House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is not my decision; it was the decision of the British people at the last general election in supporting our manifesto. If the Bill gets on to the statute book, hereditary peers will leave at the end of this parliamentary Session. I repeat the point we have heard throughout the debate: there is no barrier to them becoming life peers. Indeed, there is no barrier to them standing to become Members of this House if they wish to continue their public service.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give way, then I need to make some progress.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I thank the Minister for his generosity. He frequently cites the Labour party manifesto, which did include this provision in relation to the abolition of hereditary peers. However, it also included a provision in relation to a mandatory retirement age. Why has he chosen to bring forward the abolition of hereditary peers but not wait until he has resolved the position in relation to the retirement age? Surely there is only one reason for that, which is that it benefits the Labour party politically to remove Conservative hereditary peers immediately, and it is of less political benefit to the Labour party to have a mandatory 80-year-old retirement age.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The manifesto was clear that the reform would be staged, and that this would be the immediate first step. The Government remain in favour of a House of Lords that is more representative of the nations and regions, and this is the first step. As the Leader of the House of Lords announced, a Select Committee will then look at retirement age, and indeed at participation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made the point, which I repeated, that this is not a personal issue but an issue of principle. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), welcomes the Bill as a first step, and she also spoke about the appointment process. Indeed, over recent months the Government have ensured that when people are selected for a place in the House of Lords there is now an explanation or citation. We always had a citation when people were awarded honours, but we did not have one for those nominated for a place in the House of Lords. That has now been changed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) set out powerfully that Lords amendment 1, which concerns the abolition of hereditary by-elections, has been put forward time and again by Lord Grocott, and on every single occasion it was blocked by the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), a regular sparring partner of mine, accused me of being a bit unfair to the Conservatives in the 20th century. Life peerages were of course introduced in the late 1950s, but it is certainly the case that the Conservatives have blocked every opportunity to abolish the hereditary principle, and that is exactly what they are doing again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a powerful speech about the central purpose of the Bill and the Government’s position on the amendments. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire made his characteristic contribution to the debate, and I would agree with the point he made about filibustering in the other place on this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made well the point that even after this change, the Conservatives will still be the largest single party in the House of Lords. I then come to the speech by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) who seemed, I think, to be simultaneously arguing for maintaining the hereditary peers and for radical reform. When he talked about a parliamentarian with the “attention span” of a TikTok video, I thought he meant the shadow Justice Secretary for a minute. We have heard the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) make a comparison with North Korea, but the hon. Member for Windsor made a comparison with Iran. This Bill is quintessentially British. It is about British democracy. It is about putting an argument to the electorate last July, and then putting that into practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made the powerful case that this is about principle, and about there not being a series of places in our legislature that are reserved for people by accident of birth. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who I am sure the whole House will wish well for the Great North Run, made a powerful case for the abolition of the hereditary principle and the position of the Bill. I also say a real “thank you” to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who has made a powerful case for change throughout every stage of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons.

This has been a perfectly reasonable debate—

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Q8. St Hilda’s girls school looks set to join Immanuel Jewish prep as the second school in Bushey alone forced to close because of Labour’s VAT hike. That is a double hit to aspirations—first, to those of the parents, many of whom are not wealthy and who have described the significant sacrifices they have made to send their children to these schools; and secondly, it affects the excellent local state schools, including the one that I attended, which simply do not have the places, meaning that this policy will not even save money. May I therefore urge the Prime Minister, even at this late stage, to look again at the failures of this policy?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not doubt the aspirations of all parents for their children. What we have been able to do is ensure that we release the funding to ensure that our state secondary schools have the teachers they need. There is no point the Conservatives pretending that they are interested in state education when they left them without the teachers they needed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Following the privatisation of Royal Mail in 2014, the postcode address file—the definitive list of UK postal addresses—became a privately owned data asset. He will know that this afternoon we have the Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which will be a great step forward for the use of data in the public and private sectors. He will also know that we have committed to creating a national data library, which will use data in a radically new way for the benefit of the country and public sector users.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that people want their public services delivered efficiently and effectively. To that end, what discussions have he and his Department had with the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk in the United States about how we can harness the power of artificial intelligence to deliver better services, and scrutinise Government spending and datasets, to eliminate waste and inefficiency?

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

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

[Pat McFadden]

The situation in Lebanon is serious, and there are several thousand UK nationals in Lebanon. The Foreign Office advice for some time has been simple: leave now. The Government have chartered several flights to help UK nationals to leave. We are also running a “register your presence” site, to ensure we can track anyone who is in country and have the best possible communications with them. We have made preparations for other evacuation measures, should they be necessary for the protection of our citizens in Lebanon.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for that answer. May I echo from the Opposition Benches that the correct approach for British nationals is to leave now, rather than to rely on the Government to take further steps for them? However, in the event that the situation deteriorates further, what contingency plans do the Government have in place to ensure the swift and safe evacuation of British nationals, particularly in high-risk areas?

[Pat McFadden]

We have been monitoring the situation closely for some months. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House that the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and all parts of Government are putting in place the necessary measures, should the situation on the ground change to a point where we judge that more needs to be done to get people out of the country.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then Government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of measures that could change the relationship between the two Houses, because it risks unintended consequences, does not reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform and does not provide for full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which would give the opportunity to consider the case for overall reform, seek cross-party engagement on proposals, and review the implications of all proposals.”

The British constitution is not codified. One might not choose to craft such a system if one were establishing a new country from scratch, but we are proud to be an old country. The checks and balances of the House of Lords—its tried and tested conventions—work. The House of Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber. That is the key point: this elected House has primacy. Of course, the British constitution does—and should—continue to evolve, but we should fix only what is broken and be cautious about rushing into change. Our evolution should start with questions of efficacy, not optics. We should be guided by the wisdom of past generations, and the continuity of history and tradition. As Edmund Burke wrote:

“We have an inheritable crown, an inheritable peerage, and a House of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties from a long line of ancestors.”

The Paymaster General has described the excepted peers as “out of step” with modern Britain. Like the Blair and Brown Governments, this Government seem obsessed with change for change’s sake. We have seen it all before. We have seen this rebranding spun to give the impression of progress: the Law Lords replaced with the Supreme Court; the Lord Chancellor’s Department aping the US-style Justice Department; even Her Majesty’s Stationery Office recast as the Office of Public Sector Information. At best, it is cosmetic; at worst, it risks irreversible damage. As we saw with the changes to the House of Lords’ judicial role, rushed constitutional change leads to unintended consequences. We should, therefore, proceed with caution.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The role of hereditary peers in our democratic system is a bygone relic of a less democratic age. May I ask whether that is why the shadow Minister feels such an affinity for it?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I join the Government in paying tribute to the hereditary peers. The argument that I will elucidate in my speech, as set out in the amendment, is that if this Government are committed to reform of the upper House, they should consider all the consequences of that reform, and this House, and the other place, should have ample opportunity to consider it properly.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of how our constitution should develop, but does he not accept that almost every Government, apart from the most recent one, have looked at the House of Lords and how it could be reformed? Many of us believe that the reform should go much further than that put forward by this Government, which we see as just a first step towards a properly elected, fully democratic upper Chamber that serves the people.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

As we have seen in the debate so far, there is a range of views on both sides of the House about how we should proceed with reform. The argument that I am making is that this House should have the opportunity to consider all the changes together in the round before we rush ahead with constitutional change for the sake of virtue signalling and optics rather than what suits the needs of the nation.

