. All of us here, whether we belong to the largest parties, the smallest parties or no parties at all, were elected in the same way. Whatever the size of our parliamentary grouping, the principle of one vote, one value is the foundation of our democracy. That principle should be cherished and defended for the sake of all our constituents.
I repeat to the House what I said upon your election all those years ago: all those constituents are equal and they all deserve respect. We begin the work of representing and championing our constituents, and I have every confidence, Mr Speaker-Elect, that you will continue to ensure that representatives here are treated fairly, because our constituents should be treated fairly, too. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker-Elect, and congratulations on the support you have received from across the House today. I can already say, on behalf of the new cohort of Green MPs, that we have been very pleased with the support you have given us. You have shown that you go out of your way to support new Members in this House, and to support MPs from all parties to be able to hold the Government to account and represent our constituents. I know that I speak on behalf of all the Green MPs—and, I am sure, all new MPs—in saying that we are very conscious that we are here first and foremost to be constituency MPs, to represent our residents. We appreciate your support in enabling us to do that.
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about the importance of politics being about public service? I very much hope that in this new Parliament we can all move to a less tribal form of politics, where we work together where we can agree and move things forward in the national interest.
Mr Speaker-Elect, thank you for your support, and congratulations.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker-Elect. I am very glad to be back and very glad to see the results of the election. Many people in Northern Ireland are delighted with it. We look forward to holding the new Government to account for the promises that they have made to the people of the north of Ireland.
I want to take this opportunity to welcome all the new Members—even the ones I profoundly disagree with. The one piece of advice I would give every new Member is to remember that the Speaker does not just chair the meetings; he is the boss. He is in charge of everything around this place and it would do well for you not to fall out with him. In fact, even a bit of sucking up is sometimes good. I want to take this opportunity, as I say that, Mr Speaker-Elect, to congratulate and thank you for all the fantastic work you did over the last Parliament. You were a champion, as you said yourself, for Back Benchers and for the smaller parties. Even when some of us pushed very close to the line, when we felt that certain things had to be put on the record of this House—he knows what I am talking about—you were there to protect us from some of the legal authorities who would like to get at us. Thank you very much for that.
Mr Speaker-Elect, I wish you all the best in corralling this new House. It is very diverse in terms of representation and in terms of opinion. I look forward to the end of tribal politics—I think that will be a sight to behold. Congratulations.
Sorcha-Lucy Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Thank you, Mr Speaker-Elect. I warmly congratulate you on your re-election.
I am here as the new MP for Lagan Valley and representative for the Alliance party of Northern Ireland. My presence here demonstrates a changing, more shared and more integrated Northern Ireland. Of that, we in Alliance are very proud.
Mr Speaker-Elect, you have managed business smoothly and fairly, including ensuring that smaller parties have had their voices heard. Given the greater diversity of parties in this House, that leadership and precedent becomes even more important. I also want to put on the record how well you represented Parliament on the world stage, and at the time of the passing of our late Queen and the coronation of our new King.
I also want to associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about this job being one of public service. All of us in this House owe a debt of gratitude to our constituents. I will never forget the constituents of Lagan Valley, and I join everyone in the whole House in looking forward to committing myself to public service for all.
Mr Speaker-Elect
Finally, I call Jim Allister to speak on behalf of Traditional Unionist Voice.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I join in the congratulations and best wishes expressed to you, Mr Speaker-Elect. I have observed your speakership from a distance, and now I will have the benefit of observing it rather more close up. With me on my best behaviour, and with you at your tolerant best, I trust that we will have a mutually cordial relationship. I will certainly draw on your guidance and the experience that you bring to this House.
I come to this House on behalf of my constituents in Northern Ireland with a very clear message: Northern Ireland’s place within this United Kingdom must be restored. We must end the partitioning of our kingdom by a foreign border, and we must end a situation in which 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland are controlled not by this House, and not by Stormont, but by a foreign Parliament. That is an appalling constitutional affront, and my focus in this House will be on playing my part in seeking to redress that gross inequity.
Mr Speaker-Elect
May I thank all the party representatives for their kind words? It would be remiss of me not to thank the previous Deputy Speakers as well, so I say a big thank you to Nigel, Rosie and Eleanor, and to Sir Roger for stepping in.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest. She is right that it is important to ensure that every person in the country can be connected. That is why we have encouraged social tariffs, which have been rolled out by a large number of operators. Constituents of hers who are on benefits will be able to access those. They cost from £10 a month, bringing cheap connectivity to everybody.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
For rural businesses, internet connectivity is essential. As we move into the summer, that will be the case for many tourism businesses. Sales can be lost and repeat business not return if tills and card machines do not work because of unreliable 4G and the internet going down. Very often, businesses suffer and do not see many sales. The National Audit Office recently said that the Government’s shared rural network programme is, like everything else, behind schedule. What message does the Minister have for businesses that will struggle to keep going this summer with no internet connection or poor broadband speeds?
Andrew Griffith
We are enormously blessed in this country with the quality of our universities, so many of which, together with the firms that sponsor undergraduate and postgraduate research, are making magnificent efforts in the important area of diversity in STEM.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says she wants to ensure that
“brilliant people can contribute and succeed, irrespective of their background.”
That is only right, but given that only 16% of practising engineers are women, it is like trying to play premiership football with half our players barred from the pitch. Can the Minister explain why not one of his major science strategies—the life sciences vision, the national AI strategy, and the UK science and technology framework—features an equality impact assessment? We have no idea whether those strategies are helping to break down barriers or not. The Secretary of State’s war on woke has so far cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds and delivered only damage limitation. Why can the Minister not fight for our scientists and engineers instead?
