Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That completes Prime Minister’s questions.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the Leader of the Opposition want to correct the record, as she said in Prime Minister’s questions that the Chancellor did not mention defence spending in her Budget, yet the Chancellor mentioned it many, many times, including its allocation of £2.9 billion, which far exceeds our commitment?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to correct the record—and that is not a point of order—but the right hon. Lady has done it.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say to the shadow Leader of the House that he said “you”? I am definitely not responsible for this Budget—I want to make that very clear.

[Lucy Powell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I, too, join you in paying tribute to Robin James, who has been a Clerk here for over 40 years, most recently on the Committees on Standards and of Privileges, which has certainly put him in the spotlight in recent years. I know he wishes to retire to Wales, with the twin ambitions of learning Welsh and finally learning to drive. I am sure we wish him well with both those endeavours. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) on the birth of his newborn daughter Connie this week.

Finally, I think, the Conservative leadership contest will finish this weekend, and it could be all change on the Opposition Benches. This could be my last exchange with the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). He is well known for his ambition, and perhaps today was another audition for higher office. I am sure he would welcome a promotion, from the detailed discussions we have on restoration and renewal and House procedure, and I am that sure he will be looking forward to that. I thank him for the work that we have done together. If this is our last exchange, I will really miss his—how shall I put it?—boundless enthusiasm, because God loves a trier; let us hope the next Conservative leader does too.

As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, yesterday we saw history made, with the first ever Budget delivered by a female Chancellor. I am so proud of my friend for smashing that glass ceiling. The country voted for change and our Budget lives up to that promise. We have made clear choices. We have chosen responsibility over recklessness, reliable public services over endless crises, putting working people first, investment over decline, a Budget that is now backed by the International Monetary Fund—an unprecedented endorsement of a Budget. In many ways, it is not a Budget that we expected or wanted to make, but we have had to fix the mess left by the Conservative party—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not like to hear it, but they were not straight with people before the election.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, has made it clear that, had it known the true state of the public finances in March, its forecast for the previous Government’s plans would have been “materially different.” I do not usually agree with the former Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should heed his advice today. He said that the situation Labour inherited was “structurally difficult.” In other words, we are clearing up the Conservatives’ mess.

I am a little confused, Mr Speaker. Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that there was a black hole, but disagrees on the amount, or is he still in denial that there was even a black hole at all? It is ironic that the Conservatives spent all week undermining the OBR, but are now trying to hide behind the OBR’s figures. I am not sure—which is it? He will know that there was a huge black hole, even before the pay awards that the Conservatives left sitting on their desk, and for which they set aside no money even though they knew that someone would have to pay for it.

We make no apology for the Budget, which is about long-term investment and a decade of national renewal. That is why it is right that we consider the benefits of investment and not just the cost. This country has suffered years of decline and under-investment—we were ranked second lowest for investment in the OECD. We have chosen investment, not further decline under the Tories. We have had to be honest about the difficult choices that we have made in the Budget given what we were left with. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members: how would they fix the finances left by their Government? How would they give the NHS the money that it needs? How would they get the long-term investment that the country is crying out for?

We have absolutely put working people first, and I am proud of the pay rise that the Budget gives the poorest workers next April. There are many more things to welcome in the Budget, and I am sure that the House, and maybe the right hon. Gentleman, welcomes them. They include one of the biggest ever increases in NHS spending to deal with the record waiting lists that the Conservatives left behind, much-needed funding for special educational needs and disabilities education, a boost for carers for the first time since the 1970s, fixing the schools that the Conservatives left to crumble, more affordable social housing, money to tackle the cladding crisis, ushering in a decade of national renewal, and investing in the jobs of the future in clean energy, tech, aerospace, automotive, transport, life sciences and much more.

In particular, and I must say this because it needs underlining, this Government have finally put aside money to pay compensation to the victims of historical injustices, including infected blood and the Post Office Horizon scandal, and to deliver fairness for the mine- workers’ pension scheme. Honestly, the most shameful part of the Conservatives’ recklessness with the country is that they promised many times that victims of those injustices would receive compensation, but they put aside not a single penny—not a single budget line to pay for it—in any of their costings.

We cannot in one Budget undo the 14 sorry years of Conservative under-investment, stagnant growth, falling living standards and crumbling public services, but this Budget makes a very good first step forward.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend has long campaigned on these issues, and has asked about them before. He rightly raises the campaigners’ points; he will be aware that the report is detailed and substantial, requiring the Government to give proper time to considering all its findings. I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as that proper consideration has been given, Ministers will come to Parliament to report on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

As an MP who also represents a number of people who live in tall buildings, I completely hear what my hon. Friend is saying. This is a very important matter, and I am sure that if she were to apply for a debate, it would get a lot of attention.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising important matters relating to his constituency, which is absolutely what he should be doing. He is right to say that the Conservative party starved local government of funds over recent years, which has left communities paying the price. That is why I am really proud that, in yesterday’s Budget, we saw a significant real-terms increase for local government spending power over the coming years, and they will be having multi-year funding settlements.

My hon. Friend raises a good point about flood resilience. He will know that we have set up the floods taskforce. There is a debate during the week after next on these issues, and he may wish to raise that point then.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir David Davis—and congratulations on your knighthood.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, this question may be of interest to you. The Leader of the House has ministerial responsibilities, but she is also the nearest thing this House has to a shop steward in the Cabinet, and it is in that context I ask her this question.

A month ago, I wrote to the Chancellor about her cancellation of the investment opportunity fund, a decision that has put at risk an investment of hundreds of millions of pounds in a new factory in Goole in my constituency, and with it hundreds of jobs. Two weeks ago, I chased up that letter and was told I was going to get a reply; I was even given a reference number. Yesterday, at 1 o’clock on the dot, I got a timed email telling me that the Treasury was not going to answer my question and was handing it off to somebody else. This was a dishonest piece of obfuscation to avoid accountability before the Budget debate. I hope it is not a harbinger of things to come, but will the Leader of the House remind her colleagues in Cabinet of their direct responsibility to us, for our constituencies, to answer such a question and treat it properly in future?

[Lucy Powell]

I join in congratulating the right hon. Member. He raises a really important matter, and he can be assured that I take a dim view when my colleagues do not respond to parliamentary written questions or correspondence in both a timely and a thorough manner. I constantly remind—and have very recently reminded—all my Cabinet colleagues and Ministers of their duties to do so. If Members have any instances of when that has not been the case, I will take those up directly, as I will if he wants to share that one with me.

[Mr Speaker]

In fairness, as the right hon. Gentleman has brought me into this discussion, I am also concerned. I expect Ministers to reply to hon. Members of this House, whatever side they are on. Worse than that, to transfer such a question to someone else at the last minute is totally unacceptable. Ministers are accountable to this House. I fully support the Leader of the House, and I will work with her to make sure that all Members get such letters on time. Let us get that message back to Ministers—I am sure those on the Treasury Bench are listening—and I hope that a reply is being sent as we speak.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I recently had the privilege of visiting the newly created Ryton heritage garden, which includes a memorial to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and of cutting the ribbon. Brighten Ryton is an amazing organisation that does much to help our local community, and I particularly thank Terry Docherty who led the project. May we have a debate in Government time on the importance of local community organisations in supporting our areas?