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I shall give way one more time.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he consider that political legitimacy derives from many sources but not entirely from democratic election for, if it did, we would not have life peers or a constitutional monarchy? Legitimacy is not wholly and solely a matter of being elected, or the Labour party would be abolishing the House of Lords per se.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to hear that I completely agree with him. As ever, he makes an erudite point.

[Shaun Davies]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will make some progress and then I will give way.

Instead of proceeding with caution, the Government have done precisely the opposite. The Bill has had no pre-legislative scrutiny, no Joint Committee and no cross-party engagement. Indeed, Labour Ministers have explicitly refused to consult on the removal of excepted peers.

All that forms a pattern with Labour’s past constitutional tinkering. We have the Equality Act 2010, which both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary have said in recent months is too complicated and needs changing. There is also the Human Rights Act 1998, which, in departing from Britain’s common-law tradition, further expanded judicial review, undermining the very laws made by this Parliament and dragging the courts into answering political questions that should be a matter for the legislature. The same applies to Tony Blair’s successive surrenders to EU treaties. Those Acts created new problems for an old country, and this Bill risks doing exactly the same.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for five minutes and I am finding it difficult to follow him. Can he answer me directly: is he in favour of getting rid of hereditary peers and people who are in the House of Lords on birthright—yes or no?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I am strongly of the view that we should consider all these things in the round. There is merit here—that is why we are proposing a reasoned amendment—but the risk of proceeding in a rushed fashion is that we come to regret it, as we have on many previous occasions.

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

rose—

[Shaun Davies]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will make some progress and then I will give way.

In 1999, Baroness Jay, the then Leader of the House of Lords, said that a partly reformed Lords with only excepted hereditaries remaining would be

“more legitimate, because its members have earned their places”

and would have more authority. That was termed the Jay doctrine at the time. If the excepted peers go, what other conventions are at risk of change—the Salisbury convention, or the restraint against vetoing secondary legislation? The lack of consultation and scrutiny, and the Government’s piecemeal approach to reform, has meant such questions have the potential to be reopened.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) and then to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell).

[Shaun Davies]

The compromise of allowing the remaining hereditary peers to be in the other place is 25 years old. How much longer does the right hon. Gentleman need to consider the options and whether he is in favour of them?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the reforms were introduced in 1999. By my calculation, the Labour party was in power for another 11 years and did precisely nothing further. I will come to this point in a moment, but the reason the hereditaries remained in the House of Lords in 1999 was to ensure that all these things were considered at the same time. The Government are breaking a principle that they agreed to previously.

[Gareth Snell]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the Salisbury convention. Is that his way of telling us that, as the Bill was a manifesto commitment— as pointed out by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson)—Conservative peers will be voting for it to comply with the convention that he has said is so important?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

Well—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman would not want to break convention, would he?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The Paymaster General knows how much I respect conventions, but that is ultimately a matter for the other Chamber.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will make some progress, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give way.

We should not be surprised that the Labour Government have only introduced this short Bill because they have no clear plans for wider Lords reform. In 2022, the Prime Minister endorsed Gordon Brown’s plans for an assembly of the nations and regions, but now that has been kicked into the long grass. Labour grandees such as Lord Blunkett have warned it risks mirroring “gridlock” too often seen in the United States. Lord Mandelson described the plan as a

“multi-layered cake…barely been put in the oven yet, let alone fully baked.”

Lord Adonis observed that within Labour,

“there is no consensus on reform”

and that it will be “difficult and controversial.” Even the current leader of the Lords, Baroness Smith, admitted this year that an elected Chamber risked

“losing the primacy of the Commons.”

Therein lies the dilemma for the Labour party and its new-found Commons majority. Perhaps Labour Ministers are starting to realise that Lords reform is challenging and difficult.

[Graham Stringer]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will make some more progress and then I will give way.

In 1999, the reforms recognised the challenge. In this July’s King’s Speech background brief, the Labour Government asserted that the continued presence of excepted peers is “by accident”. That is simply not true. In 1999, Labour’s Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, told the other House that the presence of hereditaries was an intentional anomaly; it would ensure a future Government undertook proper and considered reform of the Lords. His fellow architect, Viscount Cranborne, called that

“the sand in the shoe”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 791.]

Now, this Labour Government want to declare war on the past without a clear target in sight. As they cannot agree on what to do, the Prime Minister has gone for this chipolata of a Bill, the mantra of change serving as a tiny fig leaf to cover his embarrassment. The emperor has no clothes—perhaps other than from Lord Alli.

[Graham Stringer]

The right hon. Member is making a case on shifting sand, which seems to boil down to one of people not having had time to consider the issue. First, this reform has been in two Labour manifestos, one in 1997 and one this year, and it had overwhelming support from the electorate. Secondly, the compromise reached between the Labour party and the Conservative party in 1999 was nothing to do with the good work done by many hereditaries; it was to stop logjam, because the House of Lords was threatening to hold up Labour’s programme and throw the Salisbury convention aside.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The purpose of the 1999 compromise was to ensure that we did not remove hereditary peers without considering the wider consequences. That is precisely my concern with the approach being pursued by the Government. This meagre Bill is not motivated by considered and enlightened principle. Labour wants to remove the independent and experienced voices of excepted peers so that it can parachute in a wave of new Labour cronies. It is change in the name of an Executive power grab, not change to serve the British people.

The excepted peers are immune from the needs of political patronage. They work in the public interest for the good of the nation. Edmund Burke once described them as

“the great Oaks that shade a Country”.

The same, I am afraid, cannot be said of the saplings of the new Labour intake.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will give way in a moment.

I shall prove my point. Before the election, Labour sources admitted that

“we’re going to need to appoint a dozen peers on day one to do big junior ministerial jobs that the MPs shadowing them aren’t up to doing.”

In 1999, Lord Strathclyde, the then shadow Leader of the Lords, presciently warned of

“the return of an almost medieval executive power—a noisome bramble-patch of presidentialism, patronage, private pressure, preferment and place”—

past words that speak truth today.

One central argument evinced by the Paymaster General is that no one should be in Parliament by “an accident of birth”. Yet, today’s Labour party reeks of the hereditary principle—the elevation of the nepo babies of north London, the coronation of the red princes: the Goulds, the Falconers, the Kinnocks, the Benns, the Eagles, the Reeves. Many of them are distinguished Members, but under Labour’s closed shop, it is hereditary peers out and hereditary MPs in.

The question this House must address is whether a wholly appointed Chamber and waves of new Labour peers will improve the governance of our nation. Will they mean a proper impact assessment of the cuts to the winter fuel payment? Will there be better scrutiny of the proposed French-style union laws? Or, as Michael Foot told the House in 1969 when opposing Harold Wilson’s Lords reform Bill, will it become just

“A second Chamber selected by the Whips. A seraglio of eunuchs”?—[Official Report, 3 February 1969; Vol. 777, c. 88.]

The Labour party apparently wants to apply that phrase to this House, given the diktat from the Labour Whips banning their Members from tabling amendments without permission. The Downing Street boys do not want dissent from either House of Parliament.