Andrew Griffith
Dementia is a crippling disease for so many people, and will touch so many people’s lives. The Health Secretary and I recently hosted the heads of the Dementia Mission at No. 10 Downing Street to announce more funding, and I should be happy to meet the hon. Member and any representatives of dementia organisations in his constituency.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
A facility that would allow the production of good manufacturing practice phages would be an asset to many companies working in the field, and would play a key part in tackling antimicrobial resistance. What consideration has been given to repurposing the Rosalind Franklin Institute as a GMP facility for phage production rather than selling it off?
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant work on connectivity in the border areas—[Applause.]
Mr Speaker
As you know, we do not allow clapping, but this is an exception.
Julia Lopez
Please allow me to say welcome back to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). What an appropriate way for the new bionic MP to walk in: on science questions.
To answer the question about broadband, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) has been a fantastic champion for connectivity on the border. There will be contracts covering North Shropshire and parts of Wales as we get the Type C off the ground, so I hope for better connectivity very soon for his constituents.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is good to see the hon. Member for South Thanet back in his place.
Last year, the UK hosted the AI safety summit and set up the AI Safety Institute. However, since then, developers of frontier AI have refused to share information with the Safety Institute, leaving it toothless. Labour has repeatedly called for binding regulation to support safety. With the Secretary of State discussing the future of AI this week, is it not high time for the Government to finally agree to binding regulation?
Andrew Griffith
That is absolutely right. It is intrinsic to the scientific method that research is impartial, and that it is challenged, public, transparent and open. That is always our commitment, but it is also to fully fund research and to turn this country into the science and technology superpower that it deserves to be.
Mr Speaker
Before we begin Prime Minister’s questions, I am sure the whole House would like to join me in welcoming back our colleague and friend, the inspirational hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay).
Craig, it is so good to have you back among us. You are the man of the moment. I met your daughter, whose birthday is tomorrow. I say to you and your family that you are an inspiration to the people in this country who have suffered with sepsis. You have shown us the way forward. Thank you for everything—[Applause.] That is the only time I allow clapping.
May I also just mention that we have the Speaker of the Icelandic Parliament and the Premier of the Cayman Islands with us today?
The Prime Minister
We are investing in better healthcare right across our country, and I am delighted to see that Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust was recently allocated over £6 million to upgrade A&E and will benefit from a new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton as part of the programme.
As my hon. Friend says, that is possible only because of the difficult decisions we have taken to bring inflation back to normal and grow the economy. Today’s figures show that the plan is working, and I am sure the whole House, perhaps including the Leader of the Opposition, will welcome the news that inflation is now back to normal.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I will begin by saying a few words to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). First, thank you for meeting me privately this morning with your wife and daughter, so I could personally convey my best wishes to all of you. Secondly, on some occasions—there are not many—this House genuinely comes together as one, and we do so today to pay tribute to your courage and determination in not only coming through an awful ordeal, but being here with us today in this Chamber. Thirdly, I want to acknowledge your deep sense of service. I think politics is about service, and resuming your duties as an MP and being here today is an example to all of us of your deep sense of service, and we thank you for it.
I also welcome Figen Murray, who is up in the Gallery, who lost her son Martyn seven years ago today in the Manchester Arena attack. We remember everybody who was lost in that awful attack. She is campaigning for Martyn’s law, which we must make a reality as soon as possible.
The infected blood scandal reflects a profound failure across almost every part of the British state. In our apologies on Monday and on the question of compensation yesterday, this House was united; however, we have too many times heard similar sentiments from that Dispatch Box and this one. There are many hard yards to go. Does the Prime Minister agree that we will make real progress only if we finally tackle the lack of openness, transparency and candour that Sir Brian Langstaff identified as having prolonged the victims’ suffering for decades?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend gives a superb and passionate economic diagnosis. He is right: inflation is now back to normal, and, indeed, lower than that of France, Germany and the United States. Inflation is at its lowest level in years, our economy is growing faster and wages are rising, which is why we need to stick to the plan that is working. He is right to point out the risks of what the Labour party proposes: 70 new laws —70 new laws! Labour has caved in to its union paymasters, and what does that mean? It means that it will cost jobs and damage our economic recovery.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
May I begin by also welcoming the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) back to the Chamber? He is indeed an inspiration to all of us.
Mr Speaker, speculation is rife, so I think the public deserve a clear answer to a simple question. Does the Prime Minister intend to call a summer general election, or is he feart?
The Prime Minister
It is always nice to see the changed Labour party in action. When it comes to the ICC, this is a deeply unhelpful development, which of course is still subject to a final decision. There is no moral equivalence between a democratically elected Government exercising their lawful right to self-defence and the actions of a terrorist group, and the actions of the ICC do absolutely nothing to get a pause in the fighting, or to get the hostages out or aid in.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an emotional day for me, and if you will indulge me, I will say a few thanks, because a few are due. Apologies are due, actually, as I have caused the breaking of so many rules today: there has been clapping; I have got trainers on because my shoes would not go over the plastic feet; and my jacket would not go over the bionic arm.
First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for being there for me and for coming to visit. I will tell everybody this little story: the rest of the hospital thought I must be dreadfully ill, because they said, “That guy’s got the funeral director in already.” [Laughter.] But you have been, and you have cared for me throughout, and I thank you for that. The other person in this Chamber I would like to thank is the Prime Minister, who has been with me throughout. He has not advertised it, but he has been to see me multiple times. To me, that shows the true depth of the character of the Prime Minister, and I thank him for that.