[Lucy Powell]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who work at the heritage garden in her constituency, and particularly Terry Docherty—it sounds as if he has does an immense job for her constituents. This topic is raised regularly, and now that the Backbench Business Committee is established, I am sure it would consider an application for a debate on the involvement of local community activists and the importance of volunteering to our communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the House.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Perhaps that joke should have referred to one of the prospective leaders of the—no, I will not go any further.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to some very important independent financial institutions that offer this country the financial stability for which is renowned around the world. When we ignore those institutions, as the former Prime Minister Liz Truss did, we see who pays the greatest price for that. Those institutions play an important role, but he is right to say that they should be accountable to Parliament, and it is my expectation that those bodies appear regularly before Select Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about the A180 in his constituency. He will be aware that in yesterday’s Budget a significant increase in investment in our roads was announced. There are also significant growth deals and devolution plans to ensure that local people are delivering the local transport needs of their area. I am sure he can raise these issues at Transport questions or in the forthcoming Budget debates.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Vince.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, I do not need further comments. I am sure Members are trying to catch my eye, but that is not the best way to do it.

[Lucy Powell]

I join the shadow Leader of the House in welcoming Morgan Edwards to this place. I am sure he brings great experience from Legoland that can be brought to bear in this Chamber.

I send my condolences to the family of Geoff Capes. As a child of the ’80s, I remember what a legend he was, and I believe his shot put record is still unbroken.

I take this opportunity once again to point the House to the call for views launched by the Modernisation Committee last week. Tomorrow, new limitations on MPs’ second jobs come into force. The House will remember that before recess, we voted to remove the exemptions on paid advocacy roles. I wanted to give Members time to adjust to the new rules, hence why they are coming into force tomorrow. That was a manifesto commitment and we are determined to restore trust in politics, raising standards and delivering on our manifesto commitments.

The shadow Leader of the House again mentions winter fuel payments. I gently remind him once again that we published an equality impact assessment, which we were not required to do, but we were forthcoming with it. We brought forward to this House—I do not think this would have happened under the previous Government —a full vote on the measures, and they were clearly passed by this place.

The shadow Leader of the House asks about the Prime Minister’s visit to CHOGM. I can confirm that there will be a statement from the Foreign Secretary next week about that and other matters, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman asking some questions. The issue of reparations is important, and I am glad that he has raised it. We recognise the horrific impacts and the understandable and ongoing strength of feeling across the Commonwealth and other communities about these matters. He is right, however, that our position on reparations has not changed. At the conference this week, we are committed to working with our Commonwealth partners on the very pressing issues that we face today, and looking forward to the future, not looking to the past.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of campaigning in the United States and elsewhere. I note that he wants a full debate on that while also questioning why we are offering full general debates on other issues; I am not sure whether wants that general debate or not. Campaigning abroad happens in every election. People do that in a personal capacity, as well he knows. This is a bit rich, really, coming from the Conservative party. Its would-be leaders have spent weeks debating and arguing over who would or would not vote for Donald Trump. The former Prime Minister Liz Truss went to the Republican national convention and spent her time there discrediting the sitting President.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just to say, those others are not MPs, by the way.

[Lucy Powell]

I feel that it is a bit rich. It is for the American people to decide who their next President is and this Government are committed and determined to work with whoever wins that election.

The right hon. Gentleman then raised issues of business, which I will happily come on to. Today marks our 30th sitting day since we won that landslide general election victory. In that time, we have introduced 20 Bills—that is 20 Bills in 30 sitting days: over half of our King’s Speech programme has already been introduced. I remind him that that is way more than the coalition Conservative Government managed in the whole of 2010, which was the last time we had a change of Government. We have passed our first Labour Act in 14 years and made 34 statements to Parliament—more than one a day.

There is still much more to come, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants to know about it—on planning, border control, education, mental health, crime and policing, Great British Railways, the Hillsborough law, buses and much, much more. He and I both sat through the last Parliament, although others here did not: we both know that at the end it really was a zombie Parliament, clocking off early on seven out of 10 days in its last year. The last Government had run out of ideas and could not agree on what to do and when, so they did nothing. They dithered and delayed on their own flagship legislation, and we are getting on with delivering some of the things that they failed to do.

For example, this morning there is the Football Governance Bill, which they long promised. We have reintroduced it, strengthening the position of fans and financial sustainability in the game. We are delivering where the previous Government did not. What about the Renters’ Right Bill, which the previous Government had long planned but never fulfilled? We have taken it forward. Perhaps the most disingenuous example of all is Martyn’s law. The then Prime Minister promised to introduce it by the summer on the day before he called a general election, knowing full well that he was not going to be able to introduce it at all. We have brought it in. Frankly, we have brought more change to this country in our 30 sitting days than the previous Government did in 14 sorry, sorry years.

If the shadow Leader of the House really wants to look at effective use of time, he might ask what his own party has been doing for the last few months. It seems to have taken three and a half months to whittle five candidates down to just two—not that anyone has particularly noticed. However, it is fair to say that we have seen a few signs of life in recent days. The Conservatives have finally shown a bit of oomph, a bit of what it is all about to be the party of opposition—they have taken a really principled stance: to stand against the abolition of hereditary peers.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue that has been raised a number of times during business questions. We want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care at the end of their lives. It is a crying shame that the hospice sector relies so heavily on fundraising and voluntary support. We will continue to work closely with the sector to make sure that it can survive and thrive going forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. The people of Gaza have endured 12 months of this conflict and are suffering from a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Over 100 hostages are still being held by Hamas in truly awful conditions, which is why this Government are absolutely clear that the fighting must stop now. We need an immediate ceasefire and the release of all the hostages. We need much more aid and support to get into Gaza, and we need long-term peace and stability. The Government are working at pace with our international partners to achieve those ends, and there should be a statement on this matter in the coming days.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

In my short time in government, I have seen at first hand the exemplary work that our civil servants do every day. Much of the time they do it quietly and secretly and do not get the credit, so it is great that my hon. Friend has raised the matter on the Floor of the House.

It is up to individual Departments to negotiate with their trade unions on pay rises. I think the average award this year is 5%, but my hon. Friend is right that, working together with our partners in the trade union movement, we can end industrial action and support people getting higher wages and better working conditions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Shadow Leader of the House, you get five minutes. Please do not take advantage. If you have good points to make, please make them earlier.

[Lucy Powell]

I join the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Alex Salmond, a great parliamentarian who has sadly passed away. I also pay tribute to the late Sir David Amess, as this week marks three years since his awful murder. We still miss him greatly in this House. I also send condolences to the friends and family of Liam Payne. One Direction was loved by millions across the world, and this was a tragic end for someone so young.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to the Modernisation Committee’s call for views on its future work, which has been published this morning. I am hoping to hear many views, and I thank the shadow Leader of the House and other Committee members for their constructive engagement so far.

As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the private Member’s Bills were presented yesterday. I know that many colleagues want to ensure that proper time and consideration are given to the important matter of assisted dying. As a Member of this House who was present last time we considered this issue, I know that these debates of conscience bring out the very best of Parliament in respectful and considered debate.

I am sure that we all welcome this week’s news that inflation is now lower than the Bank of England’s target, for the first time in three years. After so much political instability, economic turbulence and rising bills, it will be a huge relief for families. But it is just the first step in securing the economy. Given the state of the public finances we inherited, there is a long road ahead.