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

What is it about defending the indefensible? The right hon. Gentleman talks about rushing, but we have been trying to reform the other place for over 100 years. It is not about personalities; it is about the principle of ensuring that in a modern democracy people do not become legislators by birthright. Surely the Opposition support that.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The Labour party was in power for 11 years after the 1999 changes. It completely failed to undertake this reform, and that was for a reason. We have a delicate and complex unwritten constitution of checks and balances, of principles and conventions, and when one starts to pick away at some of them, one realises the consequences of doing so. If we are to proceed down this path, it is important that Members—many on the Government Benches have been elected Members for only four months—have the opportunity to scrutinise the changes. This is a new Parliament and we should have the opportunity of proper scrutiny.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the former Deputy Prime Minister for giving way. He is right: I have not been here as long as he has. I am enjoying his audition for the shadow Cabinet when the new leader arrives, but will he join me in the Aye Lobby this evening, yes or no?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I doubt I have much chance of joining the next shadow Cabinet. This is my swansong rather than my audition.

I have set out the reasons I oppose the Bill—it is rushed and we have not considered the wider consequences.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to a sapling. The interesting thing about saplings, as I am sure he knows, is that sometimes we become oaks—I guess we shall have to see—and the reason there are so many saplings on the Government Benches is that we chopped down so many oaks from the Conservative party. Although we have not been in the House for long, many of us have been involved in the interests of our constituents and the conversations of politics for a long time. Does he agree that the House does not hold the collective knowledge of the whole country and that sometimes we may have formed views about what is necessary for the other place before reaching this Chamber?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman grows into a sturdy oak, like all the great oaks on the Benches behind me. There is a path to be followed to achieve that. Many people may well enter the House with pre-existing views, and that is of course the basis on which many of them were elected, but my argument is that we should consider the consequences of one change in relation to hereditaries for the wider composition of the House of Lords and the constitution.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend rightly talks about the consequences of the changes. Has he also considered the effect of the removal of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain of England, which were protected in the 1999 legislation introduced by the then Labour Government? Will my right hon. Friend commit to supporting their retention in the House of Lords on a constitutional basis?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

That is a very important point. I believe that the Government have plans to address that in the legislation. Having those people, with their experience of organising coronations—as I saw during the coronation two years ago—is another part of how our constitution works. All of the elements work together, and if we pick away at one, there are unintended consequences.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To be clear, the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal will not continue to sit and vote in the House of Lords under this Bill, but they will continue with their important ceremonial functions.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The risk is taking away something that has formed part of the fabric of our constitution. The role of those two officeholders has been essential to the role of the Crown, and preventing them from fully playing their part in the House of Lords may have unintended consequences that are deleterious to the interests of the nation.

Hereditaries and appointees aside, I would argue that the precise composition of an unelected second Chamber is a second order issue. Both the Government and Parliament should be considering how we can better improve the scrutiny powers of the revising Chamber. We need a strong Government, but we need a muscular Parliament too. All Governments should be held to account, particularly one with the biggest gap in history between their number of MPs and their popular vote. We should particularly consider how Parliament can better scrutinise the quango state—unaccountable tiers of government that are ballooning under this Labour Government.

Lords reform is challenging. For a century, no one has cut the Gordian knot—certainly not Gordon Brown. The system we have inherited from the turn of the millennium still works, proving the strengths and adaptability of the British constitution.

Constitutional change is an area where one should tread lightly. It requires proper consultation, engagement and consideration. On that basis, as set out in our reasoned amendment, the Opposition will oppose the Bill, not to defend the privilege of old, but in defence of a strong and independent Parliament that stands up to an over-mighty Executive, and for our nation’s long-standing liberties and freedoms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

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

[Pat McFadden]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Let us keep going in that way.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

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

[Pat McFadden]

If the right hon. Member set aside spending for his commitments, he did something pretty rare for the last Government. When we look under the bonnet, we find that that was not often the case. We will have more to say about that in the coming days.

CrowdStrike: IT Outage

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her role and thanking her for advance sight of the statement? In that role I know she will be supported by a dedicated team of civil servants, who represent the very best of public service. I have no doubt that they will serve her as well as they did me.

The hon. Lady will be aware of the enormous challenges facing this Government and those around the world in relation to cyber-security. As I warned when I was the responsible Minister, threats to public services and critical national infrastructure come from a range of challenges, from hostile state actors to human error and design flaws. Last week we saw those challenges vividly brought to life. Following the corrupted antivirus update by CrowdStrike on Friday, 8.5 million Microsoft devices globally were rendered unusable. That left airports disrupted, patient records temporarily lost and GPs unable to access important patient data, creating significant backlogs. That is more than an inconvenience.

I pay tribute to all those working in our public services for the efforts they undertook over the weekend to restore those services, and to the work of dedicated cyber specialists across Government, including in the National Cyber Security Centre. In government we undertook a wide range of measures to enhance the nation’s cyber-security: creating the National Cyber Security Centre, introducing secure by design, setting cyber-resilience targets, launching GovAssure and transforming the oversight of governmental cyber-security.

I note, as the hon. Lady said, that the Government intend to build on that progress by bringing forward a cyber-security and resilience Bill. Will she therefore outline the timetable for the Bill, and will the Government consider mandatory cyber-security targets for the UK public sector? Are the Government considering obligations to ensure that infrastructure is designed to be resilient against common cause problems, such as this one? What steps are being taken to enhance cyber-security in the devolved Administrations and in parts of the public sector such as the NHS, which are operationally independent?

Specifically in relation to this incident, what assessment has been made of the prevalence of CrowdStrike within critical national infrastructure? What further reassurance can the Government give in relation to the timetable for full recovery of key systems and data? In particular, can the Minister assure employees that this month’s payroll will not be adversely affected?

Britain’s cyber industry is world leading. Cyber-security now employs more than 60,000 people and brings in nearly £12 billion-worth of revenue annually. This transformation was in part due to our £5.3 billion investment, which launched the country’s first national cyber-security strategy. I therefore urge the Government—I see the Chancellor in her place—to continue such investment.

Incidents such as that of CrowdStrike should not deter us from the path of progress. We must embrace digitalisation and the huge improvements to public services that it offers. The adoption of artificial intelligence across Government is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet for public sector productivity. However, if we are to command public confidence, people must be assured that technology is safe, secure and reliable. Such incidents demonstrate how reliant the Government and public services are on large technology companies, and how much responsibility they have for the services that have become critical to people’s lives and livelihoods. That is why, in government, I called for us to work more closely with leading technology firms to address these shared challenges. The best solution is partnership. To that end, what further engagement will the Minister undertake with Microsoft, CrowdStrike and the wider sector to ensure that there is no such recurrence?

The task for us all is to build on existing progress that has transformed Britian’s cyber defences, and to enhance protections for British families, businesses and the very heart of Government. In that mission, the Government can rely on the support of the Opposition.

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and his questions. In particular, I echo the thanks to all those in Departments across the civil service who were involved in dealing with the outage last Friday and in mitigating its effects. I set out in my statement that our cyber-security and resilience Bill, which was included in the King’s Speech, will strengthen our defences and ensure that more digital services are protected. That is a priority for this Government. The Bill will look at expanding the remit of regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and increasing reporting requirements, so that the Government can build a better picture of cyber-threats. We will consider the implications of Friday’s incident as we develop that legislation, but rest assured that we are working across Government to ensure resilience.

