Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have noted the media reporting an assertion from Downing Street that the pre-announcement of Budget measures is entirely routine. For the avoidance of doubt, I am always happy for Ministers to come to the House to make announcements in the run-up to a Budget. This discourtesy arises when those announcements are made elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I certainly do agree. I am sure it will come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members that one of the Conservative’s former Chancellors decided to comment on the September 2022 fiasco. What did Kwasi Kwarteng say the other day? “Okay, my Budget wasn’t perfect”—the master of understatement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I must say, the Conservatives have learned absolutely nothing. They trashed ministerial standards and standards in this House when in government. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Shannon, you are meant to sit down again.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Conservatives trashed standards in government. My suggestion to them is to reflect on the past 14 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman about working people. Working people are the people who have been so appallingly let down by the Conservative party. They are the people who are paying extra costs in their mortgages and their rents every month; they are the people hit by the cost of living; they are the people left on record waiting lists by the Conservative party; and they are the people who this Government are determined to deliver for.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Paul Holmes.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—there I was ready to defend your honour, Sir. Even after your ruling yesterday, the Government made more announcements on the BBC this morning concerning health services, so has the Paymaster General asked his advisers at the Cabinet Office whether they think the Chancellor or any other Minister has broken the ministerial code? If he has not asked for that advice, why not?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Come on. The Conservative party, which showed zero respect for the ministerial code in office, trying to put questions like that is appalling—it is double standards. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I expect better of a senior Whip!

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman’s question sets out exactly why negotiating an SPS agreement is so important. The Government have set out that there will be a UK-EU summit in the first half of next year, and it has been made clear to me, and indeed to Vice-President Šefčovič, that there should be progress by then.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the Front Benchers to look towards the Chair now and again, because sometimes I cannot hear what is being said, so that would help me, since Members are speaking through me in the third person. I am trying to get the House to work how it should.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to implement the Government’s five missions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in September I was delighted to visit the Emergency Planning College, which has served as the UK Government’s centre for resilience expertise since its founding 80 years ago. I am pleased to report to the House that the UK Resilience Academy is on track to be established next April. It will build on the training currently offered by the Cabinet Office’s Emergency Planning College, providing a wide range of training for organisations, businesses and individuals. Of course, as part of the resilience review we will further consider whether policy is working in respect of training and skills, and where it needs to be improved.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, John Glen.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I turn to another area of national resilience. National security experts have been warning about the Chinese Communist party’s use of genomics companies to harvest DNA data globally and dominate the genomics industry supply chain. Given the increasing importance of genomics for public healthcare, and the potential dual-use application of the technology, will the Minister confirm whether her Department is conducting a risk assessment on the data privacy, national security and ethical risks posed by genomic companies linked to systemic competitors?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s announcement on the £100,000 interim payments to the estates of the deceased infected, thereby maintaining the momentum that was established earlier this year, and I thank him for his thorough statement to the House yesterday introducing the statutory instrument. Will he confirm that it is his intention to ramp up rapidly from the payouts to the test case cohort of 20 infected? Can he give the House as much detail as he can about when others in the infected cohort should expect to receive their payouts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the Leader of the House has said:

“This new Parliament offers a chance to turn the page after the sorry and sordid record of the last.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 857.]

That is why we will be issuing a new robust ministerial code. As we promised in our manifesto, the House has established a Modernisation Committee, which will be tasked with driving up standards and addressing the culture of the House. That sits alongside the work the Cabinet Office is doing to improve standards and confidence in politics.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The Opposition support the new Government’s aspirations for the highest ministerial standards, and we acknowledge the significant experience that the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff can bring to her role as envoy to the nations and regions. Why then, in breach of Cabinet Office guidance, have Ministers not published a word on her terms of reference, her new salary or her special adviser severance payment, and is she correct in her understanding that she is at the top of the list of new peers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party seems to stand for few things currently, and it was astonishing that it decided that one of them is hereditary privilege in the House of Lords.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Our agenda for growth will help small businesses. We are determined to support them. I assure my hon. Friend that they are an important part of our resilience strategy and our resilience review. Earlier this week, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) met a range of businesses to discuss shared goals in respect of resilience and to ensure that they can have input into the strategy we are preparing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster provide an update on the current situation for British nationals in Lebanon, including the measures being taken to ensure their safety? Are there any plans for further evacuations, given the ongoing instability in that region?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question; she is a long-standing champion for justice for victims of the infected blood scandal and, indeed, the nuclear test veterans that she mentioned. We are looking to introduce a broad duty of candour—a general duty of candour. I should also point out that criminal sanctions will be really important to punish the most egregious breaches, and I am pleased to confirm today, as the Prime Minister announced in September, that the Bill we will bring forward will include criminal sanctions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dr Danny Chambers.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I withdraw my question.

[Mr Speaker]

In that case, I will go to Gareth Snell.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4.   The Minister will be aware that the dire financial inheritance bequeathed by the last Government means that there is rightly a renewed focus on how we spend public money. Will she tell the House what work she is doing across Government to ensure better use of public money, drive down waste and improve efficiency, in particular with regard to consultants?