I thank my wife, who is in the Chamber, my daughter and other family members—my father and my father-in-law. I thank my wife for being there every single day of those many months in hospital. She could only do that because of the support of family behind her. In the Public Gallery—they cannot quite see me, unfortunately—are many of the staff from the NHS. [Applause.] They took me from where I was, close to death, to where I am today, so I thank them for that. I am not entirely sure I am that happy that the two surgeons who took this lot off are there, but never mind.
There is a question here. Prime Minister, can we please ensure that we embed recognition of early signs of sepsis? It would not have worked for me—mine was too quick and too sudden—but many people do get a few days. If we can stop somebody from ending up like this, I would say that that is a job well done. I would also like to impress upon Health Ministers the importance of allowing the provision of appropriate prosthetics, particularly for multi-limb amputees, at the right time. Thank you, Mr Speaker; thank you, Prime Minister. [Applause.]
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister, I should say that he will take longer than is usual for a statement, and I totally agree with the extra time. I am just letting the other Front Benchers know that there will be some extra time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Lots of Members want to get in, and all Members will get in. I now come to the shadow Minister.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his collegiate tone and for the constructive approach he has taken throughout our conversations and in his response this afternoon. I totally embrace the need to continue the dialogue with victims. That is why I was pleased that Sir Robert Francis agreed to take on that role, having done the study into compensation. We have obviously met a number of times, and I have explained to him what Jonathan Montgomery and the experts panel did. I am pleased that he has got to a point where he is sufficiently satisfied to move forward in this way.
As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, there is no restriction on the budget, and where we need to pay we will pay. We will minimise delays and address the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff with respect to speed and efficiency, removing as much complexity as possible. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the representatives of different estates and tracing additional claimants. Those will be matters that the interim chief executive and interim chair will look at carefully. I envisage through the month of June an exercise to engage meaningfully with representatives of the communities, to look at some of the assumptions in the work of that expert panel, which will inform the regulations that we are duty bound to bring to the House within three months of the Victims and Prisoners Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Some of the other matters about appropriate memorialisation, criminal charges and duty of candour, on some of which progress is being made in different ways, are probably best left to some of my colleagues at a subsequent point. As I said, I anticipate that we will have an early opportunity to discuss those matters in full, in a debate soon after the Whitsun recess.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House will understand that my remarks will be subsidiary to those of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
It is 36 years since I was with the first of my friends who I knew had been infected, and 33 years since that person died. Friendships got fractured, and families were changed forever.
One point that I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will put to his fellow Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care regards whether those who are still infected in some way can have a kind of national health service passport, so that when they go to get medical attention they are not asked the same questions that my constituents were asked every time: “How much have you been drinking? Why is your liver the way it is?” and all the rest. It is important that young clinicians understand that when they see haemophilia or a whole blood infection, they can take for granted a lot of things that do not need to be asked. That humanity needs to be spread.
I recognise that my right hon. Friend has built on the work of our right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), and perhaps I may say in a cross-party way that Sue Gray deserves respect for when she led civil servants in that, as do her successors in the civil service who are putting things right.
My final point is this: people are not being awarded lottery sums, although in some way they make up for some of the losses and recognise some of the hurt. For some families who may not have been used to having much money around—indeed, most of them are used to having very little money because of the consequences of infection—there may need to be mediation services in case they do not agree. It would be a good idea if Sir Robert, or others, could consider whether such services could be made available, in the same way that other people who have suddenly come into some degree of money can get some kind of help. Families sometimes do not find it easy to decide how money should be shared.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done and for his constructive engagement with me over the past six months, and over many previous years. He made the point about his friend and the stigma that some of the victims have had to endure, which is why injury and social impact are reflected in the heads of loss under the scheme. He also made some observations about how better awareness of some conditions can be taken forward. I will discuss that with ministerial colleagues—several from the Department of Health and Social Care are in their places today.
My hon. Friend mentioned my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), but I am aware that a large number of Paymasters General—including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting alongside me today—have done an enormous amount of work to get us to this point, along with many officials, including James Quinault, who has led the work latterly. I want to acknowledge their contribution; this is not about me.
More broadly, my hon. Friend made some wise observations about the need to ensure that, for the communities who will be given significant sums of money—rightly so, and in line with what they would be entitled to if they went through a legal process—the appropriate framework of support is in place to assist them to receive that money in a way that is not destructive to their lives.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement and for the points he has made today. I was there yesterday for the two hours of Sir Brian Langstaff’s presentation of his report, which was a moving moment for all of those who have suffered and waited for so long.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of the appointment of Sir Robert Francis, which seemed to be welcomed in the Gallery. I recognise that what is absolutely critical for the scheme to be successful is full engagement with the communities and that the explanation of how the scheme has been constructed and any concerns about the wider support that is needed are interrogated fully before the regulations come back to the House. Throughout, the scheme has been about reconciling speed and efficiency with consultation, which is why it has been done in such a way over the past few months.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about hepatitis B and access to schemes. I will be happy to correspond with him separately on that—obviously, there are lots of technical issues. He asked about the £210,000, which he can see is an irregular amount. That is because I was trying to get the maximum amount that could be universally paid, as quickly as I could, to those who are infected and alive without any risk of paying the wrong amount, and that is the amount that I was advised. What is really important is that we get to the examination of entitlements and what that balancing payment is, and get that payment out as quickly as possible. This is not a stalling tactic; it is about trying to reconcile the competing priorities of responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money and getting payments made as quickly as possible for the most vulnerable in our community.