As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in his statement on the covid inquiry module 1 report, he will lead a review assessing our national resilience to the full range of risks that the UK faces, including cyber-risks.

National Security and Investment Act: Statement for the Purposes of Section 3

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)]

On 18 April I published the Government’s response to the national security and investment call for evidence, which sought feedback from stakeholders on how the Government can increase understanding of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and the risks it seeks to address. As part of the Government’s response, I committed to publishing an updated section 3 statement setting out the factors I expect to take into account when exercising the call-in power under the NSI Act. I also committed to publish further guidance on a range of topics to help stakeholders understand how the Act works.

Today I have fulfilled both of those commitments by laying an amended section 3 statement before Parliament and publishing updates to the extensive market guidance the Government have published on www.gov.uk.

The previous version of the section 3 statement was published in November 2021, ahead of the NSI Act’s commencement. While this updated version has a high degree of continuity with the previous version, several key changes have been made to better explain how the Secretary of State has used, and will continue to use, the Act’s powers.

These changes include further information on the approach the Government take to assessing risk in relation to:

Trigger events—including the circumstances in which certain acquisitions could be considered under the NSI Act, including the incorporation of new entities, formation of joint ventures, and outward direct investment.

The targets of acquisitions—including how the Government may consider technology transfer risks when reviewing asset acquisitions.

Acquirers—including where the Government may see risk from UK acquirers or acquirers that have previously been cleared through the NSI system.

The control being acquired—including how the Government may consider control risk in cases involving passive and non-controlling investments.

How decisions are made—including improved examples of how the Government assesses target risk, acquirer risk and control risk.

Today I have also updated the guidance for the NSI system, which is published on www.gov.uk. This includes additional guidance for higher education institutions as well as new guidance on how the Act can apply to outward direct investment and how statutory timelines are calculated. A full summary of the changes is available on www.gov.uk.

I will place a copy of the updated NSI statement for the purposes of section 3 in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS490]

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to protect public institutions and services from cyber threats.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)]

The cyber threat facing the United Kingdom is intensifying. State and non-state actors have targeted our critical national infrastructure, our businesses and even our democratic institutions. The Government have introduced a new national cyber strategy, which takes a whole-of-society approach. We have set out high standards of cyber-protection for our critical industries and, with the help of our world-leading agencies, we are offering advice to institutions, businesses and individuals on protecting themselves online.

[Nick Smith]

Cyber-security is crucial not only to our defence sector but to others, including finance, energy and retail. Sector leaders have raised fears about the future supply of cyber professionals. There is some brilliant work taking place at Ebbw Vale College in my constituency—pioneering stuff is going on around cyber-security—but can the Deputy Prime Minister say what is being done to onshore these critical roles to protect our economy from attacks by hostile actors?

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have tremendous strengths in national cyber-security, and there are many relevant institutions around the country. I have visited universities in Wales that are churning out brilliant graduates. We need to do more at secondary school level to encourage more children to get involved in cyber-security, because the demand is only going to increase in the months and years ahead, and I have been engaging with the Education Secretary on precisely this point.

[John Cryer]

We have all seen in recent weeks how weak cyber-security can compromise elected representatives and lead to the extraction of often compromising information. Could the Minister update the House on what he is doing to provide support and technology specifically to elected representatives to make sure that this does not happen in the future?

[Oliver Dowden]

This is an important issue, which is why we established the National Cyber Security Centre. It brings together Government Communications Headquarters expertise with that of the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office and others. Through the National Cyber Security Centre, we work with the House authorities and others to make sure that they have sufficient and appropriate advice, but also to advise on equipment and the general security of Members of Parliament. If they have concerns about their cyber-security, I would urge them either to get in contact directly with the National Security Cyber Centre or to do so through the relevant House authorities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that the threat is intensifying. Late last year, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy urged the Government to offer more active support on cyber-security to local authorities. He may be aware that last month my own local authority, Leicester City Council, suffered a hugely sophisticated attack, which disrupted many local authority services and has hugely inconvenienced many of my constituents, who rely on those services. Given that we are seeing more of these ransomware group attacks on public institutions across the world and that he says, rightly, that the threat is intensifying, what urgent support and guidance is he offering local councils, such as mine in Leicester?

[Oliver Dowden]

Specifically in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s local authority, I have been briefed by the National Cyber Security Centre on that incident. He is totally right to say it is a significant and serious incident, and we are working on remediation through the National Cyber Security Centre. To prevent this type of attack from happening in the first place, we invested £2.6 billion in the national cyber strategy, which is about improving cyber-resilience and reducing legacy technology. I have been quite open with the House in saying that the threat is intensifying because we see hostile states creating environments in which cyber-criminals can flourish, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of those hostile states. We are working through our intelligence agencies and the National Cyber Security Centre to continuously improve our performance.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to strengthen national security.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)]

Protecting national security is the Government’s first duty. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced a fully funded plan to increase our defence spending by £75 billion over the next six years. As part of this uplift, we will bring forward a national defence and resilience plan, building on the resilience framework and integrated review to respond to the evolving threats we face. We are bringing our defence and civilian preparations together to reflect the interconnectedness of those threats. The Cabinet Office plays a central role in this endeavour, co-ordinating strategy through Cobra, resilience directorates and the National Security Council.

[Mike Amesbury]

In the past week, three people in Germany have been arrested on suspicion of spying for China and two have been charged in the UK. This comes on the back of the Intelligence and Security Committee report which concluded that the Government have no strategy or whole-system—whole-Government —approach to deal with this serious threat. When is the Minister going to get a grip on this serious threat to our democracy from China?

[Oliver Dowden]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We dealt explicitly with this in both the integrated review and the integrated review refresh, which set out a co-ordinated approach and are clear about the threats we face from hostile states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and indeed China. We are very clear about the threats China poses to our economic security and our democratic institutions, and that is why we have taken a range of actions, including for the first time directly attributing attacks to China and imposing sanctions in respect of them.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

With local and national elections on the horizon, it is vital that voters can have full confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. With that in mind, what assessment has the Department made of the risks posed by deepfakes and misinformation in the upcoming elections?

[Oliver Dowden]

I have considerable concerns about deepfakes being used in the upcoming elections. We have seen hack and leak being used as a tactic by hostile states in previous elections, and we have to take into account deepfake capabilities, particularly enhanced by artificial intelligence. That is why we are developing our strategy through the Defending Democracy Taskforce and undertaking exercises right now to enhance our capabilities. It is, however, a challenge to all citizens not necessarily to take images to be true on first sight, because of adversaries’ enhanced capability.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve support for female veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)]

The Cabinet Office continues to play a central co-ordinating role in protecting our national and economic security. Last week, we published the response to the call for evidence on the National Security and Investment Act 2021, and I set out the steps we will take to fine-tune that system, including honing our approach to export controls, outward investment and providing more support to business.

Later, I will be convening a round table of university vice-chancellors to brief them on the security risks in research and academia, and to discuss how we address those. All of that complements our plans for a generational £75 billion uplift in defence spending, including a new national defence and resilience plan, setting out a cross-Government approach to security, preparedness and resilience as a nation.

