House of Commons
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, two of my colleagues have been elected to Scotland’s national Parliament, so this is a bittersweet task for me.
Ordered,
That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Burgh Constituency of Aberdeen South, in the room of Stephen Flynn, who, since his election for the said Burgh Constituency, has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Mr Speaker
I never thought he would represent an area of Yorkshire, in England. [Laughter.]
Ordered,
That Mr Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, in the room of Stephen Patrick Gethins, who, since his election for the said County Constituency, has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the county of Buckingham.—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Mr Speaker
That is even further south in England.
Committee of Selection
Ordered,
That Nesil Caliskan be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Deirdre Costigan be added.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Youth Justice
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the youth justice system in England and Wales. I am today publishing a White Paper, with a once-in-a-generation set of reforms to build a youth justice system that intervenes early, responds more effectively and does more to turn young lives around, so that we can better protect the public. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and, before him, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), for all their hard work in getting us to this point.
Over the past two decades, the number of children entering the youth justice system and being detained in custody has fallen dramatically. This progress is the result of real cross-party consensus, with a modern youth justice system that began under Tony Blair’s Government and was continued, during his time as Prime Minister, by Lord Cameron—he famously said he would “hug a hoodie”—who, with Lord Gove, asked me to carry out the Lammy review.
But this success has brought a new challenge. Our youth justice system is now working with significantly fewer young people, but they are significantly more vulnerable and at significantly higher risk. Most begin their journey into crime long before they come to the attention of the police, their lives shaped by instability, by trauma and often by neglect—the kind of childhood that most of us in this House could barely imagine. Some grow up surrounded by violence, addiction and abuse, while others are moved endlessly around children’s homes or foster care placements, never staying in one place long enough to have the stability needed to feel safe, let alone the love and care that would enable them to really thrive. All those factors make them more likely to end up in the justice system. When we fail to intervene early enough, the consequences can be devastating—for those children, of course, but also for victims and entire communities, because around 80% of prolific adult offenders first enter the justice system as children.
The risks that children face have also changed. Today’s children are navigating online harms, criminal grooming through social media and exposure to extremist content. Too often the system has struggled to keep pace: opportunities to intervene are missed, warning signs go unnoticed and agencies do not consistently share information. This means that children can slip through the cracks between services, which risks escalation, and responsibility between agencies becomes blurred. The lessons emerging from the Southport inquiry, following the tragic murders of three young children by Axel Rudakubana, a violent 17-year-old who was known to authorities, are a terrible reminder of what can happen when systems are not sufficiently co-ordinated and not sufficiently decisive in the face of escalating concerns.
We must learn those lessons but also strike the right balance. The system must recognise that they are still developing and that most have huge capacity to change. We should not over-criminalise but, at the same time, avoiding criminalisation must never mean overlooking risk or failing to act. Benign neglect, however well intentioned, is still neglect. Where behaviour causes harm, timely, proportionate and effective intervention is essential to protect the public and to support children to change course.
That principle is reflected throughout this White Paper. First, we will intervene earlier, investing an additional £46 million over the next three years in our turnaround programme, which is already showing promising results in diverting children from crime, and by strengthening the join-up with other programmes that support children on the cusp of offending. We will also strengthen and expand the use of parenting orders, which can compel parents to address their child’s behaviour, including attending counselling or guidance sessions. If they do not act, they will face penalties. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an offence of child criminal exploitation, building on the work carried out by others, including Baroness May, and placing the focus where it belongs: on the adults who groom, the adults who coerce and the adults who profit from exploiting children. Through new youth diversion orders, we will tackle the increasing number of young people who commit terrorism offences, allowing agencies to intervene before that risk escalates.
Where offending does happen, we will ensure that children get the right response at the right time. Diversion must be firm, fair and effective. We will fundamentally reform the youth out-of-court resolution framework, to improve consistency and public confidence so that children receive interventions that genuinely address their behaviour and cut crime. We will also pilot problem-solving youth intervention courts, laser-focused on rehabilitation and prevention. They bring together judges, youth workers and specialist support to tackle the root causes of offending, whether mental ill health, school absence, addiction or exploitation, while still demanding accountability from young offenders.
Custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences, but for many children even a short spell inside can deepen their problems, exposing them to more violence and criminal influence. So we are setting an ambition to cut the number of children remanded in custody by 25% over this Parliament, alongside an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences, which so often are ineffective, with more than two thirds of children going on to reoffend. Instead, we will invest £5 million in intensive community placements and stronger bail support, protecting the public while giving children a genuine chance to change course.
We will also reform the childhood criminal records regime, because mistakes made at 13 should not become a life sentence of closed doors and lost chances, not least where this prevents young people from getting a job, which is a crucial factor in helping offenders turn their lives around. We will carefully consider the age of criminal responsibility in this country, which currently sits at just 10 years old, to ensure that it still reflects a modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development. We will also strengthen local youth justice services so that they are better equipped to meet the needs of today’s children.
We will soon set out detailed proposals for a new approach to youth justice service oversight, and funding arrangements so that children receive consistently high-quality support wherever they live. That includes reforming the Youth Justice Board, sharpening its focus on continuous improvement of local services and transferring some of its key functions to the Ministry of Justice, so that Ministers are fully accountable for how the system performs.
I have been clear that custody will, where appropriate, be necessary for public safety. However, we will take further action to improve safety and education across the youth estate, while setting a clear long-term direction of travel away from large, outdated institutions and towards smaller settings that can better rehabilitate children.
The White Paper is also about fairness. Not all children in our justice system are equal. Those in care are still far more likely to be drawn into the system. Black children remain vastly over-represented—22% of the youth custodial population, compared with 6% of 10 to 17-year-olds overall. Black children are also over-represented among victims, being around six times more likely to be victims of homicide. I warned about this disproportionality when David Cameron asked me to do the Lammy review, nearly a decade ago, and the fact it persists today should shame us all. These reforms will begin to address that, building a system that is fairer and more consistent.
It is not a choice between punishment and rehabilitation; it is about what works: protecting the public, cutting reoffending, and stopping vulnerable children—so often victims themselves—becoming tomorrow’s dangerous adult offenders. This Government will do whatever it takes to give more children the chance of a better future, and to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is obvious that we are now in the legacy-hunting stage of this Government. Less a range of exhausted volcanoes, more a row of trampled molehills, Ministers are desperate to be remembered for something. This morning a word cloud was published by the pollsters at More in Common. The public were asked for the Prime Minister’s greatest achievement, and emblazoned across the page, in huge capital letters, was the sad word “Nothing.”
Today’s announcement, however, is a fitting tribute to the Justice Secretary and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). So desperate are they to find the causes of crime that they sometimes forget that their job is to prevent and punish crime itself. The truth is that Labour just does not have it in its DNA to be tough on crime. The Government have let 60,000 criminals out of jail early, they are abolishing short-term sentences—so that almost all shoplifters and the majority of knife criminals will no longer be sent to prison—and they are pretending that they are doing these things because they have to, but they are doing them because they want to.
The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The Minister for Sentencing, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), says that a pretty big chunk of the overall population should not be in prison, and today’s announcement is more of the same. So I have some specific questions for the Justice Secretary. He wants to increase the age of criminal responsibility to reflect a
“modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development”.
From smoking bans to voting rights, this Government have a confused view of childhood, so what should be the age of criminal responsibility?
With a wave of sexual and violent crime committed by illegal immigrants, many of whom pretend to be children, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those people will not escape justice a second time by giving a fake age to the police? The Government say they will review the function and purpose of criminal courts for child defendants, but the purpose of a criminal court is obvious: to try criminals. Can the Justice Secretary rule out abolishing criminal trials for under-18s?
The Government also say that they want to end lifelong disclosure requirements for the under-18s. Can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those requirements will still apply to people guilty of violent crimes and to prolific offenders?
The Government say they will slash custodial remand for young offenders by a quarter, but remand should be used in response to need, not arbitrary targets. What is the Justice Secretary’s alternative? Will he just send criminals home? Will he stick to that target regardless of the level of violent crime and repeat offending?
The Government want more parenting orders, but this morning the Justice Secretary said that they are not used much at the moment because all judges can do to enforce them is issue a fine. He was unclear on this question. So will Ministers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman was asked on the radio this morning whether parents who do not comply will face custodial sentences. He fudged that question, so I am asking him to answer it now.
The figures show that young repeat offenders often start with theft and move on to drug offences and violence, yet the Government’s big idea is to stop punishing swathes of crimes committed by under-18s. The gangs who swarm shops to steal goods in places like Oxford Street, Ilford and Clapham do not need to be put on a course; instead, they need clear punishment, which can include prison.
The results of soft-touch liberalism are visible in towns and cities up and down the country, yet the changes that the Justice Secretary is announcing today risk amounting to more of the same. This is a big call. If youth crime goes up as a result, it will be on this Government.
Mr Lammy
The Tories have a mixed record when it comes to youth justice and keeping young people out of criminality. We should remember that their local authority spending cuts led to a huge fall in council services for young people—about 70% in real terms. While they were in power, £1 billion was lost, leading to the closure of many youth clubs, a reduction in the outreach work that is vital to keeping young people on the right track, and youth workers being completely undermined. All that early intervention work was stopped—an entire generation sacrificed at the altar of austerity.
As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) will know—he was at the driving wheel—the Tories also cut 20,000 police officers and 7,000 police community support officers, leading to a collapse in visible neighbourhood policing. On their watch—[Interruption.] Conservative Members really should listen to this. On their watch, more than 1,000 Sure Start centres closed. Early intervention was demolished on their watch.