With regard to memorialisation, on these matters there will need to be wide engagement and I do not want to make binding commitments today. I have said what I have said, and I or another Minister will return to that in due course.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank the Minister for what he said and how he said it. I know that he, the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Chancellor, who is sitting next to him, will make this right. Clearly, the majority of Sir Brian’s recommendations are for the health and social care sector, and the Health and Social Care Committee, which I chair, will play its part, working with the Health Secretary—I see her in her place—and NHS England to ensure that all the recommendations are implemented, unlike with some previous accepted patient safety recommendations. May I ask the Minister about the five loss categories? They make every sense, and I note his two small refinements, but will the financial loss award reflect the reality that many infected blood victims, to give just one example, cannot access life insurance?
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Lady for her observations and for her ongoing engagement since my appointment. I take seriously her point about having no decisions without full engagement. I made a decision, in order to get to this point where we would, in principle, accept the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff and move forward with the independent expert panel. As I have said to her previously, I was always prepared to reveal the names of those individuals, but I did not want them to be distracted while they did urgent work to make progress quickly. Their names will be available shortly—today.
Sir Robert Francis and I had a number of conversations about the interaction between Government and the expert group, and the logic that I used to get to the heads of loss and the scheme today. I am delighted that he is prepared to facilitate engagement with the communities.
I have also been mindful of the principle of the Government managing public money while also recognising Sir Brian’s imperative to set up a body that is at arm’s length from Government, in order to generate some trust with a very vulnerable community. Reconciling those two has not been straightforward. The right hon. Lady asked about the accountability of the arm’s length body. These matters will need to be discussed further with respect to the regulations that we must lay before the House.
A number of my predecessors have done a lot of work on this issue. I am pleased that we have made significant progress, but there is an intense amount of work to be done to deliver this over the next three months. I look forward to working constructively with her, as Sir Robert Francis does, to ensure that we get this to the right place as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Dame Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
We have heard descriptions of institutional defensiveness today, but we should be clear about what we are talking about: this was a grubby secret kept by the Department of Health. The people who suffered as a consequence were treated as an inconvenience to be managed. It flies in the face of what we are required to do in this House: hold Ministers accountable for what happens in their Departments. We need to learn from this, to improve how we behave and to hold the Executive to account in future. If we do not, this incident will shame us all—not just those directly responsible. We need to properly establish a duty of candour for civil servants in the advice they give to Ministers, and a requirement that Ministers must satisfy themselves that they are giving appropriate challenge and consideration to the advice they receive, so that everyone involved in delivering services in future can be held directly responsible, and this place does not continue to be a charade.
Infected Blood Inquiry Report
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
Mr Speaker, Sir Brian Langstaff has today published the final report of the infected blood inquiry. This is a day of shame for the British state. Today’s report shows a decades-long moral failure at the heart of our national life. From the national health service to the civil service, to Ministers in successive Governments, at every level the people and institutions in which we place our trust failed in the most harrowing and devastating way. They failed the victims and their families, and they failed this country.
Sir Brian finds a “catalogue” of systemic, collective, and individual failures, each on its own serious, and taken together amounting to “a calamity”. The result of this inquiry should shake our nation to its core. This should have been avoided. It was known that these treatments were contaminated. Warnings were ignored, repeatedly. Time and again, people in positions of power and trust had the chance to stop the transmission of those infections. Time and again, they failed to do so.
Sir Brian finds “an attitude of denial” towards the risks of treatment. Worse, to our eternal shame, and in a way that is hard even to comprehend, they allowed victims to become “objects for research”. Many, including children at Lord Mayor Treloar College, were part of trials, conducted without their or their parents’ knowledge or consent. Those with haemophilia or bleeding disorders were infected with HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B through NHS treatment, through blood clotting products such as factor 8, including those who had been misdiagnosed and did not even require treatment. Many were infected through whole blood transfusions. Others were infected through their partners and loved ones, often after diagnoses had been deliberately withheld for months or even years, meaning that these infections should easily have been prevented.
I find it almost impossible to comprehend how it must have felt to be told that you had been infected, through no fault of your own, with HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C; or to face the grief of losing a child; or to be a young child and lose your mum or dad. Many of those infected went on to develop horrific conditions, including cirrhosis, liver cancer, pneumonia, TB and AIDS, and to endure debilitating treatments, such as interferon, for these illnesses —illnesses the NHS had given them.
Many were treated disdainfully by healthcare professionals, who made appalling assumptions about the origin of their infections. Worse still, they were made to think that they were imagining it. They were made to feel stupid. They felt abandoned by the NHS that had infected them. Those who acquired HIV endured social rejection, vilification and abuse at a time when society understood so little about the emerging epidemic of AIDS. With illness came the indignity of financial hardship, including for carers, those widowed and other bereaved family members.
Throughout it all, victims and their loved ones have had to fight for justice, fight to be heard, fight to be believed and fight to uncover the full truth. Some had their medical records withheld or even destroyed. The inquiry finds that some Government papers were destroyed in
“a deliberate attempt to make the truth more difficult to reveal.”
Sir Brian explicitly asks the question: “Was there a cover-up?” Let me directly quote his answer for the House: “there has been”. He continues:
“Not in the sense of a handful of people plotting in an orchestrated conspiracy to mislead, but in a way that was more subtle, more pervasive and more chilling in its implications. To save face and to save expense, there has been a hiding of much of the truth.”
More than 3,000 people died without that truth. They died without an apology. They died without knowing how and why this was allowed to happen. And they died without seeing anyone held to account.