[Christine Jardine]

It is often claimed by critics that the continual stream of ineffective and incompetent legislation we see from Holyrood is evidence of the need for a second, democratically elected Chamber to scrutinise properly. We have such an effective Chamber here and this week we have seen how important it can be in legislation. Would that Chamber’s position not have been strengthened by being a democratically elected second revising Chamber? Does the Secretary of State agree that the time has come when we need to look again at how we reform the House of Lords to make it more relevant to the 21st century and more democratic?

[Oliver Dowden]

I am afraid that I completely disagree with the hon. Lady about having an elected second Chamber. This is the democratic Chamber for our nation. It is the principal voice of the nation. We do not need a second Chamber in conflict with this one, further burdening and complexing legislative processes.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

The very welcome Windsor framework demonstrated a strong commitment to human and animal health by extending Northern Ireland’s access to veterinary medicines until 2025. I welcome the establishment of the veterinary medicines working group by the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Minister of State. I am pleased to be part of that group, which is working hard to find a permanent solution to this matter. Can my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office, reassure the House that the Government will continue to strain every sinew in discussions with the EU to protect both animal health and public health in Northern Ireland and right across the UK with a permanent solution for access to veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall ask a policy question.

The Government recently awarded a contract for a supercomputer to Lenovo, a China-headquartered firm that has been the subject of enforcement action by the United States on security grounds. This supercomputer will be used by critical Government bodies such as the UK Atomic Energy Authority. How will Ministers safeguard the public against any possible misuse of sensitive Government data as a result of the awarding of the contract?

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he has also written to me regarding that topic. I can assure him that we will be working with the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Security Secretariat to ensure that full checks and measures are put in place to prevent such abuse from occurring.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to his role as general election co-ordinator for the Labour party. I understand that he sits on the quad, which determines Labour policy, so perhaps he could clear up, for the benefit of us all, this question on an issue of national security. Does the Labour party support our £75 billion increase in defence spending? If he cares about these things, the answer should be plainly, “Yes, we do”.

[Mr McFadden]

When we announce a policy, we ensure that it is properly costed and funded, which I recommend to the Deputy Prime Minister. One other cyber-threat that modern states are facing is prepositioning: the planting of destructive software in critical infrastructure that can then be activated at a later date. The director of the FBI said that prepositioning of the Volt Typhoon type discovered in American infrastructure was

“the defining threat of our generation”.

America’s cyber-defence agency said that Five Eyes allies were also likely to have been targeted. Have the Government looked for or found Volt-Typhoon-type infiltration of any parts of our critical national IT infrastructure, and if so what action is being taken to remove it?

[Oliver Dowden]

The right hon. Gentleman has been around this place long enough to know that he is delivering a non-answer on Labour’s support for defence spending. The whole House will have noted that, although he raises an important issue in respect of prepositioning. He will appreciate that there are limits to what I can say from the Dispatch Box given that some of this relates to high-side intelligence, but I assure him that we are working with our Five Eyes allies, in particular the United States, since the US and the UK have exceptional capability in these areas, to ensure that we both have adequate knowledge and understanding of such prepositioning, and take effective steps in respect of it.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Eight weeks ago, on 29 February, at first order questions, I asked the Minister without Portfolio what the Government would do to assist people who are adversely affected by the statute of limitations as a result of having been injured by covid-19 vaccines. My right hon. Friend said in response that she had taken the issue to the permanent secretary. Will she update us on what has happened with the permanent secretary over the past eight weeks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T2. I recently met with Emma Howard Boyd to discuss the interim findings of the Mayor of London’s climate resilience review, which she has been leading on. It involves the work of many different Government Departments at a national level. Will the Minister update us on whether we are conducting a similar exercise? The review is looking at what the impact would be of a similar heat- wave to the one we had a couple of years ago, flash flooding and all sorts of things. It is not just the responsibility of DESNZ or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; it covers many Departments, so it is a Cabinet Office responsibility.

[Oliver Dowden]

It is an important question. We are doing exactly that. Extreme heat is something that we have to increasingly plan against. That is why last year, for the first time, we introduced an alert system for extreme heat that matches the alert system for extreme cold. I disagree, though, with the Mayor of London that the way to deal with this is to start imposing 20 mph speed limits everywhere and an ultra low emission zone. I hope that the people of London will take the opportunity to vote against that next week.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

Earlier we heard a number of statements from the Opposition questioning ministerial integrity, but perhaps they should look closer to home—to be precise, at the first Minister of Wales and his links with donations to his leadership campaign and the Development Bank of Wales. Can the Minister tell us when the Welsh Labour party will apply to itself the standards that Labour has called for in the Chamber this morning—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T5. If I may press the Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Office officials have refused to say whether Lord Cameron has recused himself from parts of his role as Foreign Secretary, given his previous well-paid work in promoting the China-backed Port City Colombo. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Foreign Secretary has recused himself from any part of his ministerial duties?

[Oliver Dowden]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, shortly before taking office the Foreign Secretary not only had all his interests properly reviewed by the propriety and ethics team in my Department, but went through them with the independent adviser on ministers’ interests. The independent adviser set out all relevant interests, and those have been published, so the information is transparently out there for people to be able to judge for themselves.

[George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)]

T6. Ever since the monster Cyril Smith, formally of this House, but initially mayor of Rochdale, the town has been blighted by scandals of grooming and cover-up. We currently have 64 men on bail on grooming charges in Rochdale. The previous Labour mayor of Rochdale and the next mayor of Rochdale—the King’s representatives—were both investigated on charges of sexual malpractice towards young girls in their employ, with all the power imbalances that that implies. Self-regulation, with no investigation by any outside party—how can this be right? What will the Minister do to help me to clean up Rochdale?

[Oliver Dowden]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, any criminal allegations are properly a matter for the courts, and he would not expect a Minister to comment on them from this Dispatch Box. If he wishes to write to me in respect of the further allegations he makes, I will be happy to take them up myself or with ministerial colleagues.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

What consideration has been given to the merits of making it illegal for public sector bodies to pay ransoms if they are the victim of a ransomware attack?

[Oliver Dowden]

That is a good question; it is something the Government continue to keep open and under review. The argument against doing so is that it could discourage companies that are subject to ransomware attacks from reporting them, for example to the National Cyber Security Centre. Those reports help us to gather intelligence on the nature of those threats and to work with victims to resolve them. It is not something I rule out totally, but that is the reason that we have not imposed it so far.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), will know that many councils in Northern Ireland have appointed veterans’ champions. Will he join me in acknowledging the work that many veterans’ champions do? Will he also call on the wide range of political parties on councils in Northern Ireland to offer their unstinting support to those champions to help to deliver services to veterans?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This is a very simple question to the Deputy Prime Minister: does the Foreign Secretary stand recused in any aspect of his job by virtue of his financial interests, either now or before he was appointed to his post—yes or no?

[Oliver Dowden]

The Labour party keep on pushing on this point, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the latest list of ministerial interests, which was published in December and provides details of Minister’s interests, including those of the Foreign Secretary, that are judged by the independent adviser to be relevant, or could be perceived to be relevant, to their ministerial roles. All of it is there in the public domain.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

With reference to the written questions that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office has answered, can he outline what the Government consider to be the difference between a foreign court and an international court?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Just now, the Deputy Prime Minister raised the issue of the £75 billion public spending announcement. Would he care to tell the House why, after 14 years in power, it takes an upcoming general election for him and his party to make defence spending policies?