The Conservatives do not like to hear it, but they left the country’s finances in a very sorry state. They ducked the decisions on things that they knew would explode after the election, and were grossly irresponsible: pay deals left on Ministers’ desks with no money allocated; this year’s pay rise for teachers not funded, and last year’s not either; a hospital building programme that was a work of fiction, not worth the paper it was written on; out-of-control expenditure in Departments, like the billions spent on asylum hotels; reserves for this financial year spent three times over; waiting lists at a record high, with industrial action ripping through the NHS; and prisons on the verge of collapse. It was a Government who knew they were about to lose, and left us to pick up the pieces.

This is not about not just the £22 billion black hole that we have now; it is a black hole year after year. Doing nothing is not an option. If we do not deal with it, markets lose confidence and the cost of borrowing goes up. We saw two years ago what happens, did not we not? The poorest in society pay the highest price when the economy tanks. We are all still paying higher mortgages and higher costs after what the shadow Leader of the House did when he was the Chief Secretary of the Treasury in Liz Truss’s Cabinet.

I will not be discussing the measures that may or may not be in the Budget. The Chancellor is working night and day to deliver economic stability. We stand by all our manifesto commitments, and we know that we need to live within our means. I have said it once and I will say it again: I will not take the right hon. Gentleman’s advice on economic stability, if he does not mind.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the Taylor Swift concerts, inevitably. Let me say to this House [Interruption.] No, I was not there. The concerts generated £1 billion for the UK visitor economy this summer. Surely people welcome that. I know that he is interested in quoting other people; he might want to read what the Conservative peer Andrew Lloyd Webber said in The Times today: the continued attention on this concert by the Conservatives is “ludicrous”. It is about time they “Shake it off”, quite honestly—someone had to get it in.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the Rwanda scheme. Frankly, more Home Secretaries from his Government went to Rwanda than illegal migrants. We are fixing the mess that the Conservatives left behind, as we are across all policy areas. We are restoring confidence and governing for the long term. Just this week, our investment summit attracted record private sector investment—twice as much as was attracted by the same conference under his watch last year. Businesses are coming to Britain; a vote of confidence in Labour’s handling of the economy, turning the page on the instability and infighting that happened in the past.

Just this week, we have gone further: we have published our industrial strategy; unlocked thousands of new homes on brownfield sites; kept our promise to veterans on voter ID; tackled spiralling car insurance costs; taken our first steps on Martyn’s law and on removing hereditary peers, which Conservative Members were against; published our Employment Rights Bill; taken action on carer’s allowance overpayments; increased independent film tax credits; and, today, opened funding applications for school-based nurseries. That is the difference that just one week of a Labour Government can make, unlike the Tories.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I wish the Leader of the House a happy birthday? Forty today!

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

Twenty-one today, Mr Speaker.

The business for the week commencing 14 October includes:

Monday 14 October—Second Reading of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.

Tuesday 15 October—Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

Wednesday 16 October—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 17 October—General debate on the international investment summit.

Friday 18 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 21 October will include:

Monday 21 October—Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill.

Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 23 October—Motion to approve the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, followed by motion to approve the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

Thursday 24 October—General debate on Black History Month.

Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.

Additionally, the House may wish to know that I have tabled a motion under future business confirming the upcoming dates for sitting Fridays. Subject to the agreement of the House, the first sitting Friday to consider private Member’s Bills will be 29 November.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and we welcome the level of ambition from the mayor and the local authorities in the east midlands to improve transport in the region. As was outlined in Transport questions earlier, the Department for Transport is undertaking a thorough review of these issues, and I am sure it will soon come back to the House with further information.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Responsibility for Woodhorn Museum on the former Woodhorn colliery site in my constituency—the home of the fantastic world-renowned pitmen painters—has this week been transferred to Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums by the Tory-led Northumberland county council, which has sold off the family silverware. There has been no consultation whatsoever with residents. Can the Leader of the House please make time in the parliamentary schedule for us to discuss how local people and communities can have a say on how to protect cultural assets in their region?

[Lucy Powell]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. These important cultural, industrial and historical assets are for the community to enjoy into the future. I am sure that the topic he raises would make for a very good Adjournment debate, should he wish to apply for one.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I know what an amazing campaigner she has become on the issue of brain cancers, following the tragic death of her much loved sister, Margaret, whom we all dearly miss to this day. My hon. Friend and I both know many people affected by this terrible disease, which is the killer of so many, and delivers people such a terrible prognosis. It is absolutely heartbreaking. I will ensure that the Health Secretary has heard what she has said. Should she apply for a debate on the subject, I am sure that it would be very welcome to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware that in the short time we have been in Government, there have been two statements to the House on the infected blood compensation scheme. Over the summer, the Government worked at pace, and incredibly hard, to ensure that our statutory deadline for establishing the compensation scheme was met by 23 August. That compensation scheme is now up and running, and money is being paid out. He is right that there is a commitment to providing further time for debate of the issues on the Floor of the House, and there is active discussion about bringing that forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call and welcome the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

That topic came up a lot in last week’s business questions, so I am sure that there would be wide support for the hon. Gentleman’s request. The role that hospices play in end-of-life care is critical to this country. I think it would surprise most people to understand that the vast majority of hospice funding is charitable and not from the Government. I encourage him to apply for a debate, because I think that he would get a lot of support.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Patricia Ferguson, whom I congratulate on her election to the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important issue. As she has said, local authorities have a statutory duty to arrange free home-to-school travel for children of compulsory school age, but many others fall outside of that obligation. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Education has heard my hon. Friend’s plea. If she applied for an Adjournment debate on this matter, I am sure that it would be granted.

[Mr Speaker]

I will be running business questions for about another 40 minutes, so to help each other, shorter questions and brief answers might be a way to get everybody in. If people are disappointed, they should look to colleagues who may have taken too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will try to call as many Members as possible, but we are really going to have to be a bit quicker, otherwise other colleagues will not get in.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As the mum of teenagers, I know what an issue it is to balance the desires of parents to be able to contact their children and see where they are with their not wanting them to be on their phones all the time, especially while at school, which would be damaging to their education. Schools are encouraged to consult parents on these issues to get that balance right. The issue of mobile phones for teenagers and children is a big one, so and if she puts in for a debate, I am sure she will get one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman has done that.

[Lucy Powell]

I was going to say the same thing, Mr Speaker. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has done that in raising the matter this morning. I will ensure that the Transport Secretary has heard that call and will ask for a Transport Minister to meet him urgently, as he was promised.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. As I said, the footage is incredibly disturbing, and there is understandably a lot of concern, particularly in his constituency, given that his constituent was affected. Greater Manchester police have said that the officer involved was immediately suspended from all duties, and a referral has now been made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard my hon. Friend’s question and is in touch with him at the earliest opportunity to discuss the matter further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Business questions will be cut off at about 11.45 am. If we are to get it running, we will have to help each other by trying to ask shorter questions. I am sure that the Leader of the House will assist with quicker answers.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that great question. Given all the new Members in the House who represent coastal towns, I am sure that the important contribution of those areas would make a really good topic for an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate after recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I join my hon. Friend in thanking teachers right across the country for what they have done this academic year. Given my new duties, I missed my child’s very last day at primary school on Tuesday—[Hon. Members: “Aww.”]—so I would particularly like to thank his teachers, who I did not get a chance to see that day. I am a really bad mum, I am afraid; it just goes with the terrain. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the RAAC that remains in our schools. It is one of the scandals of the previous Government that was not dealt with. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is looking incredibly closely at these issues and will update the House in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us have another mother.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I join my hon. Friend in thanking John again, who has sat through business questions one last time as a Doorkeeper. My hon. Friend raises an important issue about supporting veterans. He will know that the Veterans Minister has moved back into the Ministry of Defence, which has Question Time after recess. I hope he will be able to raise the matter then.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Amanda Martin for the final business question.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the problem is that people’s comments ought to reflect their previous jobs as well. Maybe that comment is from knowledge about making statements outside the House. I do not know; I do not make any judgment. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that when the House is not sitting, of course statements will be made by the Government, but when the House is sitting, I expect them to be made in the House. That has been a very clear message and the Leader of the House and I are both working to ensure that statements are heard here first. I certainly take the point on board, but I do not want to be drawn into what we should or should not be doing in the future. I welcome the ability to clarify the position.