I said it was a mixed record because there was a fall in the number of first-time entrants into the youth justice system. Figures peaked at around 110,000 back in 2007, but fell to just 7,500 while the Tories were in office in 2023. When they entered government, there were around 2,000 children in youth custody; by the end of their tenure, that had fallen to just over 1,000. Those were great achievements. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not want to celebrate those achievements, which began under David Cameron and Michael Gove.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the age of criminal responsibility. As he will know, the Bar Council is consulting on this issue, and I look forward to receiving the conclusions of its work. He also asks about foreign national offenders. We are absolutely clear in this consultation that we will look at the 16 and 17-year-olds who arrive in our country from somewhere else and commit a violent crime; if they do so, I am afraid that they will be deported. We are really clear about that. We have driven up deportation in our country.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether we are abolishing the youth court and the criminal standard. Of course we are not. However, we are consulting on youth intervention courts because, just as we have seen in our family drug and alcohol courts, problem-solving approaches —gripping the young person, their parents and those who work with them; looking at the addiction and mental health issues and giving them support; holding the multidisciplinary teams to account—can really make a difference. We stand by that.
The hon. Member asked about young people on remand. We want to recruit a new generation of specialist foster carers, because it is much better to have a responsible, loving adult—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We used to have them.
Mr Lammy
Exactly—we used to have them, and the Tories abolished them. We want to bring them back and grow their numbers so that we can support these young people.
There are a range of things we can do through this White Paper, and I encourage the hon. Member for West Suffolk to read it in detail. A lot of his predecessors would agree with it. It is good work, and we need to get on with it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper, which shines a welcome light on an often-neglected part of the criminal justice system. The remarkable drop in the number of young people in custody, from a high of 3,400 a day, is sometimes box-ticked as “job done”, but when half those young people are on remand and a majority do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, there is clearly more to be done.
The Justice Committee is conducting an inquiry into children and young adults in the secure estate. While the Government are right to look at early intervention and alternatives to custody, will the Lord Chancellor also look at the successes and failures of the current custodial system for young people and how it can better rehabilitate young people and reduce the risk of reoffending?
Mr Lammy
We will look at this and do the necessary inquiry, and I know that my hon. Friend’s Committee is doing that work at the moment. He is concerned, quite rightly, about the huge rates of both prolific crime and recidivism. Clearly, the system is not working. We have this group of young people present in the system, and sometimes over two thirds of them go on to reoffend. We can do better, and we must do better. We have put rehabilitation at the heart of this youth justice White Paper.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government’s White Paper represents a truly critical opportunity to transform the youth justice system and, importantly, reduce lifetime offending. We know that most offenders in our prisons today are repeat offenders and that persistent offending often begins early in life, with eight in 10 prolific offenders in England and Wales committing their first crime as a child. We must stop this chain of escalation, and the earlier we intervene, the better.
Nowhere is that more applicable than for children in care, those from ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs, who are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Will the Secretary of State set out how this overhaul will ensure that these children, given their specific vulnerabilities, will receive the targeted support that they desperately need?
May I take this opportunity to highlight the great work of the organisation SHiFT and encourage the Justice Secretary to engage with it? I believe that SHiFT’s model could be rolled out across the country, helping young people before they even commit their first crime?
Education for young offenders can be a crucial step in diverting them from a path to reoffending. We are pleased that the Children’s Commissioner will undertake a review of education in young offender institutions, but can the Justice Secretary ensure that it will take into account the fact that 80% of young people who are sentenced have special educational needs and make sure that the support they are getting in those institutes is fit for purpose?
The Youth Justice Board provides vital independent oversight of the youth justice system, yet the Government have chosen not to act on the report they commissioned from Steve Crocker, instead bringing a number of the board’s functions more directly within the remit of the Ministry of Justice. What is the purpose of those reforms? What benefit will the Government gain from bringing those functions in-house, and will the Justice Secretary address the concerns from across the sector that these reforms risk reducing specialist experience and weakening independent accountability?
Finally, will the Secretary of State set out how the use of parenting orders will affect the recruitment of foster parents, those being asked to take on special guardianship orders or kinship arrangements, and those considering adoption? If parenting orders will not apply to those families, how will they be supported effectively to ensure that this measure does not lead to further family breakdowns and more children ending up in the care system?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the manner in which she made her remarks. She understands that we have seen this revolving door, where two thirds of children and young people released from custody go on to reoffend, and many of those young people are extremely vulnerable. We have to do something about it.
I thank her for mentioning the cohort of young people —way too many—who are within the care system. I am very grateful that the Minister responsible for children in care, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), is on the Front Bench today alongside me. He takes a huge interest in the work that our Departments do together to deal with this area.
The hon. Lady mentioned young people who are adopted. She knows that I am a parent of an adopted child, and I take these issues extremely seriously. She is right, and we are looking in totality at the way in which parenting orders have worked. There must be something going wrong if the number of parenting orders issued has fallen over the last decade from more than 1,000 to just 33 last year. We have to look at it in the round and ensure that judges have the right tools to support parents and guardians over this next period.
The hon. Lady raises the reforms we are making to the Youth Justice Board. It is still the case, if we look across the country, that there is a postcode lottery. We have to eliminate that postcode lottery, which also exists because of online harms, because of grooming, because of mental health and because of neurodiversity. I was in Feltham recently and I saw the good work that it is doing with young people who are neurodiverse. It is important that the Department, working with our colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, bring some of these powers back to the centre so that we can get coherence across the country and end that postcode lottery.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I welcome this statement and the White Paper. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that programmes such as turnaround are felt in constituencies such as mine in Colchester and beyond?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentoring turnaround, which is an important scheme that began under the last Government and has continued under us. It is making a big difference by diverting these young people. I will look closely at its use in her constituency, but we are absolutely clear that it is about not just diverting them but ensuring that we are diverting them to quality. We can see from the recidivism rate of 7% that turnaround is an exceptional programme.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Can I ask the Secretary of State about two things? The first is education, which he has mentioned. It is, of course, important to look at education for young people in a custodial setting, but does he agree that it is also important to consider the link between attendance at education and rehabilitation for those who have received non-custodial disposals, and will he ensure that his proposals make that link clear?
Secondly, in relation to advocacy on behalf of young people within the youth justice system, the Secretary of State will recognise that, with a smaller number of young people going through the system, it is more and more difficult to maintain a specialist advocacy profession and to ensure that advocates are properly rewarded for the very specific skills they need to develop. Will he look at the fee structure for advocates and ensure that we continue to encourage the right balance of skills, attention to conferences and that they get to know the client, which is particularly important for young people in the youth justice system?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He is right to mention the role that the education system plays, and not just for those in custody. There is more to do in respect of education for young people in custody. Too many of them spent time in their cells during the pandemic, and not outside their cells getting skills. We are looking at reforming referral orders and, whereas we previously had just volunteer panels keeping up to date with these young people in communities, we are looking a bit closer at the role of the judge and professionals in those referrals to ensure that education is taking place and that we have a more multidisciplinary approach in respect of the outcomes for those young people. I thank him for mentioning special advocacy and I assure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, is looking closely at this and chairing a group to look at the issues.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper. My right hon. Friend has acknowledged that 80% of prolific offenders first offend as children and that two thirds of children reoffend within a year after being released from custody, so does he agree that early and fast intervention is crucial to cut crime? Can he please also outline what specific youth provision, including mental health help, is available to young people in my constituency of Wolverhampton West to deal with this issue?
Mr Lammy
I will look specifically at my hon. Friend’s constituency. It should be the case that turnaround and diversion work can make a difference, and I hope it is making a difference in his patch. I met the previous Health Secretary to discuss these issues, and I look forward to taking them up with the new Health Secretary in the coming days.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. The Justice Committee heard that, as of February 2026, there were only 412 young people in custody, of whom about 44% were on remand, so when he says, with a great flourish, that he intends to reduce the number by 25%, he is talking about reducing a very small number—about 185—down to about 135. That is a very small number of individuals. Rather than making a huge effort, as he appears to be doing, to bring about this very small reduction, his efforts would be better spent on improving education and training in the youth custody system.
Mr Lammy
I say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that we can do both. We can improve education in our youth custody system—I entirely accept that there is more to do, particularly coming out of covid and particularly because of chronic under-investment by his party—but I encourage him to think a bit harder about the remand population. There is, of course, tremendous churn among the 400 young people who are currently in custody, and therefore we are not talking about a sliver of 25%, adding up to 135. That is not the case. It is significantly more than that, because over the course of a year, it gets into the thousands of young people. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, but that is basic maths.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the White Paper and put on record my thanks both to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister for youth justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), for their work on this issue. One of the most heartbreaking things I have to do as a Member of Parliament is meet families and young people who have been failed by the system after those young people have taken actions that have caused disturbance for their families and the wider community. Accountability matters, but one of the crushing realities I have learned as an MP is that state failure plays a large part in criminality and the lack of options for young people. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that youth intervention courts and other measures will begin to address not just criminality and the lack of accountability, but the lack of opportunity in training, caring, support, education and—particularly in my patch—apprenticeships, so that we divert people from prison in the first place and those in custody have opportunities when they come out?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and of course I know his city of Peterborough very well. Peterborough has a vibrant third sector, and we have to get it involved in offering opportunities to young people in the community. There is no doubt that there are lots of skills and training opportunities in Peterborough and the whole of East Anglia, and we want young people to take them up.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The White Paper contains many announcements that we, as Liberal Democrats, can support, so I gently ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evidence the Government have that the potential threat of a prison sentence will be an effective mechanism for compliance with a parenting order. Have the Government done an impact assessment, and how can he guarantee that the use of stricter punishment will not adversely affect the outcomes for the child involved?
Mr Lammy
I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has raised the extremely rare circumstance in which we would expect a judge to remand a parent in custody, but I think he will agree that the judge’s effectively having only a fine does need reform. That is why we have seen the number of parenting orders come down. It is important that we are there to support and encourage parents. I was hugely shocked when I sat recently in Highbury magistrates court, with a lot of young people facing quite serious offences, and there was no parent in sight.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the publication of the White Paper. Education has a vital role to play in reducing youth offending. There is a strong link between the offences committed by young people and educational disengagement earlier in their lives. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Department for Education’s work on persistent absence, exclusions, special educational needs and disabilities, and support for care-experienced young people is properly joined up to ensure that the Government have a focus on removing disengagement from education and reducing youth offending?