[Oliver Dowden]

It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention, but Russia has invaded Ukraine and Iran’s proxies are attacking our allies in the middle east. That demands a response from the Government, and it has been provided by the Prime Minister. It is very notable that the Labour party is failing to match that commitment.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Papers at an employment tribunal last week reported that Rowaa Ahmar, a former civil servant, stated that

“the racism within the Cabinet Office appeared to be unrelenting and systemic”,

and that, despite having a role as head of policy in the Government’s illegal migration taskforce, she was made unwelcome at meetings about the Rwanda plan because of her views on the racist ultra-hostility of the policies. Is Ms Ahmar right that speaking up against racism in the Cabinet Office is a career death sentence?

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Dowden Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

1.   If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 April.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Oliver Dowden)]

Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply. I know that Members across the House will wish to join me in offering condolences to the family and friends of Lord Frank Field. He was an outstanding parliamentarian who worked tirelessly to make society a better place.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Berlin. He has announced the biggest strengthening of our defence in a generation.

I am sure that Members will want to join me in wishing the Jewish community a happy Passover, a celebration of freedom. Of course, we remember the empty chairs of those hostages still being held captive in Gaza and call for their immediate release.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I, too, wish to pass on my thoughts and prayers to Lord Field’s family, friends and colleagues and particularly to students and teachers at the Birches Head Academy in Stoke-on-Trent who are part of the Frank Field Education Trust.

Since being elected in 2019, I have: helped to reopen Tunstall Town Hall with a new library and family hub; secured funding for additional CCTV, new alley gates and better lighting in Tunstall to ensure that our streets are safe; and helped to breathe new life into Tunstall’s old library and baths, thanks to this Government’s levelling-up fund of £56 million to Stoke-on-Trent.

Sadly, Labour-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council seeks to undermine that progress by: introducing a brand new tax on residents to have their garden waste collected; refusing to take planning enforcement against rogue and absent landlords who plague Tunstall High Street; and increasing crime and antisocial behaviour by dumping undesirable people in the centre of Tunstall. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that Stoke-on-Trent Labour—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a question to be asked and a time in which we ask it. I suggest that the hon. Member puts in for an Adjournment debate. I am sure that he has the answers.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, there is not much that I can add to that. [Laughter.] The hon. Member has, as ever, proved what an excellent campaigner he is for his constituents. He highlights the same problems with Labour councils across the country, raising taxes and letting services fall into disrepair. Of course he is totally right to be holding rogue landlords to account.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the deputy Leader of the Opposition.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

First, may I share the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments regarding our Jewish community and wish them a happy Passover? I wish to acknowledge the loss of David Marquand and Baroness Massey, both of whom made historic contributions in Parliament, politics and wider life. I also send my condolences, following today’s news, to the family of Lord Frank Field, who was a good friend of mine and a colleague. He was a tireless campaigner against poverty and a champion for his constituents.

Mr Speaker, I know that the Conservative party is desperate to talk about my living arrangements, but the public wants to know what this Government will do about theirs. Natalie from Brighton has been served with two no-fault eviction notices in 18 months. She joins nearly a million families at risk of homelessness due to the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure to ban this cruel practice. Instead of obsessing over my house, when will he get a grip and show the same obsession with ending no-fault evictions?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

To begin with, it is a pleasure to have another exchange with the right hon. Lady in this House—our fifth in 12 months. Any more of these and she will be claiming it as her principal residence.

On the issue of no-fault evictions, it may have escaped the right hon. Lady’s attention, but we will be voting on exactly that matter later today. This is the Conservative Government taking action.

[Angela Rayner]

The Deputy Prime Minister clearly thought that he could spend all week obsessing over my living arrangements and did not even bother to read up on his own Government’s Bill this afternoon. The reality is that he caved in to vested interest on his Back Benches and delayed justice for people like Natalie. This week, the Housing Minister said that there is no solid date for banning no-fault evictions. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities now says that it will not happen before an election. If the Deputy Prime Minister can give us a date, will he name it now?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I can name the date for the right hon. Lady: today. It is today that the House will vote on it, and I am confident that, in line with our manifesto, we will deliver on that commitment.

[Angela Rayner]

The Deputy Prime Minister clearly has not been looking up his own Government Bills. Let me turn to another Tory housing failure. Leaseholds are a rip off and a con, but the Government’s proposed ban on new leaseholds applies only to houses. The majority of leaseholds are in flats. What is the point of a ban on new leaseholds if it will not apply to flats?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Again, the right hon. Lady is talking about legislation introduced by this Government that the Labour party totally failed to introduce in its entire time in office. It is no surprise, because it is this Government who have brought social housing waiting lists down by nearly half a million, and delivered more affordable homes in the last 12 years than Labour delivered when it was in office. Of course, all this can only be paid for by ensuring that we have a strong economy. Her policy to repeal every single Conservative trade union law in the first 100 days would open the door to French-style wildcat strikes, sweeping away the reforms that made this country great. We all know, though, the one reform by Margaret Thatcher that the right hon. Lady would not abolish: the right to buy your council house.

[Angela Rayner]

I was expecting a little bit better from the Deputy Prime Minister. He seems to be a bit worn out. Maybe it is the 3 am calls from the “bad men” that have been keeping him up at night. He talks about strikes and the unions. We have had more strikes under this Government’s watch than at any time before. Once again, he has not read his own Bill. Their ban on leasehold will not apply to the majority of people. It is like banning non-doms but exempting Tory Prime Ministers. He speaks about affordable homes. Families are trapped in temporary accommodation and stuck on waiting lists, and in the west midlands the Conservative Mayor has used his multi-million pound housing budget to build just 46 social homes in eight years. That is almost as many as in the Chancellor’s property portfolio. The British people know that the Conservative party will not build the homes that this country needs, so when will they get a chance to vote for a Government who will?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am surprised that the right hon. Lady raises the west midlands when Labour-controlled Birmingham has virtually bankrupted the council and is hiking up council tax by 21%, while in the meantime—I am sure that this would please her—continuing to hand out £1.8 million to the trade unions. By contrast, Andy Street, our brilliant Mayor of the wider west midlands, has delivered £6.1 billion of investment to improve transport. There you have it: the contrast between the Conservative party and the Labour party, and the usual political opportunism from her, failing to ask about the issues that really matter. If you want more bin collections, more potholes filled, lower debt and lower council tax, vote Conservative, because whether it is Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley or Andy Street in the west midlands, it is only the Conservative Mayors who deliver more for less.

[Angela Rayner]

It is pretty revealing that the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that housing is not an issue for the British people; I think it really is. People in glass houses should not throw stones, because in Birmingham and across the whole country, councils are facing black holes because of his Government’s austerity programme. I warn the Deputy Prime Minister that Tory councils have also faced section 114 notices, and Birmingham City Council has had over £1 billion taken from its budget—from some of the poorest people. More than 16,000 families face losing their home after the Tory party’s mini-Budget, and mortgage bills continue to soar. Meanwhile, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), parades around the world in a twisted victory lap promoting her new book, saying that the mini-Budget was her proudest moment. Since she will not apologise to those families losing their home, will he?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

What the Prime Minister has done since he has taken office, with the Chancellor, is to restore stability to our economy, with inflation halved and more, down to 3%. As a result of that, in an increasingly dangerous world, the Prime Minister was able to announce his plan for the biggest strengthening of defence spending in a generation. But it should come as no surprise that the Labour party refused to say whether it backs that, because this comes from the right hon. Lady who voted to scrap Trident and to install in Downing Street someone who wanted to change the Army into a peace corps. There you have it.

