Covid-19 Inquiry

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join his tribute to Baroness Hallett for her report.

We all know how challenging the pandemic was. Sadly, far too many lives were lost—I pay tribute to all the victims from across our country and the world. That is why the Conservative Government put in place the inquiry, and former Ministers have been co-operating with its work—I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for acknowledging that. It is clear from the inquiry’s investigations and findings so far that response times and processes were too slow and disjointed—we recognise that—but it is also clear that there was an incredibly challenging process and no easy answers.

Module 1 examined our country’s pandemic resilience and preparedness, so I will focus on that. The Government’s response has identified a number of overarching implementations from the module recommendations. We are broadly supportive of the Government’s direction. As the inquiry report notes, it is important to strengthen cross-governmental communication and data sharing, and communication and co-ordination between devolved Administrations. I appreciate that the Government recognise that and are taking forward the recommendation to ensure that the Cabinet Office has a clearer and stronger role in crisis and resilience co-ordination.

The Government have clearly signalled their intention to build on the work started under the last Government, who put together the resilience directorate within the Cabinet Office with the goal of ensuring clear accountability and leadership for long-term resilience and crisis planning. I hope that the steps that the Government have set out will successfully build on that. I am also thankful that they are building on the last Government’s work to lay the foundations of the resilience academy, and I look forward to tracking that progress.

It is important to note that the Government intend to strengthen the articulation of requirements for resilience and emergency training qualifications. I am thankful that they are building on the work that we implemented to establish a new national exercising programme, and are planning a full pandemic exercise for this year. Importantly, we need to recognise that the risks that we will face will be dynamic, because we do not know what the future will hold. I hope that the pandemic exercise will involve cross-cutting segments of microbial resistance and technology infrastructure, which will be key challenges that continue to grow in importance.

The Government have also emphasised the holistic work that can be conducted across all types of organisations as a result of the highly transparent risk register that we first published in 2023. I appreciate that they are setting out their intention to build on that, and offer a wider range of scenarios and frameworks to the register in future. However, they do not seem to fully recognise that there is far too much complication in the system, which risks masking fundamental matters of cross-governmental co-ordination with political measures. I recognise in the Government’s response the desire to ensure independent input into the whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience and, in doing so, establish a number of expert advisory groups, but I caution them that that must be backed up by real accountability and progress tracking, to ensure that the work conducted by those teams is enacted transparently and for clear reasons. They must not be just talking shops.

The Government have announced a significant number of reviews, consultations and taskforces, but without real accountability and framework clarity, they risk being only a temporary solution to long-term issues. That is a particular concern when it comes to national resilience. Although we support the Government’s direction, I want to raise a couple of questions. On recommendation 3, the Minister mentioned mapping, which is very welcome, but will he expand a little on the combined impacts of different vulnerabilities for certain groups and how they can be overlaid in that mapping process?

On recommendations 4 and 5 on the whole system emergency strategy and, crucially, that data element, is there data to support the strategy? What confidence does he have in that at the moment? Will he use the UK Biobank for that? There are critical issues around academic freedom as we look into very complex issues, and overlapping issues within communities across the country.

On recommendation 6, what response has the Minister had so far from the devolved Governments? He said that they have been very positive, but could he go a little further? In response to recommendation 9, the red groups sounded good, but I was a little worried when he said, “We are establishing eight advisory groups to combat group-think.” That sounds a little like a tautology. I want to ensure that those groups will be properly independent and that the Government are challenged on their plans. On recommendation 7, there was an important point around reporting back the findings of the nationwide investigations. On the publishing and timeliness, the report asked for three-month publications—will the Minister speak to that? The Cabinet Office said that it is scoping and testing solutions to resolve multi-agency reports. Will he speak to that?

Finally—thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—we must not lose sight of the fact that there are shifting landscapes, and our response will be a long-term thing. I appreciate the Government’s response today, but they have not yet responded to last year’s House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on reforming the process by which public inquiries are conducted. That is slightly overdue, so if the right hon. Gentleman could update us on progress on that, I would be most grateful. We must ensure that the tracker is in place so that on issues such as this, the Horizon scandal or the infected blood scandal, we are always in the right place.

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and for his broad support for our response, including on the resilience directorate academy and the full pandemic exercise. Let me turn to his questions.

On mapping, the data is getting better. The Government’s ability to gather and use data has improved over time, and it is important that we do that as well as we can. Data has been described as the new oil, and it is important that the Government, which have access to good data around the country, use that to map vulnerabilities and to make sure that the next crisis does not expose cracks in our society, as was the case the last time around.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about work with the devolved Governments. Around those tables, people are not always of the same political party or outlook, but in my experience in the last six months, the spirit has been good and one of co-operation. It has been underpinned by the common understanding that, on an issue such as public protection, the public do not really care about political differences. They expect all of us, whatever our political stripe, to work together for their safety and the common good. That is what we should do.

Red teaming and challenge are important, but they have to be put into context. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned accountability; I said in my statement that accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions ultimately has to rest with the Government. We are all for challenge and all for independent input into that, but at the end of the day, that is where the accountability lies and that is who has to take the resource allocation decisions. We will publish the findings of the pandemic exercise. I want to see inquiries come to conclusions more quickly so that victims of injustices can get justice more quickly.