Today, I want to speak directly to the victims and their families, some of whom are with us in the Gallery. I want to make a wholehearted and unequivocal apology for this terrible injustice. First, I want to apologise for the failure in blood policy and blood products, and the devastating—and so often fatal—impact that had on so many lives, including the impact of treatments that were known or proved to be contaminated; the failure to respond to the risk of imported concentrates; the failure to prioritise self-sufficiency in blood; the failure to introduce screening services sooner; and the mismanagement of the response to the emergence of AIDS and hepatitis viruses among infected blood victims.
Secondly, I want to apologise for the repeated failure of the state and our medical professionals to recognise the harm caused. That includes the failure of previous payments schemes, the inadequate levels of funding made available, and the failure to recognise hepatitis B victims.
Thirdly, I want to apologise for the institutional refusal to face up to these failings—and worse, the denial and even the attempt to cover them up—the dismissing of reports and campaigners’ detailed representations; the loss and destruction of key documents, including ministerial advice and medical records; and the appalling length of time it took to secure the public inquiry that has delivered the full truth today.
There is layer upon layer of hurt, endured across decades. This is an apology from the state to every single person impacted by this scandal. It did not have to be this way. It should never have been this way. On behalf of this and every Government stretching back to the 1970s, I am truly sorry.
Today is a day for the victims and their families to hear the full truth acknowledged by all and, in the full presence of that truth, to remember the many, many lost loved ones. But justice also demands action and accountability, so I make two solemn promises. First, we will pay comprehensive compensation to those infected and those affected by this scandal, accepting the principles recommended by the inquiry, which builds on the work of Sir Robert Francis. Whatever it costs to deliver the scheme, we will pay it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will set out the details tomorrow.
Secondly, it is not enough to say sorry, pay long-overdue compensation and then attempt to move on. There can be no moving on from a report that is so devastating in its criticisms. Of course, in some areas medical practice has long since evolved, and no one is questioning that every day our NHS provides amazing and lifesaving care to the British people. But Sir Brian and his team have made wide-ranging recommendations. We will study them in detail before returning to the House with a full response. We must fundamentally rebalance the system so that we finally address the pattern, so familiar from other inquiries such as Hillsborough, where innocent victims have to fight for decades just to be believed.
The whole House will join me in thanking Sir Brian and his team, especially for keeping the infected blood community at the heart of their work. We would not be here today without those who tirelessly fought for justice for so many years. I include journalists and parliamentarians in both Houses, especially the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but most of all, the victims and their families. Many of them have dedicated their lives to leading charities and campaign groups, pouring their own money into decades of running helplines, archiving, researching and pursuing legal cases, often in the face of appalling prejudice. It is impossible to capture the full pain and injustice that they have faced. Their sorrow has been unimaginable. They have watched loved ones die, cared for them as they suffered excruciating treatments, or provided their palliative care. Many families were broken up by the strain. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been knocked off course; dreams and
potential unfulfilled.
But today, their voices have finally been heard. The full truth stands for all to see. We will work together across Government, our health services and civil society to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen in our country again. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the collegiate tone in which he has responded to today’s report, and for his sincerity. He is right that it is irrefutably clear that an unconscionable injustice has been done—the result of a consistent and systemic failure by the state time and again, decade after decade. That is why I apologise wholeheartedly and unequivocally to every single person impacted by the scandal. The anger and sorrow felt across this House is the right response. It is right that we now act on behalf of the victims, their loved ones and the whole community, who expect us to put right this historic wrong.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The thousands of people at Central Hall thanked Sir Brian Langstaff, and he thanked them. As has been said, we should acknowledge the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and her leadership of the all-party group.
Permanent secretaries and Cabinet Secretaries need to say to everyone throughout their chain, “Are we doing something that is right? Are we doing something that is necessary? Are we doing something that will work?” Does my right hon. Friend agree that if those questions had been asked more effectively, the number of tragedies would have been not five for every MP—and five times again for everyone injured or affected—but greatly reduced, and that we would have learned the truth earlier?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend for his dedicated work co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, alongside the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I assure him that Sir Brian’s report is highly detailed and sets out a number of recommendations, and that we will respond to it in full as quickly as possible.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I wish to begin by stating something I think we all now agree is self-evidently the case, which is that this scandal represents the very worst of Westminster: decades of deflection, decades of denial and, of course, decades of deceit; children used as research; parents watching their children die; children watching their parents die; and tens of thousands of people impacted, many of whom are not here to see this day. For those who imposed this tragedy upon them, no consequences have yet been felt. But today is not about them.
Today is about the victims, and I say to them, on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party on these Benches: I wish to offer you three things. The first is an apology. I am incredibly sorry that this happened to you. The second is to say, quite openly, thank you; thank you for your determination and your desire—for being able to pry open the doors of this place and ensure that your voices were heard by all of us. We would not be here today without your efforts. The third is to say to the victims: I can assure you that we will do everything we can to ensure that the Government implement the recommendations, as laid out today.
We have heard the Prime Minister make a very sincere promise in relation to compensation; and we will work with him and his Government, and indeed any future Government, to ensure that that promise is swiftly kept.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement, and for her care and unwavering dedication to delivering justice. She knows better than anyone in the House the devastation that this scandal has inflicted on the community, and the strength they have shown in their fight for the truth. Sir Brian’s report sets out a decades-long failure and makes it clear that this is a moment of national shame. No one could fail to be moved by the stories within it, by the utterly shameful treatment of victims and their loved ones, by the callousness and cruelty that they suffered, and by their outstanding bravery, resilience and refusal to yield to a lifetime of prejudice and trauma. They have fought for the truth to be out, and they were right. Above all, today is a day for their voices to be heard.