[Lucy Powell]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I start by thanking His Majesty the King for yesterday’s Speech and join colleagues in wishing Her Majesty the Queen a happy birthday for yesterday. I also thank the staff and security services who have worked so hard both to get Parliament ready for the King’s Speech and on the huge task of transitioning from the last Parliament to this one, with so many new Members and so many leaving.

The election saw worrying incidents, including harassment and the sharing of misinformation and disinformation—it is unacceptable that some felt unable to go out campaigning, and our democracy depends on our coming together to say so—but we also saw the best of our democracy: the rapid changeover of power when people choose change.

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership on MPs’ security? I know that that is your top and most urgent priority. May I also congratulate you on your re-election? You are always fair and considered, and always put Members’ interests first. Today might be the first big test of whether you know the names of all the new Members.

[Mr Speaker]

No tests, please.

[Lucy Powell]

We both share a strong commitment to upholding the role of Parliament and, as we have just discussed, to restoring respect. That includes Ministers first making major announcements in the House, when it is sitting. Rest assured, I will be robust on that, and I expect to see Ministers and Secretaries of State at the Dispatch Box over the coming days as we play catch-up on the period in which the House was not sitting. Thank you for your forbearance on that, Mr Speaker.

I welcome all new and returning Members to this 59th Parliament. It is a Parliament to be proud of and one that reflects our country better than ever before. There are more women than ever, more Members from ethnic minority backgrounds and more Members from the LGBT community. It has been a real pleasure to see the excitement and possibilities of new Members—over half the House is new—as they find their way around this often baffling maze of a place. I saw that one had described it as being like freshers’ week meets Hogwarts and Buckingham Palace. Let us hope that they do not all drop down with freshers’ flu.

We lost some good colleagues from all sides at the election. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Penny Mordaunt, who was always a worthy opponent across the Dispatch Box. She brought a fresh approach not only to this role but as the first female Defence Secretary. I always thought that she was an underused asset for the Conservative party, and she will be missed—especially by the parliamentary hairdressers.

I welcome the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), to his new role. I know that he has always been keen. After holding very many ministerial roles, I congratulate him on finally making it as a full member of the Cabinet—albeit with the word “shadow” before his title. I hope that the role lives up to his ambitions. Debates about leaking roofs, broken toilets and the price of a bacon butty in the Members’ Dining Room all await his close attention. I am keen to work with him and we have already had constructive discussions. I am clear that I want to take the whole House with us on the changes that we need to make.

However, we need to turn the page. Recent years have been plagued by scandals, bad behaviour, disrespect, poor standards and poor legislation. That is what next week’s motions on a modernisation committee and on second jobs are about: for the House to work together to drive up standards, improve working practices and find reforms to make Parliament more effective. Let us be clear: it is not about changing the traditions and customs of this place—I know that you will be pleased to hear that, Mr Speaker—but the country voted for change. We will be a Government of service and begin that journey of restoring trust in politics and Parliament—action, not words. That is why we have hit the ground running by establishing the national wealth fund, resetting relations with junior doctors and dentists, launching the border security command, ending the ban on new onshore wind, taking immediate action on the prisons crisis, restoring house building targets and starting to tackle the water crisis—the list goes on.

The shadow Leader of the House asks about the economic record, house building and the Rwanda plan. I gently say to him that, after such a resounding Conservative defeat at the ballot box, I do not think that his best advice is to start saying that their record was actually great all along or that their policies were the best ones for us to follow. On the economic record, the truth is that living standards fell over the last Parliament for the first time on record. He was Chief Secretary to the Treasury when former Prime Minister Liz Truss crashed the economy, sending mortgage rates soaring. Since we have come into government, we have discovered that things are even worse than we thought. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like it but I am afraid it is true. The country—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Leader of the House.

[Lucy Powell]

The country voted resoundingly for change because it was worse off, so the Conservative party would be best advised to look deeply at why it lost, rather than claim that people never had it so good.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Rwanda plan. The record speaks for itself: four volunteers were all that scheme achieved, and far from stopping the boats or acting as a deterrent, the Government presided over the highest number of small boat crossings on record. It was an expensive gimmick that will not work, and the Home Secretary will update the House on that matter in the usual way very soon. The Energy Secretary will update the House today on his plans for a clean energy superpower.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about house building and planning. We make no apology: we are unashamedly pro-house building. We have already restored the targets that his Government took away, and will be bringing in planning reforms to make sure that the country gets the 1.5 million new homes it needs.

The King’s Speech shows that the Government are getting on with the job, with one of the most ambitious programmes ever of an incoming Government: following through on commitments on things like the Hillsborough law and Martyn’s law, which the last Government failed to do, and putting rocket boosters under growth. The guiding light will be delivering on our missions. Yesterday was an historic moment: the first legislative programme from a Labour Government in 15 years. We have a mandate for change; the journey towards that change has begun, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to get on with that job.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic question, and welcome her back to her seat. She is one of the most redoubtable champions in this place, and I know that she will be really pushing that cause and many others, as she did in the last Parliament. I join her in congratulating Rhian on winning the primary school teacher of the year award, and thank all teachers across the country for the work that they do. One of the first things the Education Secretary has done since taking office is look to reset the relationship with teachers, so that we can really tackle the recruitment and retention crisis facing our schools. As we come to the end of term, we join together in thanking every single teacher for the great work that they do.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Lib Dem spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This issue is so important that I think the hon. Gentleman ought to think about having an Adjournment debate on it—although he nearly had one just then.

[Lucy Powell]

I warmly welcome the new Member to his place. He is a rarity as a Conservative Member in north-west England and Lancashire. He raises an incredibly important question: connecting the national grid appropriately to our new clean energy programme is a critical issue for the Government. The Energy Secretary is here today to make an oral statement, so the hon. Gentleman may want to raise the issue with him then. There will be other opportunities in upcoming days if he is not able to get an answer later today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who was a real champion and vocal supporter of local government in his previous capacity. We often sat opposite each other in the shadow Cabinet. I am delighted to congratulate Telford and Wrekin’s children’s services, which went from a “requires improvement” judgment in 2016 to being outstanding today. That is incredibly hard for children’s services to achieve, and I am sure he will raise these issues many times in the House over the coming months.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, I call Jim MacAlister.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

To respond to that, quite rightly, I understand the feeling. As I said, I would like to have that conversation in private. I would like to meet with you as soon as possible.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition was this evening passed unanimously, and therefore—[Interruption.] Yes, it was. [Interruption.] And therefore—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that now is the time. What I want to do is move on and meet with the important players. I am now going to hand over to the Deputy and leave it at that.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

While that was not a point of order for the Chair, I am sure the House will have heard the announcement by the Leader of the House with great interest. I call the shadow Leader of the House.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is this not just another example of this Government making it up as they go along, with no real plan, scrabbling around and trying to make something of this failed, unworkable plan? We have had at least three business statements or questions since the Bill first began to be timetabled. Would you not expect, Mr Speaker, such an announcement to be made in a business statement in the usual way?