The final thing I say in response to the right hon. Gentleman is that he is right to say that the future may not be the same as the past; that is why flexibility has to be built into all this.

General Election

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I extend my thanks, as many others have done, to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for the way he kicked off the debate. I also thank Michael Westwood, who is sitting in the Gallery, for putting the topic forward for debate. I know I should not be referring to him, Mrs Harris, but with 3 million people having signed his petition, he has clearly caught the public mood.

I would just caution some Government Members. One of them said that this was a debate on a pointless motion, but over 3 million people have signed the petition because they are really concerned about what the Government are doing. I can understand why the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) wants to move on from talking about whether Labour has fulfilled its manifesto commitments, but instead let us try to get away from this idea of a blame game, because there is real concern among the public that people were misled ahead of the general election.

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), put it really well when he said that the Government should listen to people’s frustrations, because there are real frustrations up and down the country among small businesses, family farms, ordinary working people and pensioners. Thousands of them in my constituency have written to me about their concerns. Although no one should be in any doubt that the Government elected six months ago are unlikely to face a general election any time soon, we should all acknowledge the massive public support that the petition has gained, with 3 million signatures. Government Members should also realise that we are now over 10% of the way into their time in office. If they do not start listening to the public, that might be 10% of their entire time in this place.

With more than 6,000 signatories to the petition in my constituency of Basildon and Billericay, and even more in the nearby constituencies of my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), it is clear that the public feeling behind the petition is based on the Government’s significant early failures. That is an understandable perspective, given that the Government’s primary method of governing so far has been consistently to break their biggest promises and then to blame everyone else, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said. It can reasonably be argued that those promises have been broken in a manner that implies contempt for the public and has been highly damaging for trust in this Government.

The Government’s failures and broken promises started early. On the morning of 5 July, the new Prime Minister walked up to the door of Downing Street and talked about a Government of service. Looking on, with a new pass and new access, was the major Labour donor Lord Alli. From the off, it has been clear that the promises of integrity, accountability and transparency from this Government have been broken. From the literal first day of the Labour Government, the public could not help feeling that Labour was selling out and selling them short.

Soon afterwards, it came to light that the Labour Government were using exceptional civil service appointment procedures to put Labour donors and activists into positions that, fundamentally, are meant to be politically neutral. The sense was that this Government, even in their first few weeks, were systematically destroying the mechanisms that hold an elected Government to account in the interests of the whole public. That sits difficultly with people in this House, but it also sits badly with the public at large.

Members will have already sensed, from their inboxes, surgeries and conversations, an immense feeling of disappointment and perhaps increasingly anger about what the public see as the Government’s broken promises. Those are no longer just about direction or integrity; they are also about specific policies, as Members across the House have said. We know how frustrated the public are.

Labour clearly promised not to raise taxes, but on its entry into government that was one of the first things it did. In the Government’s very first Budget, they announced an increase in employer national insurance contributions, which their own Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted was in effect a tax hike for workers and working people, because it is a direct tax on their jobs. The Government’s own Chancellor had previously described this tax that was hiked as

“a tax purely on people who go to work”.

That is what it is, and that is what this Government have done, in direct contravention of their own manifesto.

The politically independent Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly stated that the tax that Labour was imposing was a clear breach of the manifesto. The Government response was to flail around about the definition of a working person. Rather than stepping up and being honest with the public—the essence of the petition that Mr Westwood initiated—this Government have failed on that very basic test of clarity and honesty.

Labour promised to stick by farmers. We all know what they did: in truth, they stuck two fingers up at farmers right across the country. Only months before being elected, the now Environment Secretary said that the Labour Government would not make changes to agricultural property relief. The now Prime Minister said that farmers deserved better. What did Labour then do? It risked thousands of small family farms up and down the country by reducing agricultural property relief and imposing a new and fundamentally unsustainable tax on our farming community. What was the Government’s response? No honesty there: I quote from the Environment Secretary, who said that farmers would have to

“learn to do more with less”.

In its manifesto, Labour promised to protect the victims of crime. What has its record been so far? Thousands of early releases were massively extended, some of which were of prisoners who went on to commit violent crimes. Labour promised to deliver “better outcomes” for pensioners: those are the exact words in the manifesto. Government Members stood, in the general election, on better outcomes for pensioners. I wonder how many pensioners out there think that today.

The Labour party threw the pensioners out into the cold. The Government knew that the decision to cut winter fuel allowance for millions would lead to hundreds of thousands more in fuel poverty, in absolute poverty and in pensioner poverty. What did they do? They concealed their own analysis, which showed what would actually happen—the devastating effect that cutting the winter fuel allowance would have. The Government slipped that analysis out months after the policy had been announced, hoping that no one would notice it.

What do the Government do? They break a promise and cover it up, time after time. Energy bills are the same. What is the first duty of Government? To protect the country. What have we seen? The promise of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence has been pushed back and pushed back. The Government have been warned repeatedly that they are seriously hurting our nation’s ability to defend itself, leaving us less safe. Is it any surprise that the public lose faith in a Government who leave them less safe?