Mr Speaker
That completes this short statement. There will be a full statement tomorrow, when all the details of compensation will be brought to the House and all Members will be able to get in.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received any explanation for why we are getting only half an hour of the Prime Minister’s time? I know there will be a statement tomorrow by the Paymaster General, which we are all looking forward to, but what could be more important than being here and taking questions from—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will answer the question. I have worked very closely with different parties and, most importantly, this is about the families. It is their day, which is why the statement has been done in this way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to respect that, rather than question it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which takes me back to our time on the Work and Pensions Committee. I genuinely feel disappointed about that report, and the Government strongly rejected its findings in 2016, but we will continue to implement the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the Committee’s recommendations through many of our policies to improve disabled people’s lives, whether that is WorkWell, our disability employment advisers, or the work we are doing on fit note reform. We are absolutely determined to support disabled people in work. Indeed, in the first quarter of 2024 there were 10.3 million disabled people in employment, which is an increase of 400,000 on the year before.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend is absolutely committed to disability employment, but can she please outline exactly what she is doing, both at the DWP and in her wider role across Government, to ensure that inclusion is embedded in policy and leadership so that disabled people—particularly those who are neurodiverse—are supported into civil service jobs?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for her point and for her work in this area. We are delivering on the Buckland review, and all ministerial Departments are signing up to Disability Confident, progressing to Disability Confident leader status and having evidence independently validated on that work. Arm’s length bodies are also signing up to Disability Confident, and we are working with parent Departments to encourage more of them to do the same. One in 10 senior civil servants declare themselves to be disabled, and since 2013 the proportion of civil servants with a disability has increased to 16.8%.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I am already a little confused by the Minister’s answers this morning. In December I raised the issue of the disability pay gap, and she replied from the Dispatch Box that the Government were closing the disability employment gap. She has mentioned this morning that that is apparently happening, but the numbers tell a different story: in the period from January to March 2024, 100,000 fewer people with disabilities were in employment compared with the same period 12 months earlier. Why does she think the plan is not working?
Maria Caulfield
As usual, this Government have already done all of that work. In England we have the Wellbeing of Women pledge, which the NHS, the civil service and this Parliament have signed. We will take no lectures from Labour on women’s health. While we have had a women’s health strategy for two years, Labour-run Wales has no health plan for women.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Research shows that one in 10 women with menopausal symptoms have left work due to a lack of support. In some cases, this will have been due to discrimination. Women experiencing menopause know that this is because of their age and sex, but the law does not protect them on that combined basis. Why not?
Mims Davies
I try not to give standard answers, and I will not give a standard answer to that question. I recently met people who were diagnosed with Parkinson’s early—perhaps as young as 35—and I am happy to meet more broadly with Parkinson’s UK. I recently met Mind, and as much as my diary allows, and at events in the House, I engage with advocates for disabled people and those with health conditions. I am happy to pick up that meeting, because if it is not already in my diary, it should be soon.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recently concluded that the UK Government have
“failed to take all appropriate measures to address grave and systematic violations of the human rights of persons with disabilities and has failed to eliminate the root causes of inequality and discrimination.”
With those damning findings in mind, will the Minister confirm whether an equality impact on the proposed welfare reforms has been carried out, and if so, can we expect it to be made public?
Kemi Badenoch
There is a lot that my Department in particular is doing. We have put out multiple bits of legislation that will help to entrench workplace equality, whether that is around flexible working rights or sexual harassment in the workplace. We are doing more even on the trade side, where we continue to ensure that we have provisions that advance gender equality in our free trade agreements because we want to break down barriers and create opportunities for female entrepreneurs.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unlike both the Liberal Democrats and Labour, who believe in top-down targets that would decimate the green belt, we believe in local people having a say over their local communities. That is why we are ensuring that we make best use of brownfield land and that we conserve and enhance our precious countryside for generations to come.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
On Monday, the Prime Minister treated us to his seventh relaunch in 18 months. He vowed to take on the dangers that threaten the country, so it was good to see the Minister for common sense immediately take up that mantle by announcing a vital crackdown on the gravest of threats—colourful lanyards. Meanwhile, in the real world, after 14 years of Tory Government, the prison system is in chaos. Does the Prime Minister think that his decision to let prisoners out 70 days early makes our country more secure?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for rightly championing the views of his constituents on this important topic. Network operators must follow legal obligations when deploying their networks and Ofcom can, in fact, investigate reports of failure to follow those obligations. I know that the Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), met representatives of the sector and Ofcom recently to raise concerns about reports of poor pole siting and asked operators to share infrastructure, and I will ask her specifically to give my hon. Friend a more detailed update.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On Monday, the Prime Minister outlined what he considers to be extremist threats to our society, and in doing so he actively compared North Korea, Iran and Russia with those people in Scotland who believe in independence, so can I ask him to rise, once, to the standards befitting his office, and apologise for those puerile and pathetic remarks?
Public Procurement
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the details of the trade deals that we have with other countries, he will see that by and large, those trade deals have been created in order to further commerce and trade between two countries, and agree that there will be areas in which there will be a level playing field between our country and that other country—that is often the basis of a trade deal. The United States is the world’s leading economy and has been for over a century, and can sometimes strike deals or come to arrangements that other countries that are not the world’s largest economy cannot. I am afraid he will have to go and do his own research on American trade deals, but I can explain to him why we have the procurement system we do and why, because of the steps we have taken in this legislation, we will be creating additional opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises in his constituency as well as in mine. That is much for the better, and it is a much better situation than we found ourselves in while we were still in the EU, with a very cumbersome, slow-moving and long-unreformed system of procurement to which we had been shackled for about 40 years.