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 9th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

So there we have it: confirmation that the Government have given up on governing. The Prime Minister’s first and likely only King’s Speech, and what should be his moment of maximum power and authority—yet it was not, because he is too weak, he has no burning agenda, he cannot escape his Government’s own record and he certainly cannot be the change the country is crying out for. The verdict is in: “thin gruel”, “damp squib”, “dull as ditchwater”, “a series of gimmicks”, and a Prime Minister who had

“already checked out, his wheelie was at the door”.

Those are not my words, but those of Conservative Members. The Leader of the House knows it and they know it: yet another failed reset. They are out of ideas and out of road—“drifting to defeat”, as one has put it today.

The programme is so thin it is embarrassing. Of the few Bills announced, five are carry-overs, four are barely longer than a page, three we have seen before and the flagship crime Bill has already been shelved. Despite the big issues facing our country, the Government’s answers are so small. There is nothing to tackle the cost of living crisis, just a Prime Minister deluded that everything is going great, and even getting his own figures wrong. There is nothing on NHS waiting lists or mental health, despite a Bill being promised many times. Education has been consigned to lofty ambitions years away. There is nothing of substance on transport, despite Network North being the Prime Minister’s last big reset—another flunk. However, the Government have found time for the regulation of pedicabs and a Bill to make it easier to sack doctors. Do the Government really think that sacking doctors is the solution to an NHS crisis?

Other Bills are political stunts, not fixing problems. Take North sea gas and oil. Can the Leader of the House confirm that we already have regular North sea licensing and that it has not prevented the worst cost of living crisis in generations? Can she also confirm that, in the midst of that crisis driven by energy bills, the grand offer of this King’s Speech is a Bill that, by the admission of the Energy Secretary, will do absolutely nothing about bills? The only way to bring down bills and get energy security is by going further and faster on cheap renewables. Instead, this Government are retreating and spending billions subsidising gas, the price of which is set globally anyway. It is politics first, country second.

Then there is the so-called flagship crime Bill—a Bill that has had to go back to the drawing board. The Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his Home Secretary, who wants to criminalise giving homeless people tents because she thinks it is a lifestyle choice—despicable. We all know what she is up to; it is naked. Instead of sacking her, the Prime Minister cowers next to her. He is cowering next to her today, too. She is out of control. She is utterly irresponsible, undermining the police while stoking up division ahead of a difficult and important weekend. She is unhinged. Does the Leader of the House agree with the Home Secretary that police officers are playing favourites in this case? But the Prime Minister is so weak that he cannot rein in the Home Secretary. He is so weak that he could not even get his own ideas into his own King’s Speech—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not like the term “unhinged”. I understand that tensions are running very high, but I want us to try to moderate our language.

[Lucy Powell]

I will withdraw that, Mr Speaker, and I will ask my questions instead.

Nutrient neutrality has been dropped to avoid another embarrassing defeat. Whatever happened to the motorists Bill, briefed several times as the Prime Minister’s big idea? It is nowhere this week. The ban on conversion therapy? Dropped.

One of the Prime Minister’s pet projects did make it into the King’s Speech though: a Bill on autonomous vehicles. But the joke being made on the Tory WhatsApp groups is that it is their own Government that is the driverless car. I can tell the Leader of the House that Labour is revving up. There is much that we would do. We would bring in a fiscal responsibility lock, so that mortgage payers never again pay the price of Conservative failure. We would ban water bosses’ bonuses and clean up our rivers; end non-dom tax breaks and have more doctors and teachers; change planning laws to build more affordable homes; levy a proper windfall tax; and set up GB energy. We would make work pay, legislate for proper leasehold reform and rights for renters, tackle crime and violence against women and girls, introduce a skills and growth levy, and pass real rail and bus reform—the list goes on.

The Prime Minister was right about one thing: this country needs change. But his programme offers more of the same: weakness, failure, political stunts and division. This Government have given up on governing and are preparing for jobs in opposition, but take it from me: Opposition is not all it is cracked up to be. It is a privilege to have the power of Government and a majority in this place. Is not the biggest travesty of all that they do not even want it any more?

Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a real pleasure, as one of my first acts as shadow Leader of the House, to pay tribute to the work of Sir John Benger, who will leave his role as Clerk of the House at the end of the month. I will not take it personally that he is leaving his job only a few days after I started mine. Maybe, given what you said, Mr Speaker, it is because I am a Manchester City fan, but I will discuss that with him offline.

The Leader of the House has rightly paid tribute to Sir John’s long career and the many achievements that he has clocked up over his decades of service to Parliament. Despite not having had the privilege to work much with Sir John directly, I have in my short time in this role heard time and again about his knowledge, generosity and wisdom, which have been invaluable to so many Members.

Sir John’s tenure as Clerk came during a period of extraordinary turbulence for our Parliament. It probably threw up more challenges to the way the House works than any other time in our history. He started with Parliament locked in stalemate, with seemingly no majority on how to deal with the fallout of Brexit. The most obscure parliamentary procedure was dusted off shelves and used in ways it had not been used for decades.

Sir John has always ensured that, no matter how controversial or challenging the debates, he gave fair and impartial advice to Members across the House. As we have heard, covid presented unprecedented challenges for the traditions of how we work. We had to bring our 200-year-old Parliament quickly into the digital age in a matter of hours. Some ways of working were changed for good—perhaps not as many as I would like. I think I asked my first hybrid PMQ in my living room as my children danced in the background—it was a challenging time.

Of course, after the death of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Parliament became a place of national mourning and helped to bring the country together through that difficult time. It was also the epicentre of global interest, with millions tuning into the live feed of Westminster Hall, which does not happen all that often. Parliament and all its staff, under Sir John’s leadership, did our country so proud during that period.

Sir John has also seen many happier events, such as the unveiling of Big Ben after major restoration works—I was amused to find out that the Clerk of the House technically owns Big Ben, as I understand it. He oversaw improvements in welfare facilities, training opportunities and support for House staff, as well as the independent complaints and grievance scheme. Those improvements are rapidly changing the culture in this place and will serve as part of his legacy.

Sir John has worked to move us on to the next stage of restoration and renewal, which will preserve this historic estate into the future. In addition, the Clerk is chief executive officer of the Commons and responsible for around 3,000 staff performing a variety of roles, including, as John himself has described:

“pastry chefs, lawyers, clock winders, security guards, researchers, and even a chaplain and a falconer”.

And if that was not enough, he sits at the Table of the House for at least part of every day, to advise and record decisions.

Those are serious responsibilities, and I am not sure how Sir John has found the time to do them all while maintaining the professionalism, kindness and wisdom for which he is so well known, giving the right advice at the right time, always in confidence. I am sure that colleagues across the House will join me in wishing Sir John the very best at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. They are lucky to have him. We look forward to welcoming Tom Goldsmith from October.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition had never raised the issue of school building safety before, and he specifically mentioned his education speech earlier this summer. That is categorically untrue. I wondered if the Prime Minister wanted to correct the record. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned it as part of that speech, in fact. It has also been raised by the Opposition more than 180 times in this House, and was the subject of an Opposition day debate, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, in May. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not want to give the House the wrong impression.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has raised the point of order quite correctly, and has corrected the record herself. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be notified of the point she has raised. We will leave it for now and see what happens.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wish you a restful recess, Mr Speaker. I put on the record my hopes that the Lionesses do very well in the forthcoming World cup. Congratulations to the women’s English cricket team on a strong performance, and good luck to the men’s cricket team in trying to pull off a great Ashes comeback. I just hope that the Manchester rain holds off.