Labour promised to give more opportunity to young people. All it has done is take a class war to independent schools while trying to reverse the positive reforms of the last Government, and indeed of the previous Labour Government, that helped to provide great new schools right up and down the country. They are taking opportunity away from young people up and down the country. It does not stop at the school gates: under this Government, tuition fees have increased for the first time in more than a decade, despite the Prime Minister having said that he wanted to scrap them.

Illegal migration is another example. The Government have literally removed any deterrents we had left. They have replaced our deterrent not with a policy, but with a slogan: that they would smash the gangs. Who knows how on earth they even plan to do it?

The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) mentioned the lower Thames crossing. I cannot believe that the decision has been put off twice already under this Government. Hundreds of millions of pounds were invested under the last Government and the decision is waiting to go. The cash is already there—it even has its own separate area of policy and spending.

Drivers are worse off. What else have the Government done on transport? For bus passengers, they scrapped the “get around for £2” scheme a few days ago, which will mean people paying an extra £10 a week at least. It will be scrapped in total in a few months’ time.

Essex colleagues have mentioned the huge hammering on housing. It was promised that local people would be consulted, yet my constituents are facing 27,000 extra homes in Basildon and Billericay. We have seen London’s housing targets slashed by 17,000, yet across the home counties there has been an increase of 18,000 a year. That does not sound like consultation with local people; it sounds like a failing Labour Mayor in London having to be bailed out by the people of Essex and the other home counties.

It is understandable that people wanted change, and fast. The petition expresses the wish of a public who want to see a Government based on honesty. That is the change they want to see: a Government who are prepared to be honest. [Interruption.] If the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), wants to speak in this debate, he should resign and take a seat on the Back Benches so he can do that.

The Government’s response has consistently been, “No, no, no—don’t worry. This is about a broader mandate. This is actually about general principles. Let’s move on from the manifesto.” Let us examine what they said. They said that they would kick-start the economy. In fact, their missions have failed and have changed. The goalposts have been so frequently moved that it is hard to keep track. We can probably all agree that economic growth lay at the heart of what Labour was talking about in the run-up to the general election. Where is it now? It has ended: there is no economic growth. As Opposition Members have pointed out, in the six months before the general election we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. What has happened since then? Absolutely nothing. It has flatlined. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Swansea West is right to point downwards: that is exactly what his Government have done to the country.

It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), who asked about the inheritance. When we came into office, £1 in every £4 that the Government spent was borrowed. That is what a really tough inheritance looks like. This Labour Government came in when we had the fastest growth in the G7, with no deficit of 11.1% of GDP. Look at the inheritance that the last Labour Government left. My greatest fear, which I think the petitioners share, is what legacy this Labour Government will leave for our families and our country. That is what the petitioners fear: that we might see the exact same legacy.

Labour promised honesty, but instead it dished out broken promises, a Chancellor accused of lying about her experience and a Transport Secretary who was revealed to have had a criminal conviction. Frankly, it is increasingly obvious that Labour sold the country and sold the people a false promise, so it is no surprise that the petition has received so many signatures.

Sadly, the Government have dismissed the petition, just as Government Members have done today. They have dismissed the voices of the public. This Labour Government are giving the impression that they just do not care and that they feel they are above the sentiments of the public. I am sure it would be easier for the Government if the public just shut up and went away for a few years to let them get on with the job, but I have to tell the Government that on every day of this Parliament, the Opposition will hold them to account for their manifesto.

The public are not stupid. They can see exactly what is happening and what this Government are doing in office. Labour Members would do well to take serious notice of the discontent displayed by Mr Westwood and by the over 3 million people who signed the petition. Otherwise, not only will trust in the Government fall further, but we will continue to decline and this Government will face nothing but further anger and further disappointment from the public.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Richard Holden Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair.

As I said on Second Reading, this is a straightforward Bill with only one substantive clause and a singular aim: to extend by five years the provisions agreed by this House in the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015. It will mean that vacancies among the Lords Spiritual continue to be filled by the most senior eligible female bishop, if there is one in post, in preference to the most senior male bishop.

The Government introduced the Bill at the request of the Church of England, as was the case in 2015. As we witnessed on Second Reading last month, the Bill has widespread cross-party support, and I am pleased that the spirit of co-operation has continued. I note that no amendments have been tabled to frustrate, challenge or change the aim of the Bill.

The purpose of clause 1 is to extend, by an additional five years, the arrangements made by the 2015 Act. Without this clause, the arrangements would cease to have effect on 17 May 2025. The Bill has been introduced to extend the provisions until 18 May 2030. Clause 2 sets out the commencement and short title of the Bill.

And there we are. It is clear that this Bill commands broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to this legislation. I very much look forward to the rest of today’s debate, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.

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

It is a privilege to speak again on this Bill. As the Minister outlined, by extending the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 by five years, this Bill does exactly what it says on the tin. It is very quick and straightforward.

I note that the Church of England introduced its own legislation in 2014 to allow for the ordination of women bishops, and this Bill stems from that. The 2015 Act was introduced by the last Government, and we look forward to seeing its quick progress today.

Overall, the 2015 Act has been successful in ensuring that women have a fair chance of sitting alongside their male counterparts in the other place as one of the Lords Spiritual. Five of the six women bishops were appointed under the Act’s provisions, showing that we have progressed since then.

When further bishops retire, the Bill will give more opportunities for even more women to progress, depending on the situation in each eligible diocese. I think it is good for our Parliament to continue pushing this forward.

Does the Minister foresee another five-year extension? When the measure was first introduced, it was to last for 10 years. How many appointments does she feel are needed before the 2015 Act becomes redundant in and of itself?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He asked whether the Government foresee extending the Act past these five years, and we will review the situation at that time. As the Opposition know, we are honouring what the Church of England has asked us to do. Since the 2015 Act received Royal Assent, we have seen six female bishops take their seats earlier than they otherwise would have done. We will have to review the situation and see what happens with this five-year extension.

As was outlined on Second Reading, we will shortly see the value of this legislation again, when we welcome Debbie Sellin, the Bishop of Peterborough, to the Lords Spiritual. We can already see and feel the benefits of the 2015 Act, and we believe that this extension will be positive. We look forward to seeing what comes out of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill, not amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank the Paymaster General for the spirit in which he has spoken today, as well as the entire Bill team behind this. We should let matters rest there and let the Bill proceed as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I am delighted to meet the Minister across the Dispatch Box. I have also been meeting many SMEs in the aftermath of the Budget. The impact of the Government’s decision to raise national insurance on many indirect providers of public services, such as GPs and hospices, appears not to have been fully factored into the Government’s workings at the time of the Budget. Now that the Government have had over a month to do the figures, what will be the impact of the national insurance job tax on the cost of public procurement, to the nearest, say, £1 billion?

[Georgia Gould]

I welcome the hon. Member to their place and look forward to meeting them across the Dispatch Box. Unfortunately, the last Government left this country in a terrible place, with public services in crisis. I was previously a council leader, and every single day I saw the absolute strain on our public services. People were waiting up to 12 hours for ambulances, which sometimes did not turn up. We have had to take action to invest in our public services in order to deliver growth. Through our procurement regime, we are already taking action to support SMEs, to ensure that money is not lost and to ensure that suppliers are paid quickly. I will set out more to the House in February—

G20 and COP29 Summits

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Great British Energy, which will be publicly owned, will drive forward on renewables, towards clean power in 2030. We have to make up time, because of the slowness of the Conservative party, but we are determined to do so. This will be measured in energy independence—so that Putin’s boot will not be on our throat, as it was in recent years—in the jobs of the future, and in lowering energy bills.

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

We know that one thing the Prime Minister was discussing with President Xi in August was the planning application for the Chinese embassy. He said to the President:

“You raised the Chinese Embassy building…when we spoke on the telephone, and we have since taken action by calling in that application.”

What discussions did Downing Street have with the Department about that call-in prior to the Deputy Prime Minister’s formal decision to call in the Chinese embassy planning application?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member will know very well that the application has been in for a number of years. It is something the previous Government were looking at, and it is being dealt with through the usual process.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Richard Holden Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Paymaster General for his clear introduction of this legislation and for the praise that he gave to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I very much want to continue the work that my right hon. Friend did on the infected blood scandal with the Paymaster General, and I look forward to doing so.

May I also thank the right hon. Member for extending a warm welcome to me? I was a special adviser in the House of Lords in the months after the 2015 Act was passed and saw at first hand the introduction of the first female bishops. As Paymaster General, the right hon. Member has an important role. He will remember that Viscount Addison did it back in the 1940s, and became the first Labour Knight of the Garter, which I am sure the right hon. Member may be looking forward to in the future.

This is a straightforward Bill, limited in its scope, with the simple purpose of extending the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 by another five years. Introduced by the coalition Government, the 2015 Act complemented the legislation that had been brought in the previous year to allow women to become bishops in the first place. The intention was to ensure that those women had a fair chance of sitting alongside their male counterparts as one of the 26 Lords Spiritual. Overall, the Act seems to have been successful in doing so. The original legislation suspended the rules that automatically elevated the most senior diocesan bishop to the House of Lords, and instead elevated a female diocesan bishop, if one was available. This has meant that there are now six women bishops in the House of Lords, all of whom have made valuable contributions in the other place.

The extension of the Bill is even shorter. It simply extends the sunset clause that was agreed in 2015, and maintains the suspension in rules so that female bishops will join the Lords Spiritual slightly sooner than they would otherwise have done. Let me express the Opposition’s support for this simple piece of legislation.

When we first introduced this legislation, it was agreed that a 10-year span would give sufficient time to assess its effectiveness. And because we are here today, I believe that we can probably agree that that timeframe was fine. I would like to ask the Paymaster General when he expects this legislation to no longer be necessary. I predict that he might say 2030, as that is the date set for the sunset of this legislation. Can he confirm why it is this timeframe that has been selected? As I previously mentioned, there are six women bishops in the House of Lords, and I am glad that the legislation has supported them in contributing so meaningfully to Parliament, but can he tell the House whether he expects to see another five-year extension in a few years’ time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) made an incredibly moving speech. I remember her predecessor well; we served on the 1922 committee together. I thought her mention of the RNLI was particularly poignant. As a former transport Minister, I remember that the her predecessor and other hon. Members brought up the Tamar bridge regularly, and I am sure it is an issue that she will take forward. I was delighted to hear her mention pasties, a traditional food. I have my own pie and mash campaign at the moment, so perhaps we could work together on the protection of local foodstuffs.

The speeches from the hon. Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), mentioning some of the female bishops who have been trailblazers, were superb. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) about the former Prime Minister, who was our first British Asian Prime Minister, and about the Leader of the Opposition, who is the first black female leader of a major UK political party. I think we would like to say, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), that it is “not a big deal”, but that is the way things have worked out.

I caution the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is famous already for his slightly cheeky contributions in the Chamber, to be careful what he wishes for when he suggests he would like more Opposition Members to speak in debates about bishops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. That is why I am delighted that she is in the role that she now holds—I know that she will champion this issue really well. Representation at all levels is important, and I will be looking to see what the Church of England does to strengthen its diversity in that area.

This Bill is about the role of a number of Lords Spiritual. It simply aims to extend the provisions of the 2015 Act to ensure that more female bishops enter into the House of Lords.

[Mr Holden]

Reflecting some of the comments that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has made, would it not be great to see some more Cross-Bench peers in the House of Lords drawn from the retired bishops, particularly the female bishops? Perhaps they could go through the appointments process for people who have contributed to public life.

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank the hon. Member for that helpful suggestion, which could be examined at the next stage. I know that he did a lot of work in this area, particularly as an adviser when this policy was being taken forward in the House of Lords, so I welcome his insight into this area.

The contributions to this debate have been extremely powerful. I know that there have been lengthy conversations about this Bill in the other place.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Richard Holden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In a moment.

It is not right that what was seen, even in 1999, as a temporary arrangement should persist any longer. This Government were elected on a manifesto that was explicit in its promises that we would bring about immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill has a tightly defined objective, and a clear focus and aim that delivers on that mandate.

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

The Minister talks about piecemeal reform and says the argument is stale, but surely the really stale argument is Labour’s. The Labour party came into government with an enormous majority and wants to reform the House of Lords, so why does it not get on and do it? Why do the Labour Government not set out some cross-party work that we can all get involved with, and introduce proper reform measures, rather than just tinkering at the edges, as the Bill does, for pure political advantage?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Who exactly speaks for the Opposition? Who knows. Rather than put that point to me, the right hon. Gentleman should take it up with the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who proposed the amendment. Do the Opposition have any coherent position left?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reform of the House of Lords with a democratic mandate for decades. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and one that we support. These measures are long overdue, and we are grateful that they have been introduced so early in this Parliament. Fundamentally, we Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is space in a modern democracy for hereditary privilege. The last significant reform of our second Chamber was introduced years ago. Although we would ultimately like to see a fully democratically elected upper Chamber, this legislation is a very welcome step to modernise the upper House.

In maintaining the right of hereditary peers to sit in our legislature, we are one of only two nations in the world in which membership of a second Chamber is decided by virtue of hereditary privilege. The principle of inherited membership of the other place is deeply antiquated, and we welcome the Government’s move to remove that ludicrous practice. Reform of our upper Chamber has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. In fact, our stance on reform of the second House outlives many of the historically significant peerages that the current hereditary peers establishment maintains. Forty-nine per cent of the current hereditary peerages were created in the 20th century, while only 29% of hereditary peerages predate the 19th century, and the most recent were created in 1964—post-dating the Life Peerages Act 1958—so this legislation does not wash away our history or destroy tradition. The statistics alone should dissuade any argument about upholding of heritage. This reform is simply a move towards a more democratic form of politics. We must do all we can to restore public trust in politics.

[Mr Holden]

How can the hon. Lady call it “more democratic” to have a purely nominated Chamber?

[Sarah Olney]

Regrettably, the right hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. Liberal Democrat policy is to have an elected second Chamber. We welcome these measures as a step towards a democratically elected Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. There will be more legislation. I am not a Front Bencher, but I know, because our manifesto said that we were committed to further reform, that that time will come. I am sure that there will be legislative time and that he will have an opportunity later in the debate to put the question to Labour Front Benchers directly, or perhaps to table a business question for a Thursday morning.

To draw my comments to a conclusion—

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

I would rather not, if that is okay—anyone else but the right hon. Gentleman. He was only 10 votes away from potentially getting a peerage himself, so perhaps for that reason he may not want to comment on the appointment process.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman has had a nice laugh at my expense, but he knows what it is like to lose an election and to move seats. He made a good point about the Labour manifesto including the removal of hereditary peers, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) made clear, the same paragraph includes the introduction of a retirement age at 80. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome any amendments to introduce that in this legislation?

[Gareth Snell]

Again, I am surprised I have to explain to the right hon. Gentleman how legislation works. A Government do not legislate on their whole manifesto in one Bill at the beginning of a Parliament. Those on my party’s Front Bench have said, and I fully accept that this is the right way to do it, that there will be a sequence of reforms over time, starting with the expulsion of the hereditary peers. That is the simplest way to start this process, allowing time and space for considered debate about the other proposed reforms that were in our manifesto and were supported by the British people.

In conclusion, all this Bill does is seek to end a 27-year anomaly that first came about when the Conservative party objected to previous reforms. By voting for it tonight, we can start to right that wrong, and we can start ourselves on a process of reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to welcoming all my new reforming friends to join us in the Aye Lobby this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow such a moving and strong maiden speech by the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). I could tell by how she spoke with such passion about Knowsley that she will always be a fierce advocate for her constituents, and make sure that their priorities are properly heard in this House and that the Government do everything they can in order to address them. There is a connection between the constituency I represented for 14 years and hers, as I had the great privilege of representing many of the Jaguar Land Rover workers at the engine plant, which fell within my former constituency prior to the boundary changes. It goes to show how important it is that we always work across parties in pursuit of our common interests, because the success of so many great engineering firms, such as Jaguar Land Rover and BAE Systems, has an impact on all our constituencies. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on many shared issues in the future.

This debate is an interesting one, because it offers the Government and this House the opportunity for real change—maybe I am like some of the people who read the Labour manifesto and believed that it was actually going to deliver change. The manifesto has an enormous number of pictures of the Prime Minister with a fine range of clothing provided by Lord Alli—32 pictures, I believe. Certain aspects of it give me real enthusiasm, and one is about constitutional reform. I appreciate that constitutional reform is probably not the thing that drove many people to vote one way or another, but it is a very important part of what the manifesto says. It sets out some important areas of change and reform.

However, when we look at what the Government have brought before the House, we see that this Bill is not about radical change. It is not about trying to take the opportunity that has been talked about many times in the past, including by the coalition Government and the previous Labour Government. We have already heard about the history over many decades or even a century. Reform and change have been promised but not delivered, and I cannot help but feel that this is such a moment. The Paymaster General will know that parliamentary time is always scarce. We love to think that it can be manufactured, but he will know that he will not get many opportunities to bring forward legislation on the House of Lords. Indeed, I would expect this to be the one and only time he gets to bring forward such legislation.

On the composition of the House of Lords, the scope of the Bill is very wide, and I would argue that that opens the opportunity to take a slightly more radical step forward in this legislation. I have rarely been referred to as a Tory radical—I put this down to my socialist roots and my socialist family—but I feel that more can be done here. I want to speak on a number of areas. The first, which is particularly important to me, is the injustice of the fact that there are 26 bishops in the House of Lords. An Anglican could say, “Well, they are representing me well”, but I think it is fundamentally wrong that my children, who are Catholics, have no form of representation in that Chamber. Yet the Government will not eradicate this injustice. How can it be right that legislation that was passed in the 19th century is not looked at afresh? Why are English bishops allowed to sit in the House of Lords but not Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish bishops?

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic point. He will know that it was in the Tudor era that reform of the House of Lords started, when the majority of bishops were removed, leaving these 26. The Paymaster General made a point about reforms not having been properly continued since 1999, but actually, when we are looking back to the 16th century, we can see that some of these reforms really need to catch up with modern times.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Indeed, and I want to encourage the Paymaster General. He has the potential to be known as a great reformer of the Labour party—he will write books about himself in the future—but he needs to be brave. He needs to be bold. I know that he can persuade his friends in the Whips Office to be bold. Fundamentally, we have a big opportunity. There is an unfairness. There is an injustice. So many people of so many faiths, and so many people of no faith at all, see that there are 26 bishops in the House of Lords. They do not reflect what the United Kingdom looks like today, so if the Government are not willing to table an amendment, I will table an amendment to remove those 26 bishops from the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to be called in this important debate. I have a little bit of experience of this issue, having served as a special adviser in the House of Lords, working with the now Leader of the House of Lords when she was on the Opposition Front Bench. I also worked with Baroness Stowell of Beeston and as special adviser to Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, as well as with some hereditary peers, including Freddie, Lord Howe and Patrick, the Earl of Courtown. It is important to acknowledge, as many Members have, the service that all Members of the House of Lords give to our country.

Ministers perhaps did not understand exactly where I was coming from when I intervened earlier, but my point has been made by Members from across the Opposition Benches. Why go for piecemeal reform when the Government have the space to ask the country what it wants? Why not put something forward with the legislative time available, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said? We could have a proper debate, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) said, on the future of the country.

[Gareth Snell]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of contributions this afternoon and I have listened to them all, but I am not clear whether he supports the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Perhaps before he concludes his speech he could put it very clearly on the record whether he supports the principle of removing hereditary peers.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I do support their removal, but as part of a broader package of measures. I think that is the issue at stake today which Members on the Opposition Benches are concerned about. This piecemeal reform, which will remove people who are there by an accident of birth, will leave people in the House of Lords who are also there by accident or, in the case of bishops, by faith. It will leave the issue the public are perhaps most concerned about, which is pure patronage. Those two issues have been left totally to one side in the speeches made by Government Members. If we are to look at this issue properly, we need to look at it in the round.

We have had piecemeal change over the last few years. I was working in the House of Lords when voluntary retirement was introduced. That was built on many measures over the years, including the Life Peerages Act 1958, which was passed by a Conservative Government. If we are going to consider changing the situation in the House of Lords and what it is going to be, other conventions will be called into question. Surely it would be better to deal with the whole issue and get it right, than to have to legislate two or three times, or make further changes down the line? Why not get something that the whole House and the country can have a proper debate on and reach proper agreement, and then legislate in one piece?

[Dave Robertson]

I am taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s talk about getting it right, which was a phrase also used by the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). They both suggest taking the time to get it right, but surely that is what the Government are committed to doing. The Government are committed to the removal of hereditary peers, as was made very clear in the Labour party manifesto that was so widely supported across the country. Wider reform of the House of Lords should surely be subject to consultation, not just with people in this place but around the country. Surely, if we are to get this right, we need to take time over the consultation.

[Mr Holden]

I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that the Bill has not been subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny that would normally come forward, because of the broader implications for the second Chamber. I want it done properly, as a full package. I do not think slice-by-slice reform is what the country wants. I have some sympathy with those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench who see the Bill as a step in the right direction, but I fundamentally disagree with them. We need a full package of reforms to see where we wish to end up.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Andrew Rosindell]

rose—

[Mr Holden]

I will make a touch more progress before I take another intervention from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My right hon. Friend is making some extremely valid points. I agree with him that if there is going to be change, it should be done altogether, but I am slightly concerned by the radicalism of this measure. I did not find that anybody on the doorsteps in Romford actually wanted to make this such a big issue and radically change our constitution. Did he find that in Billericay?

[Mr Holden]

I certainly did not find it in Basildon and Billericay—or in Romford when I visited it with my hon. Friend, or, indeed, in other seats across the country—and I think that our constituents will be slightly baffled. When it comes to a big piece of constitutional reform, why should this Government want to come forward with, potentially, a multiplicity of different Bills throughout the current Parliament, rather than putting something to the public to have a look at now, and then having a look at it right at the end? What constituents have been mentioning in recent weeks and months is their concern about the winter fuel payments or about what might be in the Government’s new Budget, particularly the jobs tax, which they fear will hit jobs throughout the country.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Holden]

I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time, so I am trying to reduce the number of interventions that I take.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) hit the nail on the head when he said that this was a proper missed opportunity, but my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made some important points. As he said, when we legislate we have to do so carefully, because we are fundamentally changing the nature of what we are looking at. Proper reform has been wanted by generations of politicians on both sides of the House, but particularly those in the Labour party. I do not understand why at this stage, with such a large majority and with time on their side, the Government are not seeking to put those changes through properly.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Mr Holden]

I will give way again.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can help him. As a former special adviser in the House of Lords, he will know that carrying out reform in that House is incredibly complex. There appears to be a general consensus across all parties in this House on the eradication, or rather the expulsion, of the hereditary peers. If it were part of a larger combined bid, the right hon. Gentleman would risk losing that principle, because there would be more for us to fall out over and disagree on. Inevitably, his party would vote against it in Committee and on Third Reading, which would leave the whole package potentially at risk.

[Mr Holden]

I think that the hon. Member is missing my point. We have to see this as part of a package. Lord Irvine spoke about it in 1999. The hereditary peers were being kept there as the stone in the shoe, and should not be removed until the wider reform was settled. The Government have a very large majority in this House. They can certainly get stuff through if they wish, and I urge Ministers to consider that comprehensive reform. I understand what the hon. Member is saying—why not do it slice by slice?—but I think that the entire point of the hereditaries being there shines a light on the greater issues we are facing in the House of Lords, as was mentioned earlier by, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) when he was talking about the religious Members of the Lords. If we are going to do a package, let us do a proper package.

It also concerns me that, having proposed a retirement age in their manifesto, the Government are apparently not seeking to legislate on that now. Why not? The scope of the Bill in relation to membership of the House of Lords is clearly wide enough for the purpose. In the Canadian upper House, for instance, the retirement age is 75, and in this country there is a mandatory retirement age of 75 for judges. I should be interested to hear from Ministers how they can justify a mandatory retirement age of 75 for those who interpret the law, but cannot justify it for those who make the law—not democratically elected, as Members well over that age have been in this House, but appointed. That is where the similarity with judicial appointments comes in. If the Bill is passed, Members of the House of Lords will be purely appointed. Obviously, there is already a retirement age for Lords Spiritual.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member has made repeated references to the grand package of House of Lords reform that he would like to see. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has already highlighted the problem, but we have seen it historically. In the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats put forward their historic package of reform, and it was the Conservatives who put the bullet in it, because they did not agree with everything in it. Surely it is much better to get done what we all agree on than to present a package of reform that ends up dying at the hands of those who disagree with it.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I know there have been fractures in Downing Street recently, but I do not think that anybody would suggest that the Labour party, with a majority of over 170, is a coalition in the same way that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition was between 2010 and 2015. The Government have the time and space to introduce change. The key point is that it has to be part of a package, which is what Lord Irvine said in 1999.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Our majority is 174, but who’s counting? As far as I can tell, the Conservative party’s manifesto did not mention House of Lords reform—I may have missed it, so I apologise if it did mention that. Could the right hon. Member please tell me the Conservative thinking on House of Lords reform? A big package of House of Lords reform has been mentioned, but I am not any clearer about what that might entail.

Reading the 1999 debate on the House of Lords reform that was pushed forward by the Blair Government, I was struck by the fact that many Conservative Members opposed that reform on the basis that it did not go far enough. Is the call for further reform actually a smokescreen to do nothing and, therefore, to preserve the hereditary principle? All of us, including the right hon. Member, would agree that we should eliminate that principle.

[Mr Holden]

What we are discussing today is a policy of the Government. My party is in opposition, because its manifesto was rejected by the public at the last general election. We are discussing a policy of the Government and what was in the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood. It will be interesting to see whether he and others will back the manifesto on which they stood if amendments are tabled by the Opposition. We will have to see about that over the coming weeks.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Holden]

Not again.

Currently, Members of the House of Lords are there by birthright or appointed by God, as it were, or the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is going to pull out the hereditary peers, so it will just be him and God appointing people if this legislation goes through unchallenged. Putting even more power in the hands of the Executive—they have a majority of 174, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said, although some of their Members come and go at the moment—is a really dangerous thing to do, and we are not looking at the comprehensive package of reform that was promised.

Labour Members have talked about things that happened 25 years ago, when I—even though I might not look it—was still in short trousers. We need to reflect on the fact that this is a very different time from then. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will consider what those on the Opposition Front Bench have mentioned today and look at the broader package, rather than looking at this issue in isolation, because they have the time and space to do so. I think the public would like to see a proper package brought forward, and the Government should concentrate on the people’s priorities, which are the cost of living and taxation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves]

What I am interested in is whether the right hon. Member, with his new radicalism, will be voting with the Government tonight.

The Government are committed to House of Lords reform and the Bill is the first step in that process. It has been said by Opposition Members that the introduction of the Bill breaks a commitment made in 1999 to retain the hereditary peers in the House until the second stage of House of Lords reform has been completed. That agreement, to the extent that it was ever binding, was not entered into and does not bind this Government. It is not right that a discussion between political parties a quarter of a century ago should still somehow mean that it is illegitimate for the Government to bring forward the Bill today. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is right that we take time to consider how best to implement our other manifesto commitments, engaging with peers and the public where appropriate over the course of this Parliament.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady has made the point at the Dispatch Box that conventions from 25 years ago should not stand today. Does she agree that that should also apply to other conventions made with the House of Lords, such as the Salisbury-Addison convention, which ensures that legislation gets through?

[Ellie Reeves]

The Salisbury convention means that measures that were proposed in manifestos cannot be blocked, but an agreement made a quarter of a century ago cannot now bind this Government and this House. This measure was a clear manifesto commitment, and it is important that we proceed with the Bill.

We heard a great many speeches today. Members including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)— I know he is keen to intervene—spoke of the experience and the contributions of hereditary peers. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Bill is not about individuals, but about fulfilling a manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Of course this Government value the contribution of hereditary peers, but retaining 92 of them was always intended to be a temporary measure, and now is the right time to introduce this reform. The Government were elected with a clear mandate to address the issue, and the Bill is delivering on that.

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for those important points. The actions of the Conservative party have led to the erosion of trust in politics, and that is the issue that Labour Members now seek to clear up.

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mr Holden]

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

[Ellie Reeves]

I am not sure about the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, but at the heart of this is our aim to increase transparency in the reporting process. There is a disparity between what MPs declare and what Ministers declare. The Tories did nothing to fix that in 14 years in government, and that is what we now seek to change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am delighted to congratulate Joseph, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s drawing his achievements to our attention. I spent an inspiring few days at the Paralympics in Paris not long ago. It was partly inspiring because we came second behind only China—ahead of the USA, and ahead of all the other European countries as well. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of this issue. We are going to work with disabled people and their organisations to make sport more accessible and to remove the barriers that are too often in place.

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

5. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to implement the recommendations of the Cass review.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

The Cass review is a robust report backed by clinicians and firmly grounded in evidence. The Government and NHS England will be implementing Dr Cass’s recommendations in full, so that children and young people get the safe, holistic care and support they need.

[Mr Holden]

Dr Cass’s review was an important moment for services for young people in this country. Will the Minister restate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that all the review’s findings, which are based on evidence ahead of ideology, are implemented? Does the Minister also reject calls from various vested interest groups to pause implementation, and press ahead as quickly as possible to protect vulnerable young people in our country?

[Karin Smyth]

As I said in my original answer, the Government are absolutely committed to implementing all of Dr Cass’s evidence-based review in full.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and that is why we are working with allies, including the United States, on seeking to bring it about.

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

There have been 1,200 butchered and more than 250 hostages taken, more than 100 of whom are still there, including Emily Damari, a 28-year-old British citizen. Will the Prime Minister recommit himself today to doing whatever it takes—to leaving no stone unturned —in ensuring that she is returned to her family, and that, if necessary, British assets are used to help to extract her?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, absolutely; that is the commitment I gave to her mother and the other families I met last week, and on various other occasions before that. I have sat with her mother and seen at first hand the utter agony that she is going through, as any parent would in those circumstances. I gave her that commitment and I repeat it here.