For the avoidance of doubt, Members will want to be aware that this statutory instrument has been corrected to remove drafting references and a couple of typographical errors that were mistakenly added during the publishing process. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting these regulations and will approve this SI today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen
According to the advice of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, last published on 14 December 2023, following a previous publication on 17 July which updated advice issued on 19 April, the process of ministerial engagement with the register is ongoing, and is updated on an ongoing basis. When Ministers are appointed, they fill in an extensive form which their permanent secretaries then review, and there is a continuous process of updating that as interests evolve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
In a letter to me, the Deputy Prime Minister said of Mr Johnson’s recent trip to Venezuela that he was
“not acting on behalf of the Government, and the trip was not funded by the Government.”
In a written parliamentary answer to me, we were told that Mr Johnson had only made a “courtesy call” to the British residence. Last week, however, the chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments made it clear that Mr Johnson was “in breach” of the Government’s British appointment rules. We also know from Mr Johnson himself that he had been “extensively briefed” by the embassy. When will the Government come clean about what has actually gone on with Boris Johnson’s Venezuela visit?
Oliver Dowden
This is an important issue, which is why we established the National Cyber Security Centre. It brings together Government Communications Headquarters expertise with that of the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office and others. Through the National Cyber Security Centre, we work with the House authorities and others to make sure that they have sufficient and appropriate advice, but also to advise on equipment and the general security of Members of Parliament. If they have concerns about their cyber-security, I would urge them either to get in contact directly with the National Security Cyber Centre or to do so through the relevant House authorities.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is right to say that the threat is intensifying. Late last year, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy urged the Government to offer more active support on cyber-security to local authorities. He may be aware that last month my own local authority, Leicester City Council, suffered a hugely sophisticated attack, which disrupted many local authority services and has hugely inconvenienced many of my constituents, who rely on those services. Given that we are seeing more of these ransomware group attacks on public institutions across the world and that he says, rightly, that the threat is intensifying, what urgent support and guidance is he offering local councils, such as mine in Leicester?
Mr Dhesi
The Prime Minister recently announced an extraordinary round of honours, which many described as lacking integrity and bringing the system into disrepute. It included a donor who had donated £5 million to the Conservative party, and four Conservative MPs loyal to the Prime Minister. In the run-up to a general election that he is widely tipped to lose, what could possibly be the justification for the Prime Minister announcing and recommending a round of honours outside of the traditional King’s birthday list?
Mr Speaker
Order. It would have been easier if you had been here for the beginning of the question. Stretching the question is testing my patience and the patience of the Government Front Bench.
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Member for Slough for turning up. I refer him to the answer I gave a few moments ago.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes absolutely the right points and I agree with his call for urgency. As I set out in my response to the urgent question a few days ago, my absolute priority is delivering this as quickly as possible. The legislation to set up the infected blood compensation authority is in the other place and will be debated next Tuesday. We announced on 17 April what we are doing on interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected. Further work is going on and I am engaging with the community over the first 10 days of May—so before 20 May, when the report will be published. His representation on urgency is heard by me and I am working on it as quickly as I can.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The amendment that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and passed by this House at the end of last year was to set up a compensation scheme within a strict time limit of three months. That time limit must remain in the Bill and victims need concrete action. Will the Paymaster General tell us when the Treasury will set out its detailed costings for the scheme? Secondly, and most importantly, when can victims expect their final compensation payments?
John Glen
The costings will be a responsibility of the Treasury, but a joint team between the Cabinet Office and the Treasury is working to give advice to the Prime Minister so that we can make decisions in a timely way as soon as possible from 20 May. I am conscious of the fact that across all the different communities of infected and affected as much clarity is needed as possible. They have had to wait too long, so I am making sure that, as far as we can, when those final decisions are made there will be not only a headline decision, but clarity on process thereafter. It is those details I am working on now and I hope that a decision can be made as soon as possible from 20 May.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Having a child with a rare condition who continues to get sicker despite treatment is every parent’s worst nightmare. Recent revelations that children as young as three were immorally used as guinea pigs and given infected blood are truly horrific. Without payouts of compensation, how can any parent have faith that the UK Government will ensure accountability and that they will take real responsibility for this scandal?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question. Anzac Day is an incredibly important day. I was in Australia only a few months ago. We are only as strong as our relationships with our allies. They have made an extraordinary contribution to world peace, particularly during the world wars. I pay tribute to veterans across the globe. It is not easy fighting wars, particularly wars of choice that are not global conflicts, and then coming back and reintegrating into society. Veterans can be incredibly proud of their service. People like me and my counterparts in Australia and elsewhere will continue to strive night and day to improve their lot in civil society when they return.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It really does depend. Even in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, there was provision for a red lane for goods going into Northern Ireland that might flow into the Republic of Ireland. The answer does rather depend on whether the numbers he has looked at are for checks in the red lane or the green lane, or for checks under the new internal market scheme. The numbers rise and fall depending on a whole host of factors. When trade increases, as it is doing, so will the number of checks as a whole, but the percentage will go down, because the checks will be mostly on goods going through the red lane. We will soon get to the point promised in the Command Paper of there being no checks when goods move within the United Kingdom internal market system, save those conducted by UK authorities as part of a risk-based or intelligence-led approach to tackling criminality, abuse of the scheme, smuggling or disease risk. That will ensure the smooth flow of goods within the UK internal market.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
A vital part of securing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union is the shared prosperity fund, which is about levelling up and making sure that Northern Ireland has its fair share. Funding is due to end next year, in March 2025. What clarification can the Secretary of State give to community, voluntary and other groups that need to plan ahead, and whose funding faces a cliff edge if they do not have assurances soon?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, because there is a genuinely interesting point about the growth in the number of people who live in Northern Ireland who declare themselves to be Northern Irish. I would like to think that it is reflected in the way that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister go about their business. They are working together in a respectful and positive way, respectful of each other’s communities, and wanting the best for the place they represent. I believe that signifies a healthy development for the future of Northern Ireland politics.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your eloquent tribute to Frank Field. He was a brave and a generous man.