Despite the teams’ successes on the international stage, the ICEC report showed that there is a lot to do to increase diversity and participation in cricket. It found that English cricket suffers from sexism, elitism and racism. Do the Government understand that they also have a role to play in addressing those serious findings? For example, what discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Education about increasing the take-up of cricket in state schools and ensuring better access to pitches, equipment and coaching? Also, does he agree—I am sure he does—that it is about time that the women’s team had as much access to Lord’s cricket ground as Eton and Harrow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The creative industries are a powerhouse of the UK economy, succeeding despite the Government’s best efforts to attack the institutions that underpin them. With the growth of the creative industries, there are now a huge number of job vacancies, yet it remains one of the least diverse sectors in the economy, dominated by white, middle-class people—even more so than banking, law and media. Under this Government, we have seen a huge drop in creative subjects being taken at GCSE. Will the Secretary of State support Labour’s new policy to increase music, drama and the arts in schools and transform our curriculum to meet the needs of the future economy, which desperately needs creative skills, rather than one that is stuck in the past?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her time covering this role, notwithstanding her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who asked a very important question.

Today’s inflation figures confirm that prices continue to rise. Broadband customers are dealing with inflation-busting price hikes, as a direct result of the Government’s choices. They lifted the cap on wholesale costs, which has caused retail prices to rise. Will the Secretary of State apologise to hard-pressed families and tackle the cost of living crisis for broadband customers?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that note, perhaps the Secretary of State will also join me in congratulating my constituents and my club, Manchester City, on its historic treble-winning season. As yet another Premier League AGM passes, and Wigan Athletic faces a winding up order, why has the Secretary of State not personally done more to bring about a fair financial settlement with the English Football League and the Football Association, to address the problems set out in her own White Paper and press the Premier League to do more? Does she share my strong view that the football regulator must be given all the powers it needs to resolve this matter?

[Lucy Frazer]

Of course I congratulate Manchester City on its tremendous achievement. It is really important that football sorts out the finances within football. That is why we have consistently encouraged the Premier League and the EFL to come to some resolution, and I seriously hope they do. The hon. Lady will know that that is one of the reasons why we brought forward the White Paper, and why we are bringing forward regulation. I hope that football resolves this issue itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that her AI White Paper is now defunct? Also, the data Bill does not even mention AI. The Online Safety Bill is hardly an advert for speedy action and the semiconductor strategy was slammed by an expert as “quite frankly flaccid”. Does she accept that to show international leadership, the Government need to get their act together at home?

[Chloe Smith]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out this week at London Tech Week, we will be leading at home and overseas and leading change in our public services. That is the right approach. It is pro-innovation. We will capture those benefits for British businesses and British citizens, and I think that the Opposition could do an awful lot better than what they have just presented.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State said that the use of TikTok on Government devices was “a personal choice”. At the weekend, it was reported that there was to be a review of TikTok, and this week the Prime Minister said that he was considering a ban. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether this is indeed a personal choice, or whether TikTok on officials’ devices poses a security risk?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, let me welcome the new Secretary of State to her promoted position. I have always found her to be a thoughtful and effective Minister, and I look forward to working with her in the future.

Since the gambling review was launched, 10 different gambling Ministers and Culture Secretaries have all failed to publish a White Paper. I know that the Secretary of State is personally committed to gambling reform, but, as she just said a few moments ago, she wants to look fresh at these issues herself. Does she not recognise that this is a massive disappointment for all those concerned —the families who have lost loved ones, those waiting for more research and preventive reports, and even the industry itself, which wants regulatory certainty? So when will she publish the White Paper?

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank the hon. Lady for what she said, and I look forward to working closely and collaboratively with her on things that matter to our constituents across the country. I recognise that it is important to get the review out as soon as possible, and I assure her that that is what we are doing. I also wish to recognise that while the review has been going on, action has been taken: regulators have banned gambling on credit cards; they have clamped down on VIP schemes; they have strengthened the rules on how online operators prevent harm; they have updated advertising—

Fan-led Review and Football White Paper

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the Minister for his response, but it is just not good enough. Three weeks ago, the entire White Paper was conveniently “leaked” to the press. He and I both know that it was ready to be given to the House before recess, yet he has still not published it today, and the Secretary of State has not even turned up. The very well-received fan-led review, conducted by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), was published more than a year ago. It was welcomed by both sides of the House, and the Government committed to implementing it in full. However, five months later, they dropped the ball and would commit only to a White Paper, which we have been waiting for ever since. Fans, football clubs and their communities deserve better and this Government are letting them down. Can the Minister tell the House why he has not published it today, or before today, given that it was clearly expected before recess?

There is widespread support for an independent football regulator, and for the recommendations of the review. The arguments for that grow stronger every day: Bury FC has collapsed; and Derby County nearly went under. From Southend to Scunthorpe, other clubs stand on the brink. A European Super League is back on the table. Manchester City and the Premier League face years in the courts. Negotiations over the sale of Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton are going on as we speak, and we are still nowhere on those financial settlements for the pyramid.

Fans are desperate for a proper say and for assurances about ownership and sustainability of these global and local assets, yet without a regulator these assurances cannot be made. Will the Government take responsibility for clubs that go bust, that spiral into decline or that are bought by unsuitable new owners, in the years they have wasted bringing in the regulator? As we will see again today, Parliament fully supports these proposals. Labour is fully committed to them. The Minister is facing an open goal, so instead of constantly passing it back, can he just put the ball into the back of the net?

[Mr Speaker]

Just before the Minister responds, let me add that the Secretary of State did tell me that this was a serious leak. In which case, I would like to know whether there has been a full investigation, and at what point the House will be updated on that investigation, which I presume has started.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Everton football club is reportedly up for sale, with its stadium half-built. With others up for sale, this looks set to be a record year for premier league clubs changing hands. Many others face financial problems and ownership uncertainties, all since the Fan-Led Review was published. Yet fans will have no say and new owners are not subject to robust independent checks. We still do not have the deal on financial distribution in the pyramid. Will the Secretary of State take responsibility for the clubs that go under or get themselves into trouble before the independent statutory regulator is finally implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Half the DCMS shortlisting panel for the BBC chair had close links to the Conservative party, but even they managed to put forward five candidates. So what does the Secretary of State think it was about the close confidante of the former Prime Minister who was helping with his personal finances that first attracted him to appoint Mr Sharp over the other four candidates? Does she have confidence in the process and that the actual and perceived conflicts of interest were fully disclosed?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is a running theme here, with the fan-led review delayed, the gambling White Paper delayed, the data Bill delayed, the Online Safety Bill delayed, the media Bill delayed and, apparently, Channel 4 privatisation cancelled. It is a bit like getting an Avanti train, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

They never run at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Lucy Powell.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to her post. She and I have worked together before and I look forward to working with her again in future.