[Angela Rayner]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about defence. We all want to see 2.5%; the difference is that we have not cut the Army to its smallest size since Napoleon. Never mind some secretive deep state, it is the state of the Tory party that is the problem. The Tories are in a deep state of sewage. After 14 years they have failed renters, they have failed leaseholders and they have failed mortgage holders. I read with interest that the right hon. Gentleman has been urging his neighbour in No. 10 to call an election, because he is worried they might get wiped out. Has he finally realised that when he stabbed Boris Johnson in the back to get his mate into No. 10, he was ditching their biggest election winner for a pint-sized loser?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think the whole House will have heard, despite all the bluster from the right hon. Lady, not a single word on whether she would actually back our plans to invest in our armed forces. No plans, in a dangerous world. Of course, as ever, the deputy Labour leader is always looking to attack others’ failures, but never one to take responsibility for her own. She once said, “You shouldn’t be waiting for the police to bang on your door. If you did it, then you shouldn’t be doing your job.” The right hon. landlady should forget her tax advice and follow her own advice.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Q4. Levelling up, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) mentioned earlier, is absolutely on fire in the Calder Valley, with £196.5 million for hospital reconfiguration, £150 million for flood defences, no fewer than 11 schools being remodelled or rebuilt as we speak, £45 million for the regeneration of three town centres and Elland getting a new railway station. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the naysayers around levelling up need look no further than the Calder Valley to see the great achievements of this Government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is right; it is not just in the Calder Valley, but in communities up and down the country. The Government are investing billions in infrastructure across the United Kingdom, creating jobs and opportunities in every region. I know that he has been a staunch advocate for the Calder Valley, which is a fantastic example of that in action.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I join in wishing the Jewish community a happy Passover and sending my condolences to the family and loved ones of Frank Field.

Two years ago, when mass graves were discovered in Ukraine, this House united in condemnation and rightly treated those graves as evidence of war crimes, which Russia must be made to answer for. Yesterday, Palestinian officials uncovered two mass graves outside the bombed hospitals in Gaza. Those graves also constitute a war crime, do they not?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course, we would expect the democratic Government of Israel to investigate any allegations of misconduct. That is exactly what they are doing, and it is exactly what the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister urge them to do. However, I find it quite extraordinary that the hon. Lady seeks to draw parallels between the legitimate war of self-defence of Israel and the conduct of Russia.

[Mhairi Black]

Three hundred bodies, including of the elderly and the injured, some of which had been stripped naked and mutilated, with their hands tied behind their backs. The UK’s own arms policy states that if there is even a risk that war crimes may be taking place, that is reason enough to halt the sale of arms. Given all that we know, why is the Prime Minister yet to do so?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We continue to urge the Israeli Government to investigate any allegations of misconduct. The difference though is that we can trust the Israeli Government—a democratically elected Government—to properly investigate those things. Of course, we keep the advice under review. The Foreign Secretary has recently made it clear that he has conducted a determination and has not changed his advice regarding export licences, and I think that is the correct decision.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Q6. The good people of Lincoln, who all declare their taxes and pay tax on profit when selling their second homes, overwhelmingly want Lincoln Christmas market to be brought back after the Labour-run city council cruelly closed it last year. The Labour city council has refused to do what the people of Lincoln want. What message does the Deputy Prime Minister send to the voters of Lincoln before next week’s local elections?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am afraid that what my hon. Friend has described is the Grinch in action. That Christmas market, in the home of Magna Carta, was beloved by local residents, but the council has totally ignored their wishes and cancelled it. It should reverse that decision.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I offer our condolences to the friends and family of the late Lord Frank Field, and wish a happy Passover to all those in the Jewish community.

Unpaid carers have shared heartbreaking stories of how they have been hounded by the Department for Work and Pensions and told to pay huge fines for minor infringements of carer’s allowance earning rules, all because the Government have failed to do anything about a problem that they have known about for years. Yesterday, one of the Prime Minister’s own dementia advisers resigned, saying that the Government’s treatment of those unpaid carers was “beyond the pale.” Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologise to all unpaid carers who have been failed by his Government, and will he commit to a full review of the system?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to all unpaid carers. Indeed, I met some of them over the weekend and know how hard they work. They keep our society functioning through their commitment to us. That is why we have uprated the benefits by £81.90 a week, and have increased the carer’s allowance by almost £1,500 since 2010. In respect of allegations of overpayment, of course appropriate discretion should be shown, but if there have been erroneous overpayments, it is right, on behalf of the taxpayer, to be able to recuperate them. However, we will work with anyone who is struggling with those repayments to negotiate sustainable and affordable repayment plans.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Q7. My island constituency of Ynys Môn is accessed via two bridges: the Menai suspension bridge and the Britannia bridge. Holyhead is the second busiest port in the UK, but bridge repairs and the weather can result in long traffic queues. To make the most of our Anglesey freeport and new nuclear at Wylfa, a third crossing is vital. Last year, the Welsh Labour Government scrapped plans for all new road projects, including our third bridge. Will the Deputy Prime Minister use his influence to ensure that north Wales is not ignored by Cardiff, and that we get that third bridge?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know and understand the frustration across Wales, particularly in my hon. Friend’s constituency, about this state of affairs. The Welsh Government have not prioritised building new roads. They are damaging growth potential in places such as Anglesey, and are spending £100 million on new politicians. We will work with her to ensure that we resolve the matter.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

Q2. The Conservative candidate for London Mayor has promoted Islamophobic tropes online, endorsed the beliefs of Enoch Powell and claimed that the black community has a problem with crime. In the week when we marked the 31st anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, does the Deputy Prime Minister really endorse those views?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Lady knows that she does not correctly represent the views of the candidate. I find it extraordinary that she has raised the issue of crime, because while Labour’s London Mayor has increased the precept by over 70%, recorded crime in London has increased by 20%. That is the record of the Labour London Mayor—no wonder people will be voting against him.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Q13. I note that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, and thank the Government for the recent pollack catch compensation. On 12 May, we will see the first ever national fishing remembrance day. I will be marking the occasion by laying a wreath at a service held at Looe quayside by the memorial plaque that has the name of my late husband and, unfortunately, others on it. Will the Deputy Prime Minister mark the occasion by remembering those who have died bringing this important food source to our tables, and will he ask the Prime Minister to do so?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know how important this matter is to my hon. Friend—I am sure she will be remembering her late husband Neil on that day. It is important that we all recognise the sacrifices made by fishermen and women to bring food to our tables, and I know that my colleague the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), will be visiting Grimsby on that day.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Q3. In today’s Northern Echo, Boro chairman Steve Gibson describes the Mayor of Tees Valley as having given away the future of the region’s children. He was referring to the 40% of Teesworks, with a forecast worth of £500 million, gifted by Lord Houchen in a deal to two local business mates. Mr Gibson, who helped establish the local development corporation, describes that deal as “unforgiveable”. Will the Government finally admit that Lord Houchen and the Conservatives have sold Teesside taxpayers down the river?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about Teesside taxpayers, but Ben Houchen has never imposed a mayoral precept in Tees Valley, full stop. At the same time, he has saved Teesside airport and secured a new freeport for Teesside—no wonder people will be voting for him again.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen the video that is doing the rounds of the theft in a shop in my constituency, Boots the chemist on Station Road? In the space of eight minutes, two threatening individuals robbed thousands of pounds out of that shop, and they are not alone: it is happening again and again. In fact, one of my team went out and photographed them leaving brazenly, not caring, and even spitting at the police. Will my right hon. Friend please now say to the Home Secretary, and through him to the police, that this is not a petty crime? This is a threat of violence and massive robbery, and it should be a priority for the police. We always talk about more police; surely what we should be asking for is more effective policing that gets those criminals off the streets.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue: often, the allegedly lower-level crimes are the ones that have the biggest impact on communities. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been very clear on that point, and I will make it to him again. That is also why we are rolling out a range of crime prevention measures through the safer streets fund; it is why we are improving CCTV and street lighting; and it is why we introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to give the police greater powers to deliver tougher sentences for more serious offenders.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