We look forward to working with the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) in his new position.
The UK’s successful bid to host the 2028 Euros with Ireland is a fantastic opportunity for Northern Ireland, but with just three years left to build the Casement Park stadium, the Executive have yet to invite tenders. In May last year, the Secretary of State was asked who would provide the money, and he replied:
“All partners. I guarantee it.”
Given that the clock is ticking, how and when does the right hon. Gentleman intend, with others, to honour that guarantee, so that the stadium gets built on time?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The right hon. Gentleman conflates two issues. First, there are the ongoing elements of how we deal with public interest immunity and the “neither confirm nor deny” policy in court cases in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is the question about the new commission we are setting up to deal with legacy. I believe that even those with civil cases will be able to use the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery in good faith when it opens its doors on 1 May.
Only this month, the former co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past, Denis Bradley, said that he thinks the people involved with the ICRIR
“are very good people, I have a lot of regard for them… And if people decide it offers them something, well then, I will be very reluctant to make too many strong judgments around it. Because”—
this is the problem that the UK Government are trying to solve—
“we have created a swamp around legacy, a complete swamp. Anything that helps some people to get out of that swamp, I won’t be too critical.”
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I add my party’s tribute to Frank Field. We send our condolences to his friends and family. He was Birkenhead’s MP for 40 years, and he was a very faithful servant not only to his constituents but to this place.
The return of devolved government to Northern Ireland has been rightly welcomed across this House. Will the Secretary of State reaffirm his Government’s commitment to the principle of consent, not just in Northern Ireland but in Scotland and Wales? The peoples of those places should be able to choose the form of government best suited to their needs, whether that happens to be inside or outside the United Kingdom.
Mr Baker
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and I am grateful to her for putting it on the agenda. Certainly we will engage with the Executive on this point. She is right to mention revenue raising. It is a fact that the Executive need to both transform public services and improve revenue raising, so that everything in Northern Ireland can be delivered on a sustainable basis.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I wish to welcome our special guest, who is observing our proceedings today, His Excellency Johari Abdul, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Malaysia. Your Excellency, you are most welcome.
Jonathan Gullis
I, too, wish to pass on my thoughts and prayers to Lord Field’s family, friends and colleagues and particularly to students and teachers at the Birches Head Academy in Stoke-on-Trent who are part of the Frank Field Education Trust.
Since being elected in 2019, I have: helped to reopen Tunstall Town Hall with a new library and family hub; secured funding for additional CCTV, new alley gates and better lighting in Tunstall to ensure that our streets are safe; and helped to breathe new life into Tunstall’s old library and baths, thanks to this Government’s levelling-up fund of £56 million to Stoke-on-Trent.
Sadly, Labour-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council seeks to undermine that progress by: introducing a brand new tax on residents to have their garden waste collected; refusing to take planning enforcement against rogue and absent landlords who plague Tunstall High Street; and increasing crime and antisocial behaviour by dumping undesirable people in the centre of Tunstall. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that Stoke-on-Trent Labour—[Interruption.]
Jonathan Gullis
This just goes to show the disdain that the Labour party has for Stoke-on-Trent.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time for Stoke-on-Trent Labour to axe the garden tax, to take the fight to lousy landlords—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a question to be asked and a time in which we ask it. I suggest that the hon. Member puts in for an Adjournment debate. I am sure that he has the answers.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, there is not much that I can add to that. [Laughter.] The hon. Member has, as ever, proved what an excellent campaigner he is for his constituents. He highlights the same problems with Labour councils across the country, raising taxes and letting services fall into disrepair. Of course he is totally right to be holding rogue landlords to account.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
First, may I share the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments regarding our Jewish community and wish them a happy Passover? I wish to acknowledge the loss of David Marquand and Baroness Massey, both of whom made historic contributions in Parliament, politics and wider life. I also send my condolences, following today’s news, to the family of Lord Frank Field, who was a good friend of mine and a colleague. He was a tireless campaigner against poverty and a champion for his constituents.
Mr Speaker, I know that the Conservative party is desperate to talk about my living arrangements, but the public wants to know what this Government will do about theirs. Natalie from Brighton has been served with two no-fault eviction notices in 18 months. She joins nearly a million families at risk of homelessness due to the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure to ban this cruel practice. Instead of obsessing over my house, when will he get a grip and show the same obsession with ending no-fault evictions?
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I join in wishing the Jewish community a happy Passover and sending my condolences to the family and loved ones of Frank Field.
Two years ago, when mass graves were discovered in Ukraine, this House united in condemnation and rightly treated those graves as evidence of war crimes, which Russia must be made to answer for. Yesterday, Palestinian officials uncovered two mass graves outside the bombed hospitals in Gaza. Those graves also constitute a war crime, do they not?