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the VIP lanes for covid contracts. The fact is that Conservative Members had the opportunity to take a stand when Owen Paterson broke the rules, and they voted instead to rip up those very rules.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Olney.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Holden]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

Discussions are ongoing across government, including with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. There are wider opportunities and challenges that technology presents us, and we want to ensure we get the balance right.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) asked, DWP statistics show that 45% of people over the state pension age have a disability. As we have already heard, they can face hugely inflated energy costs because of the need for equipment such as stair lifts, extra fridges or oxygen tanks, all of which demand electricity. In the discussions that the Minister has outlined, have the Government given any consideration to the introduction of a social tariff to help mitigate the extra costs that disabled people face in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

Given the recent high-profile allegations of appalling abuse that many women suffered in their —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, the Member is asking a question. You should not walk in front of her.

[Caroline Voaden]

Given the recent high profile allegations of appalling abuse of women in their workplaces that have been all over the news, what steps are the Government planning to protect women who come forward with allegations of such abuse in future, particularly in the workplace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. I pay tribute to her, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention along with others across the House who have campaigned on this issue for years. The new Government have been able finally to take urgent steps to address this issue. Protection zones around abortion clinics will be in force from 31 October—the end of this month. The Government are determined that anyone exercising their legal right to access abortion services should be free from harassment and intimidation. The police will now have the power to deal with anyone they reasonably suspect to be obstructing, causing harassment or distress, or influencing within a buffer zone.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I welcome the ministerial team to their places. The Conservative Government launched the £100 million violence against women and girls strategy in our determination to make our streets safer for women and girls. It involved creating a new 24/7 sexual assault helpline, transport safety champions and a £5 million safety of women at night fund. Why does this Labour Government feel that setting a target of merely halving violence against women and girls is a suitable ambition? Surely nothing but targeting the total eradication of this horrific criminality, whether in the home or on the streets, is enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

The Secretary of State has met the leaders of all the devolved Administrations to discuss our intention to work with them very closely across all issues that come under our sphere, including the Cass recommendations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for taking up the recommendations of the Cass review. Children struggling with their gender identity deserve our protection and a holistic, understanding approach via our new NHS centres, rather than irreversible medical and surgical intervention. Will the Minister confirm that the British Medical Association’s original position that the Cass review contained unsubstantiated recommendations will not delay that protection being put in place for vulnerable children?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the campaigning work that she has done in this crucial area in the face of the tragic loss of Valerie Forde. We must do everything we can to ensure that all victims of violence against women and girls receive the support that they need. I will make arrangements for her to discuss further with a Home Office Minister what more we need to do, particularly around police training and standards.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

The Conservative Government introduced the hugely successful opt-out HIV and hepatitis testing programme for A&Es in London, Brighton, Blackpool and Manchester, with a £20 million commitment to expand the programme to 33 more, diagnosing more than 1,300 people with HIV in the first two years and tackling health inequalities. This has meant, crucially, that more LGBT+ people, women, people of black African ethnicity and older people have been diagnosed and supported. Will the Minister assure the House that the funding and commitment will remain?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The most visible sign of the failure of the last Government was the NHS. We are going to expand the role of community pharmacies and accelerate the roll-out of independent prescribers. We need much more care to be delivered in local communities so that problems can be spotted earlier, and we will train thousands more GPs. We were elected to change the country, and that means getting the NHS back on its feet. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have much more to say about that in the Budget—about fixing the foundations of our economy so that we can put money in people’s pockets, fix our public services and rebuild Britain.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

Tomorrow, the Government will publish their anticipated changes to employment law. Given the weekend’s events, when did the Prime Minister first become a convert to fire and rehire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

On debt, we left the Government the second lowest debt in the G7. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will hear the Leader of the Opposition.

[Rishi Sunak]

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, it is

“hard to escape the suspicion”

that the Government are attracted to this change because

“it would allow for significantly more borrowing”.

The Chancellor previously said that this change would be “fiddling the figures”, so I have a simple question: does the Prime Minister still agree with the Chancellor?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I was sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s father, and I think we would all pass him our best wishes. Cancer is another example of the dreadful state the last Government left the NHS in. The Darzi report, published just a few weeks ago, showed that some cancer standards have not been met since 2015 and that no progress was made in diagnosing cancer at stage 1 and stage 2 between 2013 and 2021. I am really pleased that we have just announced a £6.4 million research network, developing new AI software to identify cancer early. We will get the NHS catching cancer on time, diagnosing it earlier and treating it faster.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Across this House, we all agree that we need to get our economy growing strongly again so that we can improve people’s lives and raise the money for our public services. The Liberal Democrats believe that one of the best ways of doing that is to improve our relationship with our European neighbours on things like trade, and I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has made that a priority in his first few weeks, but what I just do not understand is that he has ruled out negotiating a youth mobility scheme with our European partners. This could be so good for young people, for businesses and for re-establishing that relationship. Will he reconsider?

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Prime Minister, I am sure that the House will wish to reflect for a moment on the fact that this is a solemn day. It marks the first anniversary of the terrorist attack on Israel. Dozens of hostages are still in captivity, and the conflict has claimed thousands of innocent civilian lives. Today we should come together to remember all those who have been affected. I call the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Today we mark a year since the horrific attack on Israel by the terrorists of Hamas. It was the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust—a day of sorrow, a day of grief. Over 1,000 people were massacred, with hundreds taken hostage, in an attack born of hatred, targeted not just at individuals, but at Jewish communities, at their way of life and at the state of Israel—the symbol of Jewish security to the world. Fifteen British citizens were brutally slain that day. Another has since died in captivity. Our thoughts today are with the Jewish people around the world, the Jewish community here in the United Kingdom, and all those we lost a year ago.