Q5. Earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister said that when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor took office, they restored stability to the UK economy. Who does he think caused the instability?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Labour Members might want to forget it, but I remember the day the Conservatives came into office in 2010. What was the note left on the desk of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? “There is no money left.” That is the challenge that we have addressed through the Prime Minister and Chancellor successively.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Labour’s mayoral candidate in the West Midlands talks about housing, but makes no commitment to protect our precious green belt. He talks about transport, but he fails to commit to reopening Aldridge train station. He committed to saving police stations such as Aldridge; then, when the Labour police and crime commissioner said he would close them, he changed his mind and agreed to that. So we are left wondering in my constituency what he stands for. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that only Mayor Andy Street has a plan and a track record to be trusted to deliver for the West Midlands?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to highlight the record of Labour’s police and crime commissioner, and West Midlands police has actually been put in special measures on Simon Foster’s watch. When it comes to the green belt, we have all seen the new wheeze from the Labour party—redesignate green belt “grey belt” and concrete all over it. Well, the Conservatives will not allow that to happen, and people up and down the country will vote Conservative to stop that happening.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Q8. Conservative Ministers like to blame strikes and the pandemic for the appalling waiting times in the NHS. The Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has not hit its target for seeing patients in A&E within four hours since 2015—before the strikes and before the pandemic, but five years after the Conservatives came to office. So who does the Deputy Prime Minister blame for that?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Labour Members like to pretend the pandemic did not happen, and they like—[Interruption.] That is the cause of the biggest pressure on the NHS. They complain about NHS performance while backing strikes by doctors, who unreasonably want a 35% pay rise. Despite all of those pressures, actually A&E performance has improved in the past month.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

The Labour leader of the almost bankrupt Hastings Borough Council and several other Labour councillors resigned from the Labour party citing that the national Labour party has become overly authoritarian, in a “dereliction of local democracy”, and has “lost its moral compass” and is suffocating local voices because its only objective is power for power’s sake. Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that voting for Conservative candidates in upcoming elections will ensure local voters are heard, local democracy is upheld and better services are delivered?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the really serious concerns about Labour councillors in Hastings. One former Labour councillor said that Labour are no longer providing

“the policies, the support, or the focus on local government”.

I could not have put it better myself.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Q9. With thousands of steelworkers’ jobs on the line, the likelihood of industrial action and reports of a deal for India to be exempt from carbon taxes, will this Government now back the detailed, serious and robust multi-union proposal as the only way to keep primary steel making in the UK?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Government will engage with any proposals that have been brought forward, as we always do, but it is actually the case that we have already provided over £700 million in energy cost relief to the steel sector in the past 10 years. It is also the case that, even in the past year, the Government spent £97 million more on UK-made steel for major public projects. So we are continuing to work with the steel industry, but we have already provided tremendous support.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I very much associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend regarding Lord Frank Field, who was a good man.

I very much welcome the Government’s firm commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% by 2030. It is something that will send the right message to our allies and potential adversaries alike, and it is something on which the 1922 defence committee has been campaigning for a little while. However, would my right hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that some of that increased money is spent on additional recruitment—including, if necessary, increasing wages sufficiently—to ensure that the Navy can manage ships, the Air Force can maintain its aircraft and the Army can dominate ground?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know what a staunch advocate my hon. Friend is for the armed forces and for funding the armed forces. All of us can take great pride that we are putting the resources in to meet the challenges that the nation is likely to face over the next five years. We will be working through the allocation of that, but it is already the case that in January we had the largest ever number of applications in recent years to join the armed forces, so we are making progress on that.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Q10.   My constituent Lisa cares for her mother. She works part-time at WHSmith and was sure to keep the Department for Work and Pensions informed so that she would not be overpaid carer’s allowance. However, because of a DWP blunder, she now faces a bill for £4,000. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology cares for her career. She works part-time as a woke detector. However, when she blundered, calling a top scientist a Hamas supporter, the bill—tens of thousands of pounds in costs and damages—was picked up by taxpayers like Lisa. Why?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is this Government who have uprated benefits for carers, with almost £1,500 more. I think it is the case that the hon. Lady’s constituents, my constituents and people up and down the country would expect the Government to seek to recover overpaid sums. We need to do that in a compassionate way, and if people are struggling to make repayments, the DWP will engage to ensure that they have a sustainable and affordable way to make those repayments.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

May I associate myself with the tributes and condolences paid to the late great Frank Field? One of his lasting achievements in the world of education is the holiday activities and food fund, which this Government can take great pride in having funded. May I urge my right hon. Friend to use his good offices across Government to ensure that we secure a multi-year settlement for the continuance of that vital work?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know what an important piece of work this is, and I know my hon. Friend’s commitment to campaigning for it. We have already provided substantial sums, and I am sure we will continue to do so.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Q11.   As the chair of the Scottish arm of Feeding Britain, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, and those on the Front Benches for their tributes to the great Frank Field? He chaired an all-party parliamentary inquiry 10 years ago on food poverty, and food bank use has increased relentlessly since then. Will the Government consider, in Frank Field’s memory, a cross-sector summit with the aim of helping communities to secure the resources to deliver food security programmes at the necessary scale?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Lord Frank Field’s campaigning. It is the case that over the past couple of years, we have provided more than £108 billion-worth of support with the cost of living, including extra cost of living payments of £900 last year. The effect of all that is that 1.1 million fewer people are living in absolute poverty than when the Conservatives came to office.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Last week we had the Finance Bill, and in it I noticed a reduction in capital gains tax from 28% to 24% on residential properties to try to turbo-boost the residential market. Will that apply retrospectively, so that hypothetically, if a Labour Front Bencher owed capital gains tax, they would benefit from this Conservative tax cut?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have always believed in having lower taxes that everyone pays.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Q12. This week marks the fifth Lesbian Visibility Week, founded by my good friend and publisher of DIVA magazine, Linda Riley. It comes at a time when LGBTQIA women are being let down by this Government, and nowhere more so than in their failure to remove the financial burdens that same-sex couples face when accessing IVF. My constituents Holly and Leanne, like so many others, have been priced out of having a family, so will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to finally ending this gay tax for same-sex couples who want to start a family?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I would dispute the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the Government’s record in this area: it was this Government who introduced marriage for same-sex couples and passed the Turing law. She raised an important point that I am happy to take up the Health Secretary, but the overall record of this Government is an excellent one.