I welcome the work that the Secretary of State has asked the Children’s Commissioner to do on the quality of education in young offender institutions, but we already know that the quality of that education is abysmally poor and that action is urgently needed. Will he set a timescale for that work, so that we know when we will see the positive change that is so urgently needed?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing these issues. I hope that she sees an indication of what she seeks from the fact that two Ministers are working hand in hand and sitting on the interministerial group to direct this activity. There is more to do on education in the youth custody context and more to do on neurodiversity and its prevalence among this cohort of young people. We have to extend that work into communities and join up better with local child and adolescent mental health services as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Justice Secretary to explain a bit more about the intensive community placements to which he made brief reference? Can I put to him a particularly challenging scenario? Imagine that we have, say, a single parent—a single mum—who is very much afraid of her own adolescent child. She is aware that that child has been getting machetes and other violent accessories through internet-related delivery services. Let us imagine that she does what she is supposed to do, and what we would all think she ought to do, which is to report the child. Given that no offence has yet been committed by the child, what protection will be offered to her against potentially lethal violence from her own adolescent son?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Member raises a very serious issue, and it lies at the heart of what we are discussing, because we are seeing young people, particularly this prolific cohort, becoming addicted—often addicted online and often groomed—and this is where the knives and, sadly, the terrorism come in. This is not a stand-alone policy; the work of Prevent, the police and social services matters. Here we have to do better to join up that work, and that is the signal we got following the Fulford inquiry into what happened in Southport. This is an attempt to move directly in that direction, recognising that we are seeing that addictive behaviour in a cohort of young people, and that they are often neurodiverse. We need to support parents to get this right, and an intensive supervision court can make a real difference and put a judge right at the centre of that ring.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I truly welcome the statement and the White Paper. I am pleased to see in the statement a consultation to end lifelong disclosure to ensure that a child or young person’s poor choices in their early life do not define their future prospects as an adult. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the work I have done with FairChecks and Penelope Gibbs. I suggest that he considers how tougher accountability for parents or carers could go on to further affect the stability of families, especially when they feel they have been failed by earlier interventions or intervention services. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss this matter further?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for championing these issues from the Back Benches, but for the tremendous work she did while she was Children’s Minister. She will be pleased to hear that I met Penelope Gibbs just last week to discuss these very issues, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at what more we can do. This is an important consultation. A third of people on jobseeker’s allowance have an offence on their record. We have to do something to ensure that these things do not follow young people for the rest of their lives.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Devolving youth justice powers is hardly a novel argument, and the White Paper itself acknowledges Wales’s action on the prevention of youth offending. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether Labour will finally listen to the people of Wales, who have elected a Government clear in their stance on devolution, and allow Wales full powers over justice?
Mr Lammy
I look forward to meeting the new team in Wales soon to discuss what more we can do together.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I am so pleased that early intervention and working with families is at the heart of this Government’s approach. As a former cabinet member for children’s services in Denbighshire, I know how important that is. Will my right hon. Friend set out how increased investment in programmes such as Turnaround will help children in Clwyd North before they enter the justice system?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and she knows from her experience how vital this is. It goes back to the point that I was making about the postcode lottery that we see across the country. We must even up standards and ensure a universal element to this, so that it is not just a pick and mix from local authority to local authority. That is why I am bringing powers back to the centre from the Youth Justice Board, as well as empowering it to drive change and innovation in local communities. That is why we must continue with that £46 million funding for Turnaround over the next three years.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Let us be honest: tens of thousands of young people have been let down in this country by successive Governments. The right hon. Gentleman said that those in care are drawn “disproportionately” into the justice system, and all that talent—in my view, forgive me, God-given talent—is wasted. We talk about productivity in this country, but what about social productivity? What about social justice for those young people in care homes? It is completely wasted talent. People go from children’s homes, paid by the state, into prison, also paid by the state. Although I welcome some of what the Secretary of State has said, the fact is that the Government, and previous Governments, have lectured parents on how to parent, but the worst parents of all—look at the evidence; look at the data—are the Government themselves. Will the right hon. Gentleman work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that social workers in whatever part of this country keep an eye on what young people are doing at school, follow up when they are failing in their exams, and ensure that they leave school with qualifications, so that fewer of them end up in the criminal justice system?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman and I have been friends for many years. I know that, like me, he has a deep Christian faith; one heard the power of redemption in his voice. I have long believed that the phrase “looked after” is one of the biggest oxymorons in the English language. Those kids are not sufficiently looked after, which is why I am so grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Education is sitting beside me and doing such considerable work to turn this system around.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My constituents want and deserve a justice system that is fit for purpose, delivers justice for victims, and tackles crime properly and effectively. That said, poverty and deprivation play an important role, so will the Secretary of State assure me that there is a proper and effective cross-Government approach? He mentioned the Department for Education, but the heart of this strategy goes further than that. We need a carrot and stick approach, not just words.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right, and he knows from his long experience that the role local government plays, alongside mental health services and education, is vital, and we must do much better to join this up. Whenever something goes badly wrong, it is usually because services have not been sufficiently joined up. That is why the new intensive supervision course in this area can make a real difference for young people.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In my 20 years’ experience in the courts, I have watched young people’s attitude change: there is no respect for the courts when they walk into the courtroom, and no fear of the police. Prison—or young offenders institution—sentences are no longer a deterrent, because they are simply not given out. We rarely see parents in court in support, for lots of different reasons: these children are neglected because their parents are battling alcohol or drugs, have financial issues or are out of work; or they are in a care system that is letting them down. I have visited care homes that I know let under-age youngsters go out at night and prostitute themselves, because nobody can keep an eye on them or control them. The care system fails those kids too. In places such as my constituency, I witness kids going out in gangs, subject to organised crime gangs. They need opportunities, they need apprenticeships—
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to give way and it is not going to be me. [Interruption.] Please, sit down immediately. I need to get everyone’s questions in. If you want to make a statement, you can apply for an Adjournment debate. I am sure there are many other ways to do that, but you cannot just hog the whole of this debate.
Mr Lammy
This is one of the few occasions—the first ever, I think—when I have agreed with the hon. Lady, specifically about the context for these young people. She brings tremendous experience to the Chamber as a magistrate working in this area, and we can agree about children in care, the adult grooming that we are seeing and parents often not being present in the criminal justice system—we have to do more to support them. She will find a lot in the White Paper that perhaps Reform can adopt as its policy for the next election.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for recognising the disproportionality that still exists within the criminal justice system for our black communities. Education and diversionary activities are absolutely essential to early intervention. After the anti-Muslim hate marches and anti-Muslim rhetoric that we saw at the so-called “Unite the Kingdom” march last weekend, how will the Government ensure that this White Paper provides our schools and youth services with the tools they need to prevent young people being radicalised and exploited by hateful, violent ideologies?
Mr Lammy
I know that my hon. Friend has a tremendous track record in championing issues of disproportionality in this House and beyond this place, and we are grateful for all the work that she does in that area. She is absolutely right that in this White Paper we are getting up to date and gripping the online harms facing our most vulnerable young people, who, in a care context, are living without sufficient parenting and are often groomed into terrorism and vile hate. We must do something about that. There are adults who we can gather together to make a difference in the lives of those young people.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I appreciate what the Justice Secretary wants to achieve on reducing the rate of recidivism. He said in his statement that
“custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences”,
but went on to say that there will be
“an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences.”
Will he add some more detail around the length of sentence that he considers to be a “short” custodial sentence? In relation to knife crime, he will know that the minimum sentence for threatening with a knife can be as little as six months. Young people already do not have much fear about being searched for a knife or facing the criminal justice system. If they know that they will not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the process, what deterrent will there be to their carrying or using a knife?
Mr Lammy
Behind the hon. Gentleman’s question is a serious issue. The evidence suggests that short custodial sentences have poor outcomes, with recidivism of almost two thirds, whereas good community support has far better outcomes, with recidivism down by about a third. This is not about just leaving these young people to their own devices in the community. With tagging, specialist foster care and secure accommodation in communities, one can make a real difference and ensure that young people are monitored, which sometimes does not happen in big institutions.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It seems clear that the lack of early-years intervention, the lack of SEND support and the cuts to youth services in the past 14 years have let down a generation of our children. How will the youth intervention courts bring together those agencies to tackle the entrenched root causes, including poor mental health and disengagement with schools?
Mr Lammy
I should call to mind not just the work of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but the youth guarantee introduced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and all her work to ensure that young people have opportunities wherever they live in the country. Turnaround is making a difference in bringing those services together. We are remodelling the Youth Justice Board, bringing more back to the centre so that we can ensure consistency across the country. At this time, expertise in these areas, particularly in online harm, does not always exist in communities, so we need to do better.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
On Friday, I was at Leeds Trinity University and met with a group of future teachers. They were talking about the exclusion-to-offending pipeline in our schools, and the challenges in meeting the needs of SEND children. Will the Secretary of State elaborate further on what tangible steps his Department will take with the DFE to get this right?
Mr Lammy
I am pleased that under the new Government, we have gripped the pupil referral unit scandal that was happening up and down the country. Too many young people were not even attending the pupil referral unit; they were effectively on the streets. When they did attend the pupil referral unit, they were not really being supported either therapeutically or educationally. That lottery is coming to an end under this Government. There is absolutely a pipeline into crime, and we have to be joined up for not just those young people in custody in the criminal justice system, but those young people who are often in a pipeline into custody if the pupil referral unit is not working as successfully as it should.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I recently hosted a screening of a short film called “The Orphan”, a dramatisation of a boy being caught up in county lines activity. It was directed by Leo Powell and supported by Stevenage borough council and across our local schools. I welcome the White Paper, particularly the new offence of child criminal exploitation and other early intervention measures, including the Turnaround programme. Will the Secretary of State say more about how that programme can help to tackle the disgrace of county lines?