Molly Russell’s death was an avoidable tragedy and serves as a further call to action to regulate social media. We owe it to her family and countless others to do this without delay—this is beyond party politics. The coroner found that much of the self-harm and suicide material that Molly saw was not content she sought, but was pushed to her by engagement algorithms. That goes to the heart of what the Online Safety Bill was seeking to address. Although it was not perfect, the Bill had almost completed its passage here before the summer, and it was already long overdue. Does the Secretary of State accept that these delays are costing lives? Will she take up the offer that I have made to her in private to work together to do whatever it takes to get this Bill on the statute book as soon as possible?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am not at all surprised to see the Secretary of State still in her place; I had no doubt that she would be the last woman standing in support of the Prime Minister while all around her collapses, including her ministerial team. I wondered whether, by this morning, she would hold not only all the ministerial offices in her Department but several other Cabinet posts as well.

For many months, we have heard that the gambling White Paper is imminent. It has still not been published, although its content has again been trailed to the news- papers. Apparently, Ministers are dropping the gambling levy, which has widespread support, and other measures that would bring the analogue gambling regulation into the digital age. Is that true?

BBC Funding

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I completely agree with you, Mr Speaker, that it is a disgrace that an announcement of this importance was not made to Parliament first. I also look forward to the leak inquiry that you mentioned.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on coming top of the teacher’s pet list? She was the first Cabinet Minister to tweet support for the Prime Minister; she was the first to volunteer to do a broadcast round; and now she has been the first to throw up a distraction and find someone else to blame for the Prime Minister’s disintegrating leadership: the BBC’s reporting, of course.

The licence fee deal must be fair to fee payers while ensuring that the BBC can do what it does best. There should be no blank cheques. However, the Government claim that this is all about the cost-of-living crisis. I mean, pull the other one! What is it about the £13.57 a month that marks it out for such immediate and special attention to address the cost of living, over the £1,200-a-year increase in energy and household bills or the £3,000-a-year tax increases that the Culture Secretary’s Government have imposed?

Is the licence fee really at the heart of the cost-of-living crisis, or is this really about the Government’s long-standing vendetta against the BBC? Now it is part of Operation Red Meat to save the Prime Minister from becoming dead meat. Apparently, negotiations with the BBC had not even been finalised when the Culture Secretary gave the details to a Sunday newspaper on the very weekend when the Prime Minister’s position was most in peril? I leave it to you, Mr Speaker, and others to judge the timing of that.

The Culture Secretary has proven today that Conservatives may know the price of the licence fee, but not its value. The last time they targeted it, the over-75s paid the price. What assessment has she made of the impact of the two-year freeze on BBC output and commissioning and on the wider creative industries more broadly? Is she happy to become the Secretary of State for repeats? [Interruption.] Oh, there’s more coming—there is lots of fun to be had with this, don’t worry.

This is not enough red meat for the Culture Secretary. She will not stop until her cultural vandalism has destroyed everything that is great about Britain. Vandalism is exactly what it is to tweet on a Sunday—with no notice, discussion or thought—the end to the BBC’s unique funding, without any clue about what will replace it.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain how the BBC will continue valued services that just would not be commercially viable. First, how can it continue to support local journalism where so many have recently failed? In many areas, the BBC is the last local news desk standing.

Secondly, how would a commercial-only BBC be able to play such a crucial role, as the BBC has, in levelling up and growing the creative industries across our regions and nations, from Cardiff to Salford and elsewhere? The Government are silent on that one. I support the increased funding for S4C, but the Government claim to support the Union, so what assurance can the Secretary of State provide for the continuation of distinct broadcasting in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland when there is no licence fee?

Thirdly, would the Secretary of State’s cut-back BBC be able to continue with the world service and its global soft power, which her Government’s review described only last year as

“the most trusted broadcaster worldwide”?

Finally, what would happen to BBC Learning, BBC Bitesize, and children’s educational programming, which, frankly, did a much better job than the Government, who could not even provide iPads, in getting high-quality education into children’s homes during lockdown?

The impartiality of the BBC is crucial to trust in it. By explicitly linking charter renewal to the BBC’s editorial—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Quite rightly, I wanted silence for the Secretary of State. I expect the same respect to be given to the shadow Secretary of State. To those voices that I keep hearing, I know who is behind the mask. If you want to go out early, do not make me help you on your way.

[Lucy Powell]

I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is actually a big fan of mine but he is just trying to hide it behind his mask.

The impartiality of the BBC is crucial to trust in it. By explicitly linking charter renewal to the BBC’s editorial decisions, the Government sound more like a tinpot dictatorship that a healthy democracy. The BBC creates great quality, British-produced programming, from royal weddings to “Strictly Come Dancing” and great British drama, as well as championing new music. It is at the cutting edge of harnessing the digital age. Of course it needs to change with the times and review its output and reach, but it is a well-loved and trusted British treasure, and it is the envy of the world.

The Government are in trouble, however. The Prime Minister is casting around for people to blame, and the Culture Secretary has stepped up to provide some red meat. Well, it will not work. This is not how the future of our jewel in the crown and the cornerstone of our world-leading creative industries should be determined. She will have a fight on her hands if she wants to destroy it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Lucy Powell.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your warm welcome to me and my new team. I am delighted to be here for my first DCMS questions. May I thank the Secretary of State for her very warm welcome? In the tradition of the Manchester-Liverpool rivalry, I look forward to us fiercely disagreeing at times, but also to us joining forces to advance much-needed change in this agenda.

Does the Secretary of State agree that sport and culture, and the fast-growing creative industries, are absolutely central to levelling up, to place and belonging, and to ensuring that creative jobs are across our regions and nations? If she does agree, now that—I hope—she has read up on the funding of Channel 4 and found that it is not actually funded by the taxpayer, perhaps she could explain how privatising that public service broadcaster will not diminish its crucial role in levelling up, given its unique funding model and its strong track record in creating jobs and opportunity across our regions and nations?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Nothing prouder than the Accrington and Chorley Pals.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

It is welcome news that the fleet solid support ships will now be built in Britain. Can the Secretary of State assure us that British steel will be used exclusively to build those ships?

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are heading to Manchester for our final question, from Lucy Powell.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker. Can I say that it was not just the Mayor, but all the leaders and most of the MPs across Greater Manchester? We are a city united this evening, but should not any economic support package be based on need, not on some unpublished, arbitrary formula that no one has any idea what it consists of? If it was based on need, it would take account of the fact that business density and the economy of Greater Manchester is bigger than in other areas and that we have many more low-paid workers—that is something that the Secretary of State should know if he is talking about fairness— so businesses in Manchester will actually receive a lot less than businesses elsewhere. Can I tell him tonight that his Government have really misjudged the mood up here, and any less than is needed coming immediately to Greater Manchester for these new restrictions would rightly be seen as spiteful and political and nothing whatsoever to do with public health?

[Matt Hancock]

I think it benefits all of us to rise above the politics and try to work together. As I say, the offer that was made remains on the table and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady, who I know—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) said—works with the best of intentions, and I hope that we can work together to try to tackle this dreadful disease.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister, on behalf of my office, for his kind words.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating these virtual questions for the past few weeks, and long may they continue.

Although yesterday’s announcement was welcome, the Minister and I both know that nearly all the projects have been a long time in coming—from well before the current coronavirus crisis—so, in that sense, the funds announced yesterday were already priced in by the sector. In order to protect the aerospace jobs of today, as others have asked, which are highly skilled and in areas of the country that can ill afford to lose them, we really do need further urgent action today. Will the Minister say more than he has so far, which has been warm words but not much real action, to reassure those working in aerospace that their jobs will be protected in the coming months and years?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to marvellous Manchester, with Lucy Powell.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

May I, too, put on the record my remembrance of my good friend Jo Cox?