For so many, the pain and horror of that day is as acute today as it was a year ago. They live it every day. Last week I met the families of British hostages and those killed on 7 October. I sat with them as they told me about their loved ones. I will never forget their words. Mandy Damari spoke of her love for her daughter Emily. She said:

“my personal clock stopped at 10:24 on the 7th of October”,

the moment when Emily sent a desperate, unfinished message as Hamas attacked her kibbutz. She is still held captive today. We can hardly imagine what hostages like Emily are going through, or what the families are going through—the agony day after day. So I say again: the hostages must be returned immediately and unconditionally. They will always be uppermost in our minds. I pay tribute again to the families for their incredible dignity and determination.

Today is also a day of grief for the wider region, as we look back on a year of conflict and suffering. The human toll among innocent civilians in Gaza is truly devastating. Over 41,000 Palestinians have been killed, tens of thousands orphaned and almost 2 million displaced, facing disease, starvation and desperation without proper healthcare or shelter. It is a living nightmare and it must end. We stand with all innocent victims in Israel, Gaza, the west bank, Lebanon and beyond, and we stand with all communities here in the United Kingdom against hatred of Jews or Muslims, because any attack on a minority is an attack on our proud values of tolerance and respect, and we will not stand for it.

With the middle east close to the brink, and the very real danger of a regional war, last week the Iranian regime chose to strike Israel. The whole House will join me in utterly condemning this attack. We support Israel’s right to defend herself against Iran’s aggression in line with international law. Let us be very clear: this was not a defensive action by Iran; it was an act of aggression and a major escalation in response to the death of a terrorist leader. It exposes once again Iran’s malign role in the region. It helped equip Hamas for the 7 October attacks. It armed Hezbollah, which launched a year-long barrage of rockets at northern Israel, forcing 60,000 Israelis to flee their home, and supports the Houthis, who mount direct attacks on Israel and continue to attack international shipping.

I know the whole House will join me in thanking our brave servicemen and servicewomen, who have shown their usual courage in countering this threat, but make no mistake: the region cannot endure another year of this. Civilians on all sides have suffered too much. All sides must now step back from the brink and find the courage of restraint. There is no military solution to these challenges, so we must renew our diplomatic efforts. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, I have had discussions with the leaders of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, the G7 and the European Union, and made the case at the United Nations for political solutions to end the fighting.

In the weeks ahead, we will continue that work, focusing on three areas. The first is Lebanon, where our immediate priority is the safety of British citizens. Our team is on the ground, helping to get people out. We have already brought more than 430 people home on chartered flights, and we stand ready to make additional evacuation efforts as necessary. I again give this important message to British citizens still in Lebanon: you must leave now. We are also working to ease the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon—last week we provided £10 million of vital support, in addition to the £5 million we are already providing to UNICEF—but the situation cannot go on. We will continue to lead calls for an immediate ceasefire, and for the return to a political plan for Lebanon based on Security Council resolution 1701, which requires Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani river. They must stop firing rockets and end this now, so that people on both sides of the border can return to their homes.

Secondly, we must renew efforts for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, but we cannot simply wait for that to happen. We must do more now to provide relief to the civilian population. That is why we have restarted aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We are supporting field hospitals, and the delivery of water, healthcare and treatment for malnourished children, but the ongoing restrictions on aid are impossible to justify. Israel must open more crossings and allow lifesaving aid to flow. Crucially, Israel must provide a safe environment for aid workers. Too many have been killed, including three British citizens. Israel must act now, so that, together with our allies, we can surge humanitarian support ahead of winter.

Thirdly, we must put in place solutions for the long term, to break the relentless cycle of violence. The ultimate goal here is well understood: it must be a two-state solution. There is no other option that offers stability and security. We need to build a political route towards it, so that Israel is finally safe and secure, alongside the long-promised Palestinian state. That requires support for the Palestinian Authority to step into the vacuum in Gaza; it requires an urgent international effort to support reconstruction; and it requires guarantees for Israel’s security. We will work with our allies and partners to that end, but the key to all this remains a ceasefire in Gaza now, the unconditional release of the hostages, and the unhindered flow of aid. That is the fundamental first step to change the trajectory of the region.

Nobody in this House can truly imagine what it feels like to cower under the bodies of their friends, hoping a terrorist will not find them, mere minutes after dancing at a music festival. Nobody in this House can truly imagine seeing their city, home, schools, hospitals and businesses obliterated, with their neighbours and family buried underneath. It is beyond our comprehension, and with that should come a humility. It is hard even to understand the full depth of this pain, but what we can do is remember. What we can do is respect and listen to the voices that reach out to us at these moments, and what we can do is use the power of diplomacy to try to find practical steps that minimise the suffering on the ground and work towards that long-term solution, so that a year of such terrible and bloody conflict can never happen again. That is what we have done on the Labour Benches, it is what the whole House has done, and it is what this Government will continue to do. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his words. On an occasion like this, it is important that we speak with one voice across the House, and I think the whole House will agree with him that we must bring the hostages home. They must be uppermost in our minds.

The Leader of the Opposition asks about the assistance in Lebanon. Humanitarian assistance is being provided—aid and money, as well as training, as he will know—and we are working towards the Security Council resolution.

On evacuations, we will make sure that any British national has the assistance they need to come home. I repeat that now is the time to leave. If any British national requires assistance, I ask them please to make contact with us so that we can provide it.

In relation to defence spending, let me recommit to increasing it to 2.5%. We will set out our plans in due course, but the most important thing today is for this House to do as it is doing: speaking with one voice on the one-year anniversary of an awful terrorist attack.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question, particularly her words about all civilian life being equal and protected. I confirm that everything that we are doing is aimed at de-escalating across the region. It is on the brink, and it is important for all sides to pull back from the brink. That is why we have been working so closely with our allies in the G7 on de-escalation, speaking with one voice.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.

On the anniversary of the horrific attacks in Israel, we remember the victims, the people taken hostage and their families, and we stand with the whole Jewish community. Earlier this year, I visited Israel and Palestine, and saw how both peoples were experiencing trauma. We must never forget the trauma of the hostages and their families. In Tel Aviv, I met Itzik Horn, a father still praying for his two sons, Yair and Eitan, to come home. We must urge all actors to take the steps most likely to get the hostages home quickly and safely.

The past year has seen terrible violence in the middle east, a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and an appalling spike in hate crimes here in the UK. We must stand firm against antisemitism and Islamophobia, we must press for an immediate bilateral ceasefire to end the terrible cycle of violence and bring about lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians, and we must do all we can to prevent a regional war in the middle east. UK forces rightly played their part in helping Israel to neutralise Iran’s outrageous attacks, and I hope that the Government will now try to convince Israel that keeping her citizens safe and secure is best achieved by restraint, not retaliation and the risk of a regional war. As we do that, let us take a tougher stance on Iran and all her proxies, from Hezbollah to the Houthis. Will the Prime Minister finally proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

We are horrified by the new crisis unfolding in Lebanon. Will the Government go further on humanitarian aid? Most importantly, we join the Prime Minister in calling for the cessation of rocket fire, the protection of civilians, and an immediate bilateral ceasefire, just like the one that we so desperately need in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about sexual violence, which, as she rightly says, has absolutely no justification. Along with other issues, we continue to raise any such allegations with our allies.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There are many different opinions on policy in the middle east, but does the Prime Minister agree that what must surely unite everyone in this House is our profound detestation of antisemitism in all its shapes and forces, as well as our profound love for the Jewish people on their day of suffering, especially as many of those who were murdered at the music festival and in the kibbutz were actively working for peace? Will he reflect that there are still many people—many Jewish and Arab people—who want a moderate solution, and that we should give them our support?

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

This morning, Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking him, the members of the inquiry and the whole team for their dedicated work.

I want to speak directly to the bereaved families, the survivors, and those in the immediate Grenfell community, some of whom are with us in the Gallery today. Sir Martin concluded this morning—I am afraid that there is no way of repeating this that will not be painful—that

“the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways”

by, as the report lays out in full, just about every institution responsible for ensuring their safety. In the face of an injustice so painful and so deserving of anger, words can begin to lose their meaning, after seven years still waiting for the justice that you deserve. I want to say very clearly, on behalf of the country, that you have been let down so badly before, during and in the aftermath of this tragedy.

While Sir Martin sets out a catalogue of appalling industry failures, for which there must now be full accountability, he also finds

“decades of failure by central government”.

He concludes:

“In the years between the fire at Knowsley Heights in 1991 and the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017 there were many opportunities for the government to identify the risks posed by the use of combustible cladding panels and insulation…by 2016, the department was well aware of those risks, but failed to act on what it knew.”

Further, he finds:

“The department itself was poorly run”

and

“the government’s deregulatory agenda…dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded.”

So I want to start with an apology on behalf of the British state to each and every one of you, and indeed to all the families affected by this tragedy. It should never have happened. The country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty to protect you and your loved ones—the people we are here to serve—and I am deeply sorry. I also want to express my admiration for the strength it must have taken to relive those events when giving your evidence to the inquiry, and indeed to see written down today the circumstances that led to the deaths of your loved ones.

After all that you have been through, you may feel that you are always one step away from another betrayal. I get that, and I know that I cannot change that with just words today. But what I can say is that I listened carefully to one of the members of the inquiry, Ali Akbor, this morning. He said this:

“What is needed is for those with responsibility for building safety to reflect and to treat Grenfell as a touchstone in all that they do in the future.”

I consider myself someone responsible for building safety, and that is exactly what I will do and what I will demand of this Government.

Today is a long-awaited day of truth. It must now lead to a day of justice—justice for the victims and the families of Grenfell—but also a moment to reflect on the state of social justice in our country and a chance for this Government of service to turn the page. That is because this tragedy poses fundamental questions about the kind of country we are. A country where the voices of working-class people and those of colour have been repeatedly ignored and dismissed. A country where tenants of a social housing block in one of the richest parts of the land are treated like second-class citizens, shamefully dismissed, in the words of one survivor, as

“people with needs and problems”

and not respected as citizens, as people who contribute to Britain, who are part of Britain and who belong in Britain. Unbelievably, that continued even after the tragedy. Sir Martin highlights:

“Certain aspects of the response demonstrated a marked lack of respect for human decency and dignity and left many of those immediately affected feeling abandoned by authority and utterly helpless.”

That alone should make anyone who feels any affinity towards justice bristle with anger. Sir Martin continues that he finds

“systematic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold the rainscreen cladding panels and insulation products.”

He goes on to say:

“They engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.”

Sir Martin also cites

“a complete failure on the part of the LABC”—

the Local Authority Building Control—

“over a number of years to take basic steps to ensure that the certificates it issued…were technically accurate.”

He finds that the work of the Building Research Establishment

“was marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices, a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting and a lack of scientific rigour”

and that the tenant management organisation

“must…bear a share of the blame”.

Its only fire safety assessor

“had misrepresented his experience and qualifications (some of which he had invented) and was ill-qualified to carry out fire risk assessments on buildings of the size and complexity of Grenfell Tower”.

He also finds

“a chronic lack of effective management and leadership”

on behalf of the London Fire Brigade, with tragic consequences on the night of the fire.

In the light of such findings, it is imperative that there is full accountability, including through the criminal justice process, and that this happens as swiftly as possible. I can tell the House today that this Government will write to all companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, as the first step to stopping them being awarded Government contracts. We will, of course, support the Metropolitan police and the prosecutors as they complete their investigations. But it is vital that as we respond to this report today, we do not do or say anything that could compromise any future prosecution, because the greatest injustice of all would be for the victims and all those affected not to get the justice that they deserve.

There must also be more radical action to stop something like this from ever happening again. One of the most extraordinary qualities of the Grenfell community is their determination to look forward. They are fighting not only for justice for themselves but to ensure that no other community suffers as they have done.

Some important reforms have taken place in the last seven years, which we supported in opposition, including banning combustible cladding, new oversight of building control, a new safety regime for all residential buildings over 18 metres, new legal requirements on social landlords, and making sure that fire and rescue services are trained and equipped to handle large-scale incidents, including moving from “stay put” to “get out” when needed. We are now addressing the recommendation from Sir Martin’s first report to introduce a new residential personal emergency evacuation plan policy for anyone whose ability to evacuate could be compromised, with funding for those renting in social housing.

We will look at all 58 of Sir Martin’s recommendations in detail. There will be a debate on the floor of this House. We will respond in full to the inquiry’s recommendations within six months, and we will update Parliament annually on our progress against every commitment we make. But there are some things I can say right now. There are still buildings today with unsafe cladding. The speed at which this is being addressed is far, far too slow. We only have to look at the fire in Dagenham last week—a building that was still in the process of having its cladding removed. This must be a moment of change. We will take the necessary steps to speed this up. We will be willing to force freeholders to assess their buildings and enter remediation schemes within set timescales, with a legal requirement to force action if that is what it takes. We will set out further steps on remediation this autumn.

We will also reform the construction products industry that made this fatal cladding, so homes are made of safe materials and those who compromise that safety will face the consequences. We will ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored, and that social landlords are held to account for the decency and safety of their homes. As the Government tackle the most acute housing crisis in living memory, building 1.5 million new homes across the country, we will ensure those homes are safe, secure and built to the highest standards; places of security, health and wellbeing that serve the needs of residents and their wider communities, because a safe and decent home is a human right and a basic expectation, and the provision of that right should never be undermined by the reckless pursuit of greed. One of the tragedies of Grenfell is that this is a community that nurtured so much of what we want from housing: people who had made the Tower their home and were entitled to a place of safety and security, not a deathtrap. And yet, time and again they were ignored.

Two weeks ago, I made a private visit to Grenfell Tower. I laid a wreath at the memorial wall and affirmed the Government’s commitment to the work of the Memorial Commission, delivering a permanent memorial on the site through a process led by the Grenfell community. As I walked down that narrow staircase from the 23rd floor and looked at walls burned by 1,000-degree heat, I got just a sense of how utterly, utterly terrifying it must have been. As I saw examples of the cladding on the outside of the building and listened to descriptions of the catastrophic and completely avoidable failures of that fatal refurbishment, I felt just a sense of the anger that now rises through that building. It left me a with a profound and very personal determination to make the legacy of Grenfell Tower one of the defining changes to our country that I want to make as Prime Minister.

To the families, the survivors and the immediate community, we will support you now and always—especially those who were children. In the memory of your loved ones, we will deliver a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country. In the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country; not just a change in policy and regulation, although that must of course take place, but a profound shift in culture and behaviour, a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are and wherever they live.

We will bring the full power of government to bear on this task, because that is the responsibility of service and the duty we owe to the memory of every one of the 72. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about the need for caution in comments relating to particular legal cases or inquests. I repeat the waiver that I granted under the sub judice rule on 21 June 2022, and I appeal to all Members absolutely to speak, but to be cautious about what they say.

I now call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister recognise how painful it must be for the Grenfell community to have had that tower looming over them for seven years, and for it to have taken seven years even to reach this stage? Having visited Grenfell, he will be aware that most of the 72 who died were among the most marginalised, and that they were largely people of migrant heritage. Can he give an assurance that the bereaved will receive all the support they need, including financial support, and can he also give an assurance that it will not take another seven years to bring those responsible to justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right to focus on the community and the bereaved. Decisions on a memorial, whatever form it takes, must be taken in consultation with the community, and I give an absolute commitment that we will do that as well as providing the support that they need. During my visit, I had a sense—just a small sense—of just how painful this must have been and continues to be. We cannot allow another seven years to pass before we take the necessary action.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his extremely powerful comments and associate my party with all of them. The Grenfell disaster is a tragedy that shames our whole society. The report lays bare failings of Governments of all parties over decades, and on behalf of my party, I am sorry. We must all learn from it and do everything we can to change the system, in order to prevent more horrifying tragedies like this from happening in the future.

It is right that we pause today and remember the 72 people who lost their lives, as well as the survivors and bereaved families and friends who have fought so long and so hard for justice. This is their day. They have waited far too long to get the truth, and many will remain frustrated that even after today they will still be waiting for justice and meaningful action. Let me therefore raise three of the many issues that the families have raised.

First, in order to get the justice that the families crave, criminality must be investigated, tried and punished, whether it is corporate manslaughter, fraud or misconduct in public office. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the police, prosecutors and courts will have all the resources they need to bring those responsible swiftly to justice?

Secondly, what more can the Prime Minister do—what more can we all do—to bring about greater urgency when it comes to acting on all these recommendations, so that the report does not just gather dust on a Whitehall shelf? Even now, seven years on, essential work to make more than 2,300 buildings safe has not even started. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what more will be done to remove dangerous cladding as quickly as possible, forcing those responsible to pay, not the tenants and leaseholders?

Finally, we must tackle the big systemic issues that come up time and again in such scandals, from Hillsborough to Horizon to infected blood. Like the victims of other scandals, the bereaved and survivors of Grenfell have called for a duty of candour on public officials, and we welcomed its inclusion in the King’s Speech. Can the Prime Minister tell us when that legislation will be published, and whether the duty will cover all public officials?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. I recently visited the Grenfell site with Lord Boateng, who is in the Gallery today—

[Mr Speaker]

We do not mention names.

[Dawn Butler]

Excuse me, Mr Speaker. Everybody there at Grenfell wants people to be held responsible—those in boots but also those in suits. A lot of money has also gone missing, and some have called for the use of joint enterprise to ensure that everybody is held responsible. Some survivors have written a poetry book, and there is one poem called “So What Simon” by Mary Gardiner. This is just the ending:

“This is not about mercy, grace or kindness.

It’s about justice and honesty and believing we are all born equal and that is how we die.

No amount of wealth can make us differ so much that where we live becomes a rabbit hutch.

Change your minds, you people with power, or give it over and let us flower.”

Does the Prime Minister agree that justice delayed is justice denied?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and pay tribute to his campaigning on this matter, including presenting a petition to this House on behalf of his constituent, Sean Cavens, back in April. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Robert Francis. Certainly the Government will publish his report ahead of laying regulations before this House. More broadly, in respect of compensation for which victims have waited far too long, this Government are committed to paying comprehensive compensation to the infected and affected victims of the scandal. Indeed, the Prime Minister said that on only his second day in office.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

May I start by offering my warmest congratulations to the Paymaster General? I offer him my sincerest good wishes in these opening weeks of a new Government. I start with deep respect for him, and I wish to support him where I can while fulfilling my constitutional responsibility.

It was the privilege of my ministerial life during my six months in office to accelerate and then deliver the legislation to set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Will the Paymaster General set out what progress has been made, given the urgency of this work? Is he on track to meet the expectations of Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis, given the engagement he will undoubtedly have had with them already?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the margins of the EPC, 44 countries signed up to a UK-led call to action to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, which is using malign shipping practices to evade sanctions and the oil price cap. In addition, Ukraine signed bilateral security arrangements with Czechia and Slovenia. The opening plenary discussion focused on the need for Europe to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

There can be no doubt of the high regard in which the right hon. Gentleman is held by the Prime Minister given that within his responsibilities he is tasked with resetting EU relations, reforming the House of Lords and renewing the constitution as well as legislation, delivering all public inquiries and completing delivery on infected blood. But will he confirm how he will work with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and whether in effect the Cabinet Office now runs the Europe desk in the FCDO from 70 Whitehall?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Government’s approach was set out in the Labour manifesto that was endorsed overwhelmingly at the general election. We will not rejoin the European Union, we will not return to freedom of movement, and we will not rejoin the customs union or the single market. What we will do is advance a reset in the relationship, and our test for that is for our European continent—the UK and the EU together—to be more secure, safer and more prosperous. That is what is in our national interest. It is in the EU’s interest as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

May I welcome the new Minister and indeed the whole team to the Front Bench? I am sure that the Minister will agree that his most important role may be in repairing that broken relationship with the European Union for our security, for our defence and, most importantly, for our economy. Given the new Prime Minister’s focus on mission-driven Government, and with our recent return to Horizon Europe, what discussions did he have—or will he have—about extending the youth mobility scheme to the European Union? That would give thousands of young people the chance to live, work and study abroad and increase our cultural and economic links with Europe again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I assure the hon. Member that we take value for money seriously; it has been a theme of today’s questions. The Government supported businesses during covid—necessarily and rightly—but it is important to ensure the best value for money in such schemes. In the end, it is all taxpayers’ money, so that should have been done. Where that is not the case, and where there has been fraud or waste, we will do our best to recover what was wrongly spent.

[Mr Speaker]

Can we pick up the pace of questions and answers? We are on topicals now. Rachel Hopkins will set a good example.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

T2. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our high streets and communities, and they create local wealth and opportunities across Luton South and South Bedfordshire. They play a vital role in providing social value by distributing growth locally, meeting environmental targets and developing social wellbeing. Does the Minister agree that it is essential to put social value at the heart of the Government’s growth agenda?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

Growth is a central mission of the Government. We want to use all the levers available to us, including procurement, to support good growth, jobs and local communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I begin by welcoming the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his position. I know that he will be supported by a brilliant team of civil servants who are truly dedicated to public service. As we saw in module 1 of the covid inquiry report last week, biological threats pose potentially catastrophic risks to our nation, and those risks will be exacerbated by long-term trends such as climate change. To help to prepare us, I published the UK biological security strategy. Will he take the opportunity to recommit to its objectives and to provide an annual update to the House on its implementation?

[Pat McFadden]

I welcome the right hon. Member to his position. I mean that genuinely: it is not easy to step up and serve in opposition after an election defeat, so I welcome what he and his colleagues are doing. I echo his praise for the civil service and the Cabinet Office team, who have supported me and my colleagues in the best way in the past few weeks. On the UK biological security strategy, my answer is simple and short: yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us keep going in that way.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I welcome that answer and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. An effective strategy must be underpinned by dedicated resources, which is why one of my final acts in the Cabinet Office was to announce that we would ringfence biological security spending across Government. Will he uphold that commitment, so that important resilience spending does not fall victim to day-to-day spending pressures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

We are getting on with our first steps, including on healthcare, which is a top priority for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We want to make the NHS fit for the future. We did it before and we can do it again.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

This summer, we have been celebrating 25 years of devolution in Scotland. In the last Parliament, the Scottish Affairs Committee looked at how the relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments has deteriorated in the past decade and how we can improve it. Does the Minister agree that in the next tranche of devolution, we should look at how to improve relationships with the devolved Administrations and regional authorities? Perhaps we should set up a UK council of Ministers to involve Ministers from all the Administrations and regional mayors.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I made a statement on the CrowdStrike IT outage in this House on Monday. There will be a lessons-learned process as a result of that, and also a Bill going before Parliament to ensure that we are resilient in relation to our cyber-security. That will strengthen our defences and ensure that more digital services than ever are protected.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Cat Eccles for the final question.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine is currently going through the process of adopting a little boy. She and her husband have one daughter already, conceived following several rounds of IVF, but, sadly, that has since been unsuccessful for them and they have chosen to adopt one of the many looked-after children looking for a loving home. My constituent runs a local business—a haberdashery and sewing workshop—that is extremely popular with local people, but in order to integrate the little boy into her family, she has taken time away from her business to be with him at home. She has since discovered that she is not entitled to statutory adoption pay as a self-employed person and will have to take this time off unpaid.

When adopting children from care, there is a really small window of opportunity to successfully integrate the child with minimal disruption. Costs to local authorities for looked-after children are rising. Would you agree that extending adoption pay to self-employed people in line with maternity pay would provide better outcomes for looked-after children?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are all on a learning curve, but we do need to ask short, punchy questions. Also, “you” means me, but I am sure that we will not be doing that again.

[Pat McFadden]

On this, perhaps the simplest thing is for my hon. Friend to write to me, so that I can get her question considered by the proper Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

That completes questions. Before we move to the business questions, I shall let those on the Front Benches leave.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Before I start my statement, I would like to pay a short tribute to President Biden, a man who, during five decades of service, never lost touch with the concerns of working people and always put his country first. A true friend of the Labour movement, his presidency will leave a legacy that extends far beyond America, to freedom and security on this continent—most of all, of course, in our steadfast resolve to stand by the people of Ukraine. He leaves the NATO alliance stronger than it has been for decades.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my recent discussions with leaders around the world, including at the NATO summit and at the meeting of the European Political Community last week at Blenheim Palace, the biggest European summit in the UK since the war.

Mr Speaker, the House knows the significance of Blenheim Palace, the birthplace of Winston Churchill—the man who steered the march of European history towards democracy and the rule of law. It was a shared sacrifice for freedom—the blood bond of 1945. At both summits, we reaffirmed our commitment to that bond of security and freedom, as I am sure we do in this House today. NATO is the guarantor of those values, and that is more important than ever, because, today in Europe, innocent lives are once again being torn apart. Two weeks ago today there was an attack on a children’s hospital in Kyiv—children with cancer the target of Russian brutality.

Russia’s malign activity is not confined to Ukraine. In the Western Balkans, in Moldova and in Georgia, it is sowing instability. And let us not forget that it has targeted people on our streets and attempted to undermine our democracy. In the first days of this Government, I have taken a message to our friends and allies of enduring and unwavering commitment to the NATO alliance, to Ukraine and to the collective security of our country, our continent and our allies around the world. That message was just as relevant at the EPC last week. May I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition, who brought that event to our shores in the first place?

At these meetings, I took a practical view of how the UK can meet this moment, driven not by ideology but by what is best for our country. That includes resetting our relationship with the European Union, because on these Benches we believe that the UK and the EU, working together as sovereign partners, are a powerful force for good across our continent. That has been my message throughout the many conversations that I have had with leaders in recent days, because countries want to work with Britain—of course they do. They welcome renewed British leadership on security, on illegal migration and on global challenges such as climate change. Our voice belongs in the room, centre stage, fighting for the national interest.

My conversations have focused on issues on which the British people want action, so I would like to update the House on my discussions in three specific areas. The first is European security. In Washington, I told NATO allies that the generational threat from Russia demands a generational response. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out a clear path to spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence. It is also why I launched a strategic defence review, led by the former NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, to strengthen our armed forces and keep our nation safe.

I also took the opportunity at the NATO summit to confirm that we will deliver £3 billion-worth of military aid to Ukraine each year for as long as it takes. And together we confirmed Ukraine’s irreversible path to full NATO membership, because it is clear to me that NATO will be stronger with Ukraine as a member—something I reiterated to President Zelensky in person in Downing Street on Friday.

Secondly, I want to turn to the middle east, because that region is at a moment of grave danger and fragility. I have spoken to leaders in the region and allies around the world about our collective response. How can we deal with the malign influence of Iran, address its nuclear programme, manage the threat from the Houthis, ease tensions on Israel’s northern border, and work with all partners to uphold regional security?

Fundamental to that, of course, is the conflict in Gaza. I have spoken to the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I have been clear that I fully support Israel’s right to security and the desperate need to see the hostages returned. I have also been clear that the situation in Gaza is intolerable, and that the world will not look away as innocent civilians, including women and children, continue to face death, disease and displacement. Mr Speaker, it cannot go on. We need an immediate ceasefire. Hostages out, aid in; a huge scale-up of humanitarian assistance. That is the policy of this Government, and an immediate ceasefire is the only way to achieve it, so we will do all we can in pursuit of these goals. That is why, as one of the first actions taken by this Government, we have restarted British funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency, to deliver that crucial humanitarian support.

We received the International Court of Justice opinion on Friday and will consider it carefully before responding, but let me say that we have always been opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and we call on all sides to recommit to stability, peace, normalisation and the two-state solution: a recognised Palestinian state—the right of the Palestinian people—alongside a safe and secure Israel.

Thirdly, I want to turn to illegal migration. This issue has now become a crisis, and in order to tackle it we must reach out a hand to our European friends. We started that work at the EPC, agreeing new arrangements with Slovenia and Slovakia, deepening co-operation across Europe for our new border security command, and increasing the UK presence at Europol in The Hague, to play our full part in the European Migrant Smuggling Centre. The crisis we face is the fault of gangs—no question—but to stop illegal migration we must also recognise the root causes: conflict, climate change and extreme poverty. So I have announced £84 million of new funding for projects across Africa and the middle east, to provide humanitarian and health support, skills training, and access to education, because the decisions that people take to leave their homes cannot be separated from these wider issues.

We will work with our partners to stamp out this vile trade wherever it exists and focus on the hard yards of law enforcement with solutions that will actually deliver results. I have seen that in action, tackling counter-terrorism as Director of Public Prosecutions, and we can do the same on illegal migration. But let me be clear: there is no need to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. That is not consistent with the values of that blood bond, so we will not withdraw—not now, not ever.

The basic fact is that the priorities of the British people do require us to work across borders with our partners, and a Government of service at home requires a Government of strength abroad. That is our role. It has always been our role. Britain belongs on the world stage. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question on the centrality of the Ukraine issue. Yes, of course, that requires resource and more pressure in relation to sanctions, but it also requires resolve. A key issue coming out of the NATO council in Washington was the real sense, particularly in relation to Ukraine, of a bigger NATO—with more countries than ever at the council—a stronger NATO, and a unity of resolve in standing up to Russian aggression, particularly in Ukraine. Resources and sanctions were central to the agenda there.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. Closer co-operation with our European neighbours is absolutely essential, whether on Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine or on tackling the criminal gangs responsible for the small-boats crisis, and I welcome the new Government’s change in approach. I also welcome their support for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Clearly, we need to put an end to the humanitarian devastation there, get the hostages home, and open the door to a two-state solution. Upholding international law is also crucial. To that end, I hope the Government will respect last week’s ruling of the ICJ when they consider it.

On the NATO summit, 70 years on from the foundation of NATO, the alliance has never been more relevant. We support the NATO summit pledge of long-term security assistance for Ukraine, as well as increased support now to ensure she can resist Russia’s attacks and liberate her territory. I am pleased that, in this new Parliament, this House will continue to stand united behind the brave Ukrainians opposing Russia’s illegal war, just as we have done together in recent years.

However, I hope Members of this House will not be complacent about the impact that the upcoming US elections could have, not just on the security of the UK and our allies, but on the security of Ukraine. We must hope that the leadership of President Biden continues with his successor—I echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to President Biden—but whatever happens in the US, part of the answer is for the UK and Europe to increase defence spending. The previous Conservative Government have left a legacy of the smallest Army since the age of Napoleon and played fast and loose with public money, making our shared ambition to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence a much more complicated route. We look forward to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s plan. I hope this Government will start by reversing the planned cuts to the Army of 10,000 troops. That is a vital first step, so will the Prime Minister reassure the House and the country that it will be a priority within the recently launched strategic defence review?

We also urge the Government to move further and faster in taking steps to seize frozen Russian assets, of which there are £20 billion-worth on our shores and the same amount on the continent. I hope the Prime Minister recognises that we have an opportunity to lead within Europe on this vital issue: if the US cannot, Europe must.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the office that he has achieved, and thank him for his statement. I am pleased with the decision to remain part of the European convention on human rights. In all his meetings with both the EU and NATO, was the issue of global war considered—not just the wars in Ukraine and Palestine, but those in Sudan, Congo and Yemen—and the possibility of involving the UN much more in looking towards a more peaceful future, rather than continued greater expenditure on arms? I am pleased that the Prime Minister has called for a ceasefire in Gaza, but surely if we are to follow international law we need to go a bit further and call for the withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces both from Gaza and the west bank, and an end to our complicity by supplying arms to Israel.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I have a lot more to get in today, and as important as his message is, I need to make others heard?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me deal with both points. First, conflict resolution did come up, because we had a full discussion about illegal migration—the law enforcement aspect of it, as I have explained, and the root causes of migration, conflict, poverty and climate change being key among them. The prospect of a ceasefire is there. I am urging all parties to take that opportunity; it is an important foot in the door for the political process, which I believe is the only process that will bring about lasting peace and resolution in the middle east.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[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?

[Mr Speaker]

Ahem.

[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

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[1st Day]

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

It is a privilege to call the seconder.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.