Mr Lammy
At this point, it is important to mention the county lines programme, which sits with the Home Office. We in the Ministry of Justice work very closely with it, and it is making a difference. It is an absolute scandal that young people—as young as 10 or 11—have been travelling up and down the country ferrying drugs. No one knew where they were or what school they went to, and they had no support, but we are bringing that to an end. For the first time in a long time, we are seeing knife crime falling, and the number of young people falling into county lines is coming down.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Is he concerned that by reducing the relative punishment for youth offending relative to adult offending, he may inadvertently be making the young people of Spelthorne and across the country more attractive to be recruited by county lines gangs? That would clearly be an unintended consequence of his actions, but will he think again if it turns out that that is the case?
Mr Lammy
I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not be the case. The 412 young people in custody at the moment are there for public protection; they have to be there. Many of those young people are there because of very violent crimes, and some of them are serving very long sentences. Public protection must always come first, but this White Paper recognises the modern world—the world that we live in. It also recognises the vulnerability of the particular cohort we are talking about, which has changed vastly from 20 years ago. There is more that we can do with agencies to support these young people, particularly in communities, so that they are not criminalised, mixing and going on to the adult prison, and to reduce the overall numbers.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am the Member for Harlow, if people were wondering.
May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his really important statement and the non-partisan way in which he gave it? I welcome the fact that he is sitting next to the Minister responsible for children, families and wellbeing, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). I have listened to Members across the Chamber, and it strikes me that to really make a difference to young people in my constituency and across the UK, we have to ensure that Government Departments do not work in silos. What work is the Secretary of State doing with the DFE, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we do not let any young people in my constituency and beyond be left behind?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does in Harlow. He knows that I know Harlow very well, because it happens to be the second home of Spurs supporters in the country. He will be pleased that just two weeks ago, I was sat discussing these issues with the Secretary of State for Education and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington on the interministerial board that we have, which looks particularly at children in care and their outcomes, what more we can do, what more we can join up and how we can continue to make a difference for them. Over the five years that we have in this term in government, and it is five years—there has been some speculation in recent days that it might be less—I am determined that we are going to make a difference for looked-after children.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome these fairly comprehensive proposals, which I hope will seek to help young people who are either in the criminal fraternity or on the cusp of entering it. We all know that prevention is better than a cure—the old adage, “idle hands become a devil’s workshop” comes to mind. In Birmingham, where a third of our population are under the age of 20, we have lost a significant number of youth centres. In 2011, there were 59; that number has reduced to 16. What will the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State do to address this, and will he join me in commending voluntary organisations such as Real Aston football club and the parents who are coming together to fill that vacuum and support our young children?
Mr Lammy
I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise the work that Turnaround is doing in Birmingham to make a difference and create effective diversionary activity for these young people, so that they do not continue in a life of crime. He is absolutely right about the devastating cuts to youth centres that we saw across the country. It will take some time to rebuild them, but I know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has a strategy. It has set about that strategy, alongside the youth guarantee that also exists for the young people of Birmingham.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement—it would be churlish of anyone in this Chamber not to welcome the White Paper’s proposals, which have been put forward in a positive fashion. Can I perhaps help the Secretary of State in a gentle way? The Youth Justice Agency in Newtownards in my constituency is doing a phenomenal job of liaising with young offenders to help them understand the impact of crime on victims. The reoffending rates of those who have been attending the Youth Justice Agency in Newtownards are significantly reduced, so could the Secretary of State share what he intends to do with so much understanding and development, which is something that the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit from? Newtownards is doing it; let us do it here as well.
Mr Lammy
On the issue of restorative justice, we are working with Jacob Dunne in particular to make a difference—he was involved in that punch situation. I hope to get to Northern Ireland particularly over the coming months, because I know that very good work in this area goes on there.
Points of Order
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a long-established convention of this House that Members notify other Members when they intend to visit another Member’s constituency in an official or political capacity. Over the weekend, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), together with two of his parliamentary colleagues and a Member from the Labour party, undertook engagements in the Farnham and Tilford parts of my constituency. No notification of any of these visits was received by my office. Given that the leader of the Liberal Democrats is frequently vocal on questions of standards, rules and propriety in public life, could you advise me on whether it is consistent with the expectations of this House that such a convention appears not to have been observed on this occasion, and in light of the fact that this concern relates directly to Members across the House—
Mr Speaker
Order. Do not overstretch your point of order. You want a good answer, not a bad one.
I reiterate once again that I do not care whether you are the leader of a party, the Prime Minister, a Back Bencher, or even a possible future Prime Minister; whoever you are, you must observe the due courtesies and let the Member concerned know, unless you are on private business. The courtesies of the House must be upheld. I do not care who you are—do that. We wanted a new beginning; this is a bad start. I am sure that the leader of the Liberal Democrats is already sending a letter to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), or it might be stuck in the computer somewhere. I am not going to make that judgment call.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received any notice of a statement from the Government following the interception today by Israeli forces of more than 50 boats carrying aid for Gaza in international waters west of Cyprus? There are UK citizens on these vessels, including my constituent Chris Hill from Clwt-y-Bont near Caernarfon. Can you advise me on how UK citizens’ right to provide humanitarian aid and their right to freedom of navigation in international waters can be guaranteed in this case—as well as, of course, their right to immediate and unimpeded access to British consular officials?
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As she might expect, I have received no notice of a statement on this matter, but Government Front Benchers will have heard her concern. She is an experienced Member and knows there are many opportunities for her to raise this matter on behalf of her constituents. If she requires further advice, she could consult the Clerks in the Table Office, but I certainly know this will not be the end of it. Who knows, an urgent question may be an option—with no guarantees.
Debate on the Address
Backing Business to Create Economic Growth
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Mr Speaker, I heard your call for decency and respect, and I hope those will be the watchwords for today’s debate.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is with her G7 colleagues today, so I am grateful for the opportunity to open the King’s Speech debate on backing British business to create economic growth. That is economic growth for a purpose: not simply to exceed the growth rate of other European members of the G7, which we achieved in the last year; not simply to have the highest growth rate in the G7, which we achieved in the last quarter; and not simply to deliver on the Government’s primary mission; but for the purpose of achieving greater social justice for all.
Economic growth is the surest path to higher living standards, improved public services and better quality of life for people up and down our country. We know that economic growth is the catalyst for new opportunities, the pathway to greater prosperity, and the vehicle for greater equality and security for working people. That is why it matters so much.
The growth figures published last week show that, despite the many international headwinds, the UK economy grew by 0.6% in the last quarter—the fastest growth among G7 countries. There is silence from the Opposition Benches. I would have thought that the party that champions Britain and calls for economic growth would be celebrating economic growth when they see it, but no: silence, silence, silence.
The situation is much better than the one we inherited, continuing to exceed the forecast of the doom-and-gloom mongers on the Opposition Benches and in the right-wing media, and even beating market expectations. When the Conservatives were in government, they and their strangely related first cousins, Reform, let down Britain’s economic future. Now, in opposition, they talk down Britain’s economic present. You can bet your bottom dollar that they will do so again today, ignoring the facts.
The facts are that the UK experienced the highest GDP growth among European countries in the G7 last year. Just today, the International Monetary Fund has upgraded the UK growth forecast, with the UK projected to have the fastest cumulative growth among European G7 economies over 2026 and 2027. None of this happened by accident, just like the damage done to the economy by the Tories did not happen by accident.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State not concede that GDP per capita is down? Can he tell me that a single one of his constituents, apart from those on welfare, feels better off under this Government?
Peter Kyle
The whole purpose of the debate is to emphasise that economic growth matters. In the last full year in which the Conservatives were in office, economic growth stood at 0.4%. In the first full year of this Government, it was 1.4%. The hon. Lady should be apologising for the state in which she left the economy, leaving us to pick up the pieces.
This growth has been driven by an activist, interventionist Government who back British business—a Government who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and make the big calls when big times demand it. From Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands to Ineos in Scotland, Agratas in the south-west, Tata Steel in Wales, and Harland & Wolff across the United Kingdom, we step in to invest, modernise and protect British industry when necessary. We step back by reducing unnecessary regulation when that is possible, and step up to modernise our critical national economic infrastructure where that is vital: supporting the third runway at Heathrow that the Conservative party curtailed; expanding the Oxford-Cambridge corridor where the Conservative party hesitated; backing Northern Powerhouse Rail which the Conservative party cancelled. This Government have confirmed £45 billion of funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to upgrade lines east of the Pennines and to bring forward a brand-new route connecting Liverpool and Manchester.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
That was a great list, but what was missing from it was the oil and gas sector, and specifically the £17 billion of investment that was lost as a result of the Government not scrapping the energy profits levy and the £50 billion of investment lost because of their ban on new licences, and other hostile policies. Will the Secretary of State reflect on those, and on the damage that the Government are doing to growth not only in the north-east of Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole?
Peter Kyle
This Government have invested in industry up and down the country, from Agratas in the south-west, where we are investing in gigafactories, to Ineos in Scotland. We are investing in the industries that are keeping our country going, and we have put growth into the economy.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State was kind enough to mention Harland & Wolff. Successive Governments have introduced a number of support measures, and have ensured that that company can thrive by itself. However, in taking at face value what the Secretary of State has said, does he recognise that if this Government continue to refuse to designate Programme Euston a defence project and open it to international tender, not only will they not support British business and yards like Harland & Wolff, but the project will be delayed by three years? If the Secretary of State wants to inject business growth and economic growth, he should designate it a UK defence project, and keep the work and the investment in the UK.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the commitment that I personally have to Northern Ireland and its economic success. All the issues related to national resilience are things that we have to consider at this moment in time, unlike any other moment in time in peacetime. They are issues that I look at very closely, and in the days and weeks ahead I shall be talking a great deal more about how we can support industry and business across Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State for what he is saying. I know he is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland because he loves the country, and we appreciate that.
According to the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, more than half the enterprises trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland face severe friction, with more than a third halting trade entirely. Can the Secretary of State explain explicitly how the proposed regulating for growth Bill will help? I know he is committed to it, so let us hear what he has to say.
Peter Kyle
I have been aware of those issues from opposition into government. Of course, rebuilding the relationship with the European Union is also partly about smoothing that barrier across the Irish sea, and we will continue to do so.
We are building the critical national economic infrastructure that the Conservative party consistently failed to deliver, on runways, reservoirs and railways. Just as we are modernising Britain’s critical economic infrastructure, we are maximising Britain’s industrial strength by delivering our modern industrial strategy. Written for business with business, our strategy creates the right conditions for business to succeed. Since its publication, we have been tackling the high costs of energy. Our supercharger saves firms hundreds of millions of pounds every year, and our British industrial competitiveness scheme will help more than 10,000 eligible manufacturing businesses, saving them up to £40 per megawatt hour from next April. I am very aware of challenges faced by the ceramics sector; I will meet representatives of the sector tomorrow to discuss how the Government might be able to support it, and I hope to be able to say more about that very soon.
To cut the red tape that is holding back British businesses we are ending mandatory strategic reports for medium-sized companies and ending directors’ reports for businesses of all sizes, saving firms £230 million each and every year. We are stripping out unnecessary rules and regulations. Through the regulating for growth Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, we will create regulatory sandboxes—economic growth laboratories where innovators can trial cutting-edge technologies safely and speedily.
Whereas the Conservatives, with their destructive ideology of deliberate de-industrialisation—from monetarist Thatcherism to Brexit isolationism—drove British manufacturing businesses to the wall and destroyed the jobs that depend on them, this Government are determined to maximise the UK’s competitive advantage, not just through reindustrialisation, though that is necessary, but through new industrialisation in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, artificial intelligence and new technology. That is why we have rolled out new AI growth zones and confirmed the site of the UK’s first small modular reactor—a milestone in the journey to becoming a clean energy superpower.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but does he not accept that adding 330 pages-worth of regulation in the Employment Rights Act 2025, at a cost of a billion pounds to the economy, is having the opposite effect? Youth unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 28% in just one year.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point out that, in my Department, the overall net regulatory burden is reducing, not expanding. I will not stand in front of the Tories and apologise for giving new rights to workers that are fit for the age we are living in. Over their entire 14 years in office the Tories failed to make sure that people have protections and rights at work that are fit for the age we are living in. We can move forward with growth in the economy that takes forward businesses and the people who work in them. That is to be celebrated, not condemned like the Tories are doing.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is, quite reasonably, setting out his assertions about where he wants the Government to go, but does he not see the irony? After all the events of last week, the cost of borrowing in the UK is higher than that of many of our competitors, and all business leaders say they feel the instability. The right hon. Gentleman’s words will not ring very true for people who seriously wonder about the Government’s future direction, with putative leadership contenders talking about fundamental changes in direction and different fiscal rules.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Member mentions irony; this is from the party that gave us the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which wreaked havoc on our economy. Mortgage rates went up for every mortgage holder across the country, with inflation peaking at 12%, yet the Conservatives talk about instability. The country still lives with the instability that they wreaked on it.
Our major expansion of DRIVE35 is channelling investment into batteries, electric motors and power electronics—part of the biggest Government investment in the British car industry since the second world war. “Invest”, “modernise” and “protect” are the watchwords for the new industrialisation of Britain through our biggest industries, our biggest sectors and our boldest companies.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but we have seen what that has led to in the finance sector, the banking sector and the water industry: consumers end up paying the price. The Secretary of State also talks about AI; speaking way back in 2014, Stephen Hawking cautioned:
“The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”
Why do the Government believe that deregulating AI is going to assist their growth mission? It will put consumers’ lives and the human race at risk.
Peter Kyle
The Government are investing in AI infrastructure, but also making sure that the regulatory and legislative landscape is up to date for the time we are living in. The hon. Gentleman wants to turn the clock back. The world is awash with AI technology. We cannot stop it coming to our country, but we can shape how it interacts with our economy and its people. That is why we are investing in the training of 7.5 million people throughout the economy, including a million students, to make sure we can seize the opportunities that AI presents but also protect people from the potential damage it could cause.
Not only are we creating the conditions for new industrialisation, but we are ambitious for the success of Britain’s small businesses. Our “Backing your Business” plan is one of the most generous packages of support rolled out by any Government, with new hospitality zones and reduced red tape for bars and cafés. We have brought in an £11 billion lending package to help small firms to grow internationally and take advantage of the trade agreements we have negotiated with India, South Korea and the United States. This may trigger the Opposition, but we are also going to deepen Britain’s trading relationship with the European Union, Britain’s most significant international marketplace. That is what our European partnership Bill is all about.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I welcome the deepening of the relationship with the EU and the measures on late payments, but the elephant in the room is that while the jobs tax exists, and the Government do not make the most of business rate changes in retail, hospitality and leisure, the benefit to small businesses is more than outweighed by the extra difficulties they face. Does the Secretary of State accept that there need to be changes on that front, even if we have to wait until the Budget for them?
Peter Kyle
Once again, the Lib Dems condemn every fundraising measure we have brought in to invest in our public services and get our country back on its feet, but they never say how they will pay for the alternative. They never say how they will raise the money themselves. I am not going to apologise for any of the measures. I will come in a moment to the investment we have made in small businesses and in hospitality, and I will give way to the hon. Lady again if she wants me to at the time, but will she please say what the alternative is from her perspective? The Lib Dems want to spend all the money in the world but they do not want to tell people how it is.
The lending commitment we have secured with the UK’s five leading banks will support Britain’s small businesses to succeed and prosper. Our business rates support package, worth £4.3 billion, will protect ratepayers from large overnight increases in bills. We have introduced permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is worth nearly £1 billion a year and will benefit over three quarters of a million properties.
I know that many businesses, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, would like us to go further. I get that. They are impacted by changes in the shopping and social habits of their customers, as well as the financial and geopolitical pressures in the wider economy. We are absolutely aware of and attuned to that. However, the crocodile tears of the Conservatives about these industries are laughable and lamentable. Theirs is the party that urged us to join the costly military action in the Gulf, which will heap further pressure on hospitality and other sectors throughout the economy. It is not our war, but the Conservative party would make British businesses and consumers pay the price.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentions crocodile tears; what would he say to the hospitality businesses in my constituency that have been impacted by the rise in national insurance contributions, the minimum wage rise and the business rates that he just talked so effusively about? What message would he give to them as they struggle to deal with the outcome of the Budget?
Peter Kyle
Unfortunately, none of the Conservative Members was listening to what I just said in outlining the measures we are taking, and the admission that we get it and we are listening. Fundamentally and foundationally, what those businesses need is what every business in this country needs, which is a growing economy. In the last year the Conservatives were in office, growth was 0.4%, but in the first year in office of this Government, it was 1.4%. That is what every business needs across the country, and when it comes to specific sectors at specific moments in time, we are watching and attuned, and I am acting where necessary. When the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) addresses the House, I am certain that on that and so much more he will display all the symptoms of the economic illiteracy and ideological incompetence that for too long have engulfed the Conservative party. By contrast, we are taking practical action to end these conditions.
We are bringing in new measures to tackle late payments. The small business protections (late payments) Bill will give the UK the strongest legal framework in the entire G7. Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion a year, forcing the closure of 38 businesses every single day. For 14 years it was the same under the Conservatives, and they did nothing. The Bill tackles the scourge of late payments, brings in stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner, sets out strict maximum payment terms of 60 days, and bans the deduction of retentions in construction contracts. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that tackling late payment is one of the biggest things the Government can do to help small businesses to grow. That is the difference that an activist, interventionist Labour Government can make.
Finally, let me turn to another example of the difference. The ghost of free market Thatcherism still haunts many of the industrial areas of this country. It can be seen in the scars of de-industrialisation still marking too many communities around our country. It is high time to exorcise the ghost of de-industrialisation. When I published the steel strategy last month, I told the House I would never hesitate to fight for British industry in defence of the national interest. The legislation we are bringing forward is proof positive of that commitment.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—forgive me, I should not call him that; he will be embarrassed. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his point about the steel industry. Understandably, he has chosen to support one particular aspect of the industry, the steelmaker, but at the expense of and to the cost of every other part of the industry—the steel consumers. How will he balance that and what provision will he make for those who will see steel prices rises because of his intervention?
Peter Kyle
I have committed to invest in, modernise and protect the steel industry where I need to. Those are watchwords that I apply throughout the economy in highly volatile times. We are investing up to £2.5 billion to modernise and transform the steel sector, from blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces—those are the kinds of transformations we need to make. If I had invested that money but not also protected our sector, that would be pouring vast amounts of public money straight down the drain. In certain circumstances I have had to step in and use measures to protect the domestic British industry. I am not introducing measures for any products that are not manufactured in the UK. I am doing so wisely; I am doing so to protect and ensure that we can build and retain a steel industry that is fit for the future and sustainable.
We will move forward and ensure that, in an era of global instability, we have the key aspects of our supply chain that we need for our resilience as a nation—yes, in defence; yes, in industry; and yes, in all the money we are investing in infrastructure. We must reserve those capabilities. I am listening and engaging with all parts of the steel sector, and the manufacturers and businesses that depend on it. I am listening closely to them. If there are any impacts, I will of course engage with them to understand and see how it will be possible, where necessary, to provide support.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
No, I am going to carry on. I appreciate Members’ kind offers to intervene again and again; I look forward to all their speeches.
The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill will give us the authority to bring British Steel into public ownership, not as an ideological exercise but as a practical means of safeguarding the national interest. It will allow us to retain the Scunthorpe plant as a critical piece of our national infrastructure that is essential to British economic resilience. Britain has long been a proud steelmaking nation. Whatever I have to do to make it so, Britain will retain its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. That is my commitment to Members in this House and to the remaining steel communities of our country. The strength of that commitment can be measured in our determination to boost domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used here is made here.
Britain cannot make its way in the world as a services-only economy. We have to make our way—earn our way—to greater prosperity, equality, security and opportunity. We cannot do that by economic isolationism, neoliberalism, greater protectionism or a command economy. We cannot regulate our way to prosperity. We can achieve it only through practical and pragmatic policies that support British businesses to be profitable, to scale up, to create jobs and to grow. We have to end the outdated free-market ideologies, failed economic theories and siren voices that all but destroyed Britain’s manufacturing base and drove the British public towards Brexit. Britain’s future prosperity can be built only by business success. There is no other way, no shortcut, no easy option and no magic bullet—no matter how attractive and simplistic slogans and superficial soundbites may appear to some.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State is making a wonderful speech about the 1980s. While I agree with many of his points, the truth is that the country today has come a long way in all sorts of sectors, and I am proud to have done my bit to help that. On regulation, the Secretary of State agrees that leadership on regulating new industries, and having sandboxes and testbeds, is a great UK strength. He also wants us to get closer to the European market; is he worried that if we do, we may end up losing our competitive advantage in a number of areas where we could genuinely attract investment into new industries, such as agri-tech and gene editing?
Peter Kyle
To clarify, I am talking about how we recover from the scars of the 1980s, how we learn the lessons, and how we ensure that we never repeat mistakes that cause scars that endure for generations. To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, we will align with the European market only where that is in the national interest.
We cannot turn back the clock to build future success. The partnerships that this Government have built with businesses, local government and trade unions are delivering resilient growth and helping to build a stronger economy. They are building a fairer country, in which wages are up and public borrowing is down. There have been six interest rates cuts and 500,000 children are being lifted out of poverty. The FTSE 100 has reached historic highs, and the UK is raising more venture capital funding this year than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined.
This Government faced enormous challenges on taking office, and the conflict in the Gulf presents us with even greater challenges. Despite that, we are making progress. It will take time for the benefits of progress to be sufficiently seen and properly felt. The recent election results show that. The only sure route to proving the benefits of change is growing the economy, and the only certain way to grow the economy is through British business success. Our task is to create the right conditions for Britain’s businesses to invest, succeed, and win in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. We have made a start, and we will see this through to the finish.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
This King’s Speech is an empty vessel, which is a surprise, because only last week the Prime Minister was telling anybody who cared to listen that the Government would be leaning into economic growth in a more radical way, and would eschew managerial incrementalism, yet we have heard nothing other than managerial incrementalism, at best, from the right hon. Lady just now. [Interruption.] Of course, I meant the right hon. Gentleman. If only the Chancellor were here, Mr Speaker, I would be right about everything.
The Prime Minister also said that Labour would tread more lightly on our lives. Well, we have seen what that has meant in the last few weeks. The Chancellor said that it would all be growth, growth, growth. The Secretary of State trots out and trumpets the latest uplift—a very modest one—in the International Monetary Fund’s forecast, but he neglects to mention that although it is forecasting 1% growth today, it forecast 1.3% back in January.
The Secretary of State also neglects to mention that the increase in growth in the first quarter of this year is on the back of risible growth performance in Q4 of last year. The situation in Q4 was exacerbated, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England, by the Chancellor’s making every possible tax rise; that had a material impact—it depressed the economy. Some of the growth is simply a bounce back from the mistakes made at the end of last year.
The Secretary of State refused to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about what happened to GDP per capita, so let me tell him that it has been utterly anaemic throughout this Government’s period in office. He also failed to mention that the notes to the IMF’s comments on upgrading the growth forecast for this year point to domestic uncertainty possibly weighing down on consumer spending and investment decisions. I wonder what “domestic uncertainty” could possibly be referring to. As to our record, I remind the Secretary of State that on the day of the general election, the previous Conservative Government had inflation bang on target at 2%. It is now 50% more than that. We also had the fastest growth in the G7, employment at near record levels, and near record low levels of unemployment, and we had 13 consecutive months of real wage growth.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
On the subject of mistakes made and growth, does the shadow Chancellor accept that the Brexit that he and his party left us has knocked between 4% and 8% off our GDP?
Sir Mel Stride
As I will come on to argue, our problems actually rest a little closer to home, rather than having anything to do with our relationship with the European Union.
The Labour party promised stability. It also—Members should try not to laugh too loudly—said that it would create the most pro-business Government in the history of our country. None of that has come to pass. It is not just the Prime Minister who is the problem; if this Prime Minister is replaced, whoever goes on to lead the Labour party will not do any better, because Labour had no plan at all for improving our economy. It had a plan for winning an election—keep as low a profile as possible, hold the Ming vase and tiptoe across the shiny floor towards that loveless landslide—but no plan for the people of our country. The Labour Government are in hock to their Back Benchers. Every time they try to do something that requires some backbone, they are stopped by their Back Benchers.
The record of this Government is appalling, and not just on growth. I notice that the Secretary of State did not mention unemployment once, and he certainly did not mention youth unemployment. Under this Government, we are seeing the highest unemployment in five years, and youth unemployment is nudging up towards 20%. Under the previous Labour Government, youth unemployment increased by more than 40%; under the previous Conservative Government, it reduced by more than 40%.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Is it not shameful that the Government are having to subsidise employers who take on young people, when it is the Government’s actions—their imposing higher national insurance charges, a higher minimum wage, and a higher burden through the Employment Rights Act 2025—that caused the problem in the first place?
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is like trying to apply the accelerator while having the brake on fully. That is what this Government are doing. That is the total illogicality of their approach.
Inflation is up on where it was under the Conservatives. It is about the highest in the G7; it certainly was last year. As we lean into the challenges of oil and gas price spikes, that is a weak position to be in. Most economists will make that point. The Labour Government will have borrowed a full quarter of a trillion pounds more across this Parliament than would have been borrowed under the plans that they inherited. It is no wonder that our borrowing costs are the highest in the G7—higher than those of Greece, and higher, even, than those of Morocco. Why? We know why: it is just what socialists do. Socialists believe that you can tax your way to prosperity, but I tell the Secretary of State: you cannot.
The £25 billion of additional tax on businesses—national insurance increases—has crucified business in this country. The burden has fallen predominantly on young people, because there was not just an increase in the rate, but a reduction to the threshold at which the tax cuts in, meaning that young people have borne the brunt of that tax increase. The sectors that rely predominantly on first-time jobbers and on young, part-time and female workers have been crucified, including the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, in which more than 100,000 jobs have been destroyed by this Government.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
On Friday, I opened the new Premier Inn in my constituency—a project that was passed under the last Conservative Government—but many businesses in my constituency are failing because of increased costs and regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute travesty for our country?
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have had the great pleasure of visiting her constituency to speak to businesses, and that is exactly what they complain of. The Government made no effort, in the King’s Speech, to get on top of the benefits bill. There was a reference to the Timms review of the personal independence payment, but we know that in the review’s terms of reference, there is an explicit statement that it is not about controlling the welfare bill. There will be no savings as a consequence of the Timms review. That is not good enough. We have got to be about getting people off benefits and back into work.
Tom Tugendhat
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that we are seeing not only young people let down, but the deeply immoral act of people being kept on welfare? In five or 10 years’ time, people will have been on welfare for so long that they will not have any options. They will effectively have been left slaves of a state that has no concern for them. Nobody in this Chamber will have any power over how the welfare state will behave then, and those people will have no options. It will be the fault of this House and this Government for having kept those people there, and having imprisoned them.
Sir Mel Stride
That is entirely right. The Conservatives know that work matters, and getting people off benefits matters. People’s mental health is improved by going to work, and by having the social interaction, routine and sense of pride and self-worth that comes with work. That is why the level of unemployment and the failure of this Government to tackle benefits is so appalling.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I used to work in the employment service, and Thatcher encouraged us not to sign people on, and to instead put them on the sick. The Conservatives created a whole generation of people on the sick, just to manipulate the numbers. How do you like those apples?
Sir Mel Stride
All these flashbacks to the 1980s are a slightly desperate attempt to get away from the 2020s, I think.
The other thing that socialists love to do is borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend until they have run out of other people’s money. That is precisely what this Government have done. The Secretary of State mentioned the fiscal rules, but of course he failed to mention that in the run-up to the election, the Chancellor said that she would abide by our fiscal rules, and then promptly changed them, so that she could borrow more, flipping the definition of “debt” from public sector net debt to public sector financial liabilities. That allowed her to take her foot off the brake and borrow and spend even more.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Flashing back to the 1980s, would the right hon. Member like to remind us when the Conservatives last balanced a budget?
Sir Mel Stride
The current account went into a slight surplus just around 2015-16. [Interruption.] It did, actually. That was on the back of our inheriting a £160 billion deficit in 2010, which was over 10% of GDP—another example of the disasters of a Labour Government.
The Secretary of State rightly spoke of artificial intelligence and the opportunities that it presents, but what we know of artificial intelligence is that it will have a profound and very uncertain effect on the labour market. We need a flexible skills offer to deal with that, and flexible labour markets, but through the Employment Rights Act, the Government are making the labour market more rigid, and that will hurt younger people in particular, who do not have a track record in employment, so do not be surprised if youth unemployment continues to hover around 16% or 17% as a consequence of the actions of this Government.
When it comes to leaning into these challenges, we know that there is no plan. This Government are not going to do anything. They are just involved in internecine introspection—a civil war, now—within the Labour party. They said that they would tread lightly on our lives; in fact, they are now stampeding all over them. The rivals to the Prime Minister will be looking to double-down on the ruinous policies that I have just set out.
We have seen the real effects of this in recent days. On Friday, after the former Member for Makerfield said that he would step down in order to ease the passage of Andy Burnham to this place, what happened to gilt yields? They spiked up 18 basis points. I have done a little bit of research, and I can tell the House that, if sustained through the forecast period, that would mean over £5 billion of additional debt servicing costs. That is about £300 for every working family in this country. That is the effect of Andy Burnham, and he has not even arrived here yet.
We are on the edge of a precipice economically, leaning into a very turbulent time. These are the policies of the madhouse, yet we are told not to worry. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who I believe is an outrider for Andy Burnham, said of the bond markets that they would just have to “fall into line”. Andy Burnham himself said in the New Statesman:
“We’ve got to go beyond this thing”—
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Paula Barker
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that if an hon. Member wishes to mention another hon. Member in the Chamber, they are supposed to give advance notice of that. I have received no such notice.
Mr Speaker
That is not the case. A Member should be informed if they are not here, but the hon. Lady is sitting here, quite rightly, and I am sure that the shadow Chancellor is ready to give way immediately.
Sir Mel Stride
I am always ready to give way, Mr Speaker, and to take your direction.
Paula Barker
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. I agree that what I said might not have been the most eloquent of answers. However, I would say that people in this country are fed up of the bond markets dabbling in the democracy of our country.
Sir Mel Stride
That is a rather unfortunate example of doubling down or continuing to dig, if I may say so. Also, the hon. Lady’s comments pale in comparison with Andy Burnham’s comments in the New Statesman, where he said:
“We’ve got to go beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets”.
He also suggested that defence spending should lie outside the fiscal rules, as if spending and borrowing to defend our country were a different form of borrowing from any other borrowing that this Government might entertain. He is not so much the king of the north; he is more like King Canute, sitting in his chair on the sand, dressed in his football kit, trying to push back the tide of the bond markets and saying things like, “You’ve got to fall in line” as the waters lap at his ankles and we all ultimately get swept away. It is ludicrous.
The King’s Speech included a holiday tax that will increase the cost of the most budget holidays in this country, clobbering people who have saved up hard and just want to make some memories with their children. We also have the nationalisation of steel, which seems to be just some kind of political sop to the left on the Labour Benches.
The Government are also going to put a stop to new oil and gas exploration. This is lunacy, when we are importing gas from Norway that is extracted from the same basin. We are also importing liquefied natural gas, formerly from Qatar and now predominantly from the United States, which has four times the carbon footprint compared with if we had extracted it ourselves using our own resources. All that energy security blown, all those jobs destroyed and all that tax revenue forgone, simply because of the ideological madness of the Labour party.
Harriet Cross
The shadow Chancellor is completely right to reflect on the plight of the oil and gas sector under this Labour Government: 1,000 jobs are being lost in the sector every single month, which is affecting all our constituents, not just those in the north-east of Scotland. Does he share my dismay that a Labour Government do not take that more seriously?
Sir Mel Stride
I do indeed. I have been up to Aberdeen, met my hon. Friend and heard at first hand about the economic effect this is having. It is utter madness. If we have an opportunity in government, we will put that right.
I have already mentioned benefits. There was nothing of any substance about welfare in this King’s Speech. There was nothing about the defence investment plan. Where is it? It was promised back in September.
Then we have the regulating for growth Bill—an oxymoron if ever there was one. “Regulating for growth” says all we need to know about this Labour Government. They know nothing about the economy, nothing about job creation and nothing about businesses.
Jim Shannon
I thank the shadow Minister for what he is saying. Does he share my concern, and the concerns of probably many in this House, that small and medium-sized businesses will suffer more than most? The figures for Northern Ireland indicate that between 85% and 89% of the job creators there are small businesses. Northern Ireland needs something special from this Government. Does he see something special coming, or are we just wondering what is going to happen?
Sir Mel Stride
I am afraid that what I see coming is what is already baked in: business rates going through the roof. In some cases, small businesses on our high streets are facing 140% increases in the amount they have to pay in business rates.
Conservative Members believe in enterprise, opportunity, aspiration and markets. We believe in risk takers, in people who work hard, and in people who get up early in the morning and do the right thing—go out and create wealth, create jobs and grow our economy. Because of that, at our last conference we set out £47 billion-worth of savings, predominantly—£23 billion—on the welfare budget. With that we could do two wonderful things: first, we could start to bear down on the deficit and get on top of the debt, which is out of control under this Government; and secondly, we could get taxes down, particularly on the productive parts of the economy. We therefore announced the abolition of stamp duty and a tax cut for young people.
There is more in our alternative King’s Speech: a Bill to back our high streets and cut business rates for a quarter of a million of our high street businesses; a get Britain working Bill to reverse the damage done by the Employment Rights Act; a reducing bureaucracy Bill to remove the mountain of environmental, social and governance regulations; a save British industry Bill to get rid of the Climate Change Act 2008 and abolish the zero emission vehicle mandate; a cheap energy Bill to get rid of renewables subsidies and bring down bills for households and businesses; a getting Britain drilling Bill to reinvigorate our North sea oil and gas industry, creating jobs and boosting our exports; and a welfare reform Bill to get the benefits bill under control and restore the two-child cap. That is the serious plan that our economy needs. That is the plan to back our businesses and deliver growth. That is a Conservative plan for a better Britain.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
As Chair of the Transport Committee, my remarks on the Gracious Speech will focus mainly on transport; if there is time, I plan to touch on some of the other areas where the Government’s proposed legislation will benefit many of my constituents directly.
This debate is entitled “Backing business to create economic growth”, and our transport system is key to growth. Economic growth is central to the ambition of the £45 billion investment to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail. That will start to address the 10% productivity gap between northern England and the UK average. Residents and businesses in the north endure longer and often unreliable journeys compared with international comparators. For instance, only 38% of residents can access the city centre of Leeds within 30 minutes by public transport, compared with 87% in Marseille, a city of a similar size. With the new rail infrastructure proposed from Liverpool to Hull, the whole of the economy across the north of England will benefit from Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The highways financing Bill will introduce a new funding model for road infrastructure by introducing a regulated asset base, or RAB, funding model to unlock private capital investment in road infrastructure, with the lower Thames crossing to be the first road scheme to use the model. The Government point out that the RAB model has been successfully used in sectors such as energy and aviation, but I am also aware from the example of Heathrow that those paying the bills—in that case, the airlines—say that capital costs can be excessive and poor value for money.
It seems natural that as the lower Thames crossing will be a whole new road, it could be funded by tolls, as the Severn bridge was and as is the norm for motorways in many similar economies, but what are the plans for the future? Are the Government considering implementing tolls on projects to improve and repair current highway infrastructure? Surely the Government are not seriously considering building new roads, or significant new capacity? Otherwise, we could be going back to the ’70s with “predict and provide” creating more road capacity, which in a system of infinite demand just continues to deliver congestion while eating up more and more of our land. I would like the Minister today or subsequently to explain more about the role of the Office of Rail and Road in the context of the regulatory role mentioned in the Government briefing.
The civil aviation Bill will deliver consumer enforcement powers to the Civil Aviation Authority and allow for timely regulatory intervention to improve aviation safety, modernise UK airspace and provide for a revised slot allocation system to deal with unplanned disruptions. I welcome the proposed additional consumer enforcement powers, including compensation rules when airlines damage mobility aids. That will be welcome for disabled passengers whose mobility is dependent on, for instance, high-powered wheelchairs. The current compensation is wholly inadequate. However, His Majesty the King announced that the Bill
“will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”.
I am not sure that I quite see the direct link between that statement and the subsequent deal and detail that I have just covered.
The overnight visitor levy brings UK tourist destinations into line with many places that I and others in this House will have visited in other countries. It will enable local areas to invest in their transport infrastructure and other facilities, which will benefit visitors and residents alike, whether that is shuttle buses to reduce traffic jams on country lanes or improving facilities at busy stations.
The draft taxi and private hire vehicle Bill is also welcome. It addresses almost all the issues that witnesses raised in our recent inquiry into taxis and private hire licensing.
Ayoub Khan
We have some 300,000 private hire drivers up and down the country. Uber has been incrementally increasing its fees while the drivers have been getting a fairly stagnant increase in their pay. We have just learned that Uber will be introducing driverless vehicles, which would impact 300,000 workers. Does the hon. Member agree that there needs to be some sort of action to prevent that?
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I am well aware of the concerns of drivers up and down the country, which are not about the improved licensing that the Government are talking about, which they welcome, but about some of those other threats, such as the processes that Uber is using at the moment and the impact of autonomous vehicles.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will know of my passion for taxis and taxi licensing. Does she agree that it is important that we deal with this licensing loophole to ensure that we do not have taxis that are licensed in other local authorities acting in our authority? That does not just affect the drivers; it is also a safety concern for passengers.
Ruth Cadbury
I very much welcome the work that the Minister for Roads has done on the proposed changes. I welcome the commitment to replace a patchwork of outdated rules with a single consistent framework, which will go a long way to addressing the out-of-area operations and problems that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) outlined, and it will fix a system that too often has failed passengers and drivers.
Baroness Casey’s “National audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse” found that inconsistent taxi and private hire vehicle licensing creates vulnerabilities that can be, and were, exploited by grooming gangs. The announcement of that legislation follows the welcome commitment in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to introduce minimum standards for drivers, operators and licensing authorities. However, many fear that minimum standards could perpetuate inconsistencies that affect vulnerable passengers, and they are seeking not minimum but absolute standards in taxi licensing.
Let me touch on something not directly connected to transport, which is the draft ticket tout Bill. While I welcome a Bill to stop ticket touts selling on concert and event tickets for vastly inflated prices, I wonder if it could be extended to car driving test slots sold by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Or will we have to wait until the agency updates its IT systems, or possibly—perhaps successfully—manages to recruit and retain sufficient driving instructors, so that there is no longer more demand for tests than there are slots available, as that is fuelling the ticket touts? If the Eavis family have managed to stop ticket touts making a killing from Glastonbury tickets, surely a Government agency should have been able to do so before now.
The railways and passenger benefits Bill will establish Great British Railways as a new publicly owned company, setting up a new passenger watchdog that will set consumer standards for railways and investigate poor service, as well as simplifying fares and ticketing. A passenger-focused GBR could—not necessarily will, but could—improve reliability, simplicity and accountability across the network for passengers and freight.
Other Bills in the King’s Speech and the Government’s subsequent briefing are welcomed by many of my constituents. The social housing renewal Bill will benefit many of my constituents who will never be in a position to buy a home in west London. They just need a safe, secure, affordable and stable place they can call home, without being overcrowded or forced to continually up sticks, lose their jobs and support networks, and disrupt their children’s education, only to find themselves in another overpriced, overcrowded, damp, tiny space with shared facilities.
I welcome the fact that young people aged 16 and 17 will be able to vote, as those in Scotland have been for a decade. As someone who voted here nine years ago to remain in the single market and customs union, I welcome the proposals to bring the UK closer to Europe, our exit from which has been one of the most devastating shocks to the UK economy. Many parents and teachers in my constituency welcome the consultation to reform SEND, although they are keeping a watching brief on whether the resources will be adequate to their children’s needs.
Finally, on the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, although it would be virtually impossible to scrap leasehold entirely overnight, the ban on new leaseholds for flats, the cap on ground rent, and the new process for converting to commonhold are all welcome measures, as is making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. I also welcome the remediation Bill for those living in homes with unsafe cladding. Too many residents in Hounslow, Isleworth and Brentford are still living in fear of the consequences of a fire breaking out in their block.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
For too many people, the promise that hard work would help them get on in life is broken. The promise that each generation would do better than the last is broken. The expectation that big corporations would be made to play by the rules and pay fair taxes like the rest of us is broken. It is hardly surprising that so many people feel that the whole system is broken and that nothing works, and that they are now demanding action to fix it. The King’s Speech was another chance for this Government to be bold, for them to tell us what they stand for and why, but sadly they failed.
On Europe, Ministers once again talk about pursuing a closer partnership through gradual regulatory alignment, but if the Government are serious about repairing the damage caused by Brexit, they must go further and faster. Brexit has left us poorer and more isolated, in what is now a more dangerous and volatile world. At home we must build real sovereignty in energy and food independence, but our economic and national security will only come from a much deeper relationship with our closest neighbours in Europe. The tax revenue lost every year due to Brexit is estimated to have reached £90 billion—that is equivalent to three mini-Budgets in a year.
We Liberal Democrats have a road map to rebuild our relationship with the EU and to reach full membership again, starting now with a customs union to cut red tape, support exporters, strengthen supply chains and grow our economy. Going for growth with Europe would end the cost of living crisis. At a time when businesses are crying out for certainty, when our economy desperately needs a shot in the arm and when families and businesses are paralysed with a never-ending cost of living crisis, the Government’s approach is timid when what is needed is bold action.
Small businesses are the backbone of our local economies in my St Albans constituency and across the country, but they were offered little more than a Bill aimed at tackling late payments. The Bill is welcome but it barely scratches the surface of the challenges facing businesses every single day. Businesses are asking: where is the action on soaring energy costs, where is the relief from the Government’s damaging jobs tax and where is the meaningful reform of business rates?
New Liberal Democrat analysis reveals that 40,000 businesses are still waiting on decisions after appealing their business rates revaluations from 2023, with average waits now hitting nearly a year. When those cases are finally heard, more than half are overturned. Business owners just want to get on with running their businesses, but instead they are stuck in a slow, broken, expensive, impenetrable business rates system. The Conservatives promised reform in 2015 and Labour promised it at the last election, but after a decade of inaction, businesses are still paying the price.
In my constituency of St Albans, 11 pubs now have rateable values of more than £100,000 because of the revaluation, even though they cannot all be considered to be large business premises. One of those, the Beech House, on our main high street, St Peters Street, saw its rateable value soar from £97,000 to £125,000, and just last week took the decision to shut up shop for the final time. Hotels have been particularly hard hit as well. Staff at the Samuel Ryder hotel in St Albans told me in January that its bill will increase by 157% this year.
Play centres have been penalised too. DJ’s Play Jungle, a soft play centre, has been frozen out of the 15% U-turn discount offered to pubs and music venues. The rates bills of many play centres will quadruple over the next few years, and what will be the result? Children will be priced out of indoor play.
The Government are introducing a competition reform Bill, a regulating for growth Bill and an enhancing financial services Bill. Taken together, those Bills aim to improve regulation. As Liberals, we recognise that regulation has an important role to play. We believe that good regulation can be a win-win-win: protecting consumers, promoting innovation and competition, and delivering economic growth. However, regulation works only when it is effective, proportionate and responsive. Too often compliance costs are high, regulation is focused on process not outcome, and our regulators are far too slow, lagging far behind the industries they are supposed to oversee.
That is especially true in financial services and fintech, where companies can spend months waiting for approvals and authorisations while investment dries up and opportunities disappear. For start-ups operating on tight funding runways, those delays can be devastating. If the Government are serious about growth, they must ensure that our regulatory system is agile, modern and capable of keeping pace with innovation, and that it delivers competition and growth without abandoning consumers. At a time when financial co-operation with Europe is more important than ever, it is deeply disappointing that stronger UK-EU financial services co-operation appears to have been overlooked in the Government’s so-called reset agenda.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the principle behind the electricity generator levy Bill. It is right that the excess profits of electricity generators are fairly taxed, and it is right to break the outdated link between electricity prices and wholesale gas prices. We Liberal Democrats were the only party at the last election to commit to that decoupling, but the Government must go further. The revenues raised should tackle the cost of living crisis head-on, with an emergency home insulation programme for low-income households, an energy security bank, action on heating oil and fuel costs, and stronger protections for small businesses struggling with energy bills.
Finally, let me turn to the overnight visitor levy Bill. In principle, Liberal Democrats support devolving more economic powers to local areas. Different communities face different challenges, and local leaders are often best placed to decide whether a visitor levy is appropriate for their area, but there is real concern that the Government will use this levy not as an additional source of local investment to boost tourism, but as a mechanism to quietly offset future cuts to local government funding. We have seen that approach before: the Government have already relied on council tax rises to compensate for reductions in central support to local authorities.
Will Ministers make it absolutely clear today and put it on the record that any revenue raised through a visitor levy will genuinely be additional funding for local communities, tourism infrastructure and public services, not a way for central Government sneakily to offset future cuts to local government funding? If the Government hand new powers to mayors in this area, they must go hand in glove with extra, proper support for the tourism and hospitality sector by exempting hospitality from the jobs tax, considering lower rates for part-time staff, introducing a temporary cut to VAT for the sector and launching a serious strategy to promote Britain’s tourism industry overseas.
The Labour leadership hopefuls say that they want a battle of ideas, not personalities—well, we Liberal Democrats are fizzing with ideas. We have the ideas to fix our broken social care system, which has been ignored by this Government for 18 months. We have the road map to fix our broken relationship with Europe. We have the plan to fix our broken voting system—something that Labour hopefuls said that they would fix and now say that they will not. We have the ideas to save our high streets, fix the broken business rates system and the broken energy market, tackle the cost of living, and unleash everything that this great country has to offer. I genuinely hope that the Labour leadership contenders are listening, because for our country’s sake, I flippin’ well hope they can match our level of ambition.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
In the face of the local election results last week, it is undeniable that what we have done so far is not enough. The long tail of austerity means that we have so much more to do. People see a world moving at a rate of knots and are frustrated at this Government’s slow pace of change. We live in a world where we can order almost anything we want in the morning and have it delivered later that same day. For consumers, satisfaction is now almost instantaneous. That is in complete contrast to Government, where improvements are seen as slow. The expectations and the challenge that we face are there for all to see.
What does the King’s Speech do to address what I consider to be the holy trinity of what good Labour Governments do: jobs, homes and health? First, there are two pieces of legislation on homes. The social housing renewal Bill will alter the right to buy by increasing the eligibility requirement by 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum discounts and exempting newly built social housing from the right to buy for 35 years.
This area is like so many other Thatcher legacies. The sugar rush felt in the short term by those able to buy their home at a substantial discount has long been replaced by a broken social housing market in which people living in identical properties next to each other can pay massively differently rents. It is a market in which the taxpayer often subsidises inflated rents through housing benefit and millions of young people who might once have seen a council home as their natural route into adulthood have the option forever denied to them. We can see where the logic of right to buy takes us. Between April 2012 and March 2025, 133,000 social homes were sold, but only 51,000 were replaced. With 1.3 million people on council house waiting lists, the problem is obvious for all to see.
Secondly on housing, the long-awaited draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will bring us closer to ending the feudal leasehold system. It will finally ban the use of leasehold for new build flats, it will place a cap on ground rents, and it will create a new legal framework for commonhold. There is huge demand for this to be done as soon as possible, and I know the Minister is going as fast as he safely can, but he also needs to tackle rip-off estate management fees—he has to stop that model in its tracks. If we are determined to tackle the cost of living crisis, that is one obvious and indefensible practice that we can end.
Alongside addressing the problems that people face now, the Government must take steps to address the problems that are coming down the track. I believe that the unwritten social contract that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, they can expect a good standard of living in return, is disintegrating and under real threat. Across this country, economic growth no longer translates to better outcomes in life, something that is only set to continue with the increase in AI in the workplace and developments in automation. Graduate roles have already been hit—graduate vacancies have fallen by more than one third this year—and that trend will only continue and diffuse across other areas of the labour market. Young people are therefore growing up and entering a world of work that is detached from previous norms, and we are nowhere near ready for the resulting changes that we will see in the next decade. The state needs to be ready to respond to those shifts, to ensure that not only those entering the workforce, but those who are already in it and those who are displaced, are properly skilled for the needs of the future labour market.
That future labour market has to include significantly more manufacturing roles, as the Secretary of State acknowledged in his speech. The more we can make ourselves, the more insulated we will be from the inevitable disruption that AI is going to cause to jobs, particularly in the service sector, but it will also better protect us from the global supply chain shocks that we are far too exposed to at the moment. The moves to protect UK steel are the right first step in recognising that we need to do much more to protect our manufacturing base. I am not proposing that we nationalise everything—I will leave that for other people to do—but my visit to the local Vauxhall car plant last week was a clear lesson in how we need to sharpen up across the whole of Government to protect manufacturing, and the UK automotive sector in particular. The decision on employee car ownership schemes in the last Budget was welcome, as is support for energy costs next year, but of course, the industry would like that support to be much sooner and much stronger than what is proposed.
There are a number of factors challenging the automotive sector, but the biggest one and the one over which the Government have the most control is the ZEV mandate. There has been huge investment in the Ellesmere Port plant so that it can manufacture electric