Pubs, cafés, hairdressers and restaurants are the lifeblood of our high streets. Business-critical guidance about their reopening in just two and a half weeks’ time was due yesterday but is nowhere to be seen. Instead, they got another review, making a bad situation much worse. When will they get that guidance? With either 1-metre or 2-metre distancing, most of those businesses still will not be viable, so will the Government finally recognise that vital business support schemes need to follow the public health measures before we see large-scale job losses and the decimation of our high streets?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to marvellous Manchester again. I call Lucy Powell.

[Lucy Powell [V]]

It is marvellous here, Mr Speaker. Given the Cabinet Office’s unique role in co-ordinating across Government, will the Secretary of State commit to taking up the Leader of the Opposition’s call for a national mission to get children active, social and ready for learning this summer by using charities, clubs, theatres, musicians, libraries and others, given the damage caused by his Government’s mismanagement of school reopening?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now go up to sunny Manchester and Lucy Powell.

[Lucy Powell [V]]

It’s always sunny here, Mr Speaker.

The UK’s world-leading defence industry is critical to our national security as well as our prosperity, particularly here in the north-west, as the Minister has just outlined, but its future capability is inextricably linked to the aviation industry, which is now suffering a collapse in demand. Will the Government now commit to bringing forward major research and development programmes and clean tech to help support the whole sector, especially SMEs and others, to retain jobs and capability?

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now go over to Lucy Powell in Manchester.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

It is very sunny here as well, Mr Speaker.

The travel industry is facing an unprecedented crisis. Although it is completely understandable given the current circumstances, the Foreign Office’s indefinite travel ban means it is very hard for companies to plan for the future. What thought is the Minister giving to how that advice might be eased when it is safe to do so? Has he been involved in the discussions taking place today with EU partners about the forthcoming summer holidays and how they may be made to work?

National Policy Statement: Airports

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pre-empting some of the remarks that I will make in my speech later, but as a Manchester MP, I thought I should speak for Manchester airport on that point. Manchester airport refutes the figures in the forecasts, because it believes that it will exceed those passenger numbers even before the Heathrow expansion is on stream. The hub argument is not the right argument to make for Manchester, because most of its connectivity involves direct flights. There are other reasons that Greater Manchester MPs have come together to support this proposal, but that particular argument is not the one to make.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not going to stop interventions being made, but they must be short if we are to get through all the speakers.

Joint Enterprise

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I hope to give everybody 10 minutes. If Members intervene, the danger is that I will have to drop the time limit immediately.

[Lucy Powell]

I fully agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), but I will try to make some progress.

There was a political context when the joint enterprise law began to be overused and extended in its use during the 1990s and the noughties, but there is a different political context today. As my right hon. Friend has just said, we now more clearly understand the consequences of disproportionate and unfair applications of the law against certain groups. I am pleased the Government recognised that when they launched the Lammy review and in the Prime Minister’s recent comments on “burning injustices”—I hope she can live up to that rhetoric.

Practice and the law have been far too slow to catch up with the changing mood in the country. I will briefly discuss what the Supreme Court ruling does and does not say, and what still needs to be addressed. First, the ruling is clear that the law governing secondary liability has taken a “wrong turn” and has resulted in the “erroneous” application of the law. However, it also sets out that, in order for appeals to be heard “out of time,” a substantial injustice test, not the usual unsafe conviction test, will be applied. Yet the substantial injustice test was not clearly set out in the ruling and has never been set out by Parliament. The substantial injustice test has subsequently been tested through case law and is now an almost impossibly high bar for people to clear. That is why, nearly two years on, there has yet to be a single successful appeal awarded by the Court of Appeal.

Finally, in our opinion the Supreme Court failed to address another question put before it: does joint enterprise over-criminalise secondary parties?

What needs to change in the law—first, what needs to change going forward, and secondly, how can we put right some of the injustices of the past? It is clear that joint enterprise continues to be overused and is disproportionately used against groups of young men, particularly those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. I saw that at first hand in a recent case in which 11 young black men from Moss Side faced charges of murder. Seven of them were convicted of murder and four were convicted of manslaughter. The youngest was only 14 and many of them were not previously known to the police. As research by Manchester Metropolitan University has shown in its study “Dangerous Liaisons”, more than half of all those serving life sentences are children or young adults, and more than half are from a black and ethnic minority background.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Very quickly—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Everybody wishes to speak and that is not a problem, but the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) must understand that this would be her second intervention. I will keep moving her down the list, because that is the way that we will move forward.

[Lucy Powell]

I will not take any more interventions, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There was nothing at all about school budgets, which was one of the key issues in the general election, and they are still falling in real terms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that, after the Secretary of State’s announcement in the summer, there was still a 5% cut in real terms, because the number of pupils is going up. We need a much bigger conversation about what education and skills are for in this country. They need to be about delivering for the economy and the society of the future.

Nearly 60% of graduates are working in non-graduate jobs. That is the third highest level among OECD countries, exceeded only by Greece and Estonia. I know that we have many debates in this place about tuition fees, but it is no wonder that they are not being repaid when so many people are not working at the level at which they are qualified to work.

We are in the bottom four of the OECD countries for literacy and numeracy to 18. T-levels are welcome, but with the huge cuts to further education, they will be difficult to deliver. Given that the maths GCSE contains more A-level content, we must ask about the desirability of prioritising compulsory and ongoing GCSE resits over looking at the curriculum and functional skills.

The Government are right to identify maths as the future. The future is about algorithms, matrices, digitisation and automation. Even for the most able, however, our curriculum is going in the wrong direction, which is why the OECD has said that it is

“a mile wide and an inch deep”.

By going down a route of rote learning rather than conceptual understanding, we are moving in the opposite direction to all our competitor countries.

There was absolutely nothing about social mobility in the Budget—in fact, the Chancellor did not even mention that in his statement. Social mobility is especially crucial in the early years if we are looking to close the productivity gap. Development at the age of five is still the biggest indicator of how a person will do in their GCSEs and beyond, yet we are also going in the wrong direction there. As others have said, these are political choices. Of the £9 billion the Government are spending over this Parliament on the early years, 75% will be for the top half of earners, with less than 3% going to the lowest. That is just wrong. This ticking time bomb entrenches social advantage.

Childcare is, yes, about increasing productivity, but the design of the current system under this Government means that we will fail to deliver some of the productivity gains that can come with childcare. We really need a social mobility strategy right across Government to tackle these issues.

Finally, let me talk about regional inequalities and disparities within regions, which are all connected to the points that I have raised. It is even more urgent that we get our fairer share of spending on infrastructure outside London and the south-east, and that we develop even stronger place-based solutions to deal with local job markets and skills. For example, if the Government wanted to be ambitious—this is not a difficult thing to do—they could devolve post-16 further education to places such as Greater Manchester. They could do a lot more to devolve early years solutions for transforming school readiness, as we are attempting to do in Greater Manchester. It is high time that places outside London got their fair share of transport infrastructure expenditure. We absolutely need to see the northern powerhouse rail connecting Liverpool to Hull via Leeds and Manchester. Critical to that is ensuring that we have a future-proofed Manchester Piccadilly station.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister incorrectly gave figures for last year—the bedroom tax was introduced only in April. I was talking about money that will come back this year. I can guarantee that the Minister will not be getting any money back from Manchester this year—the year of the bedroom tax.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need any help from those on the back row. That was not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has put her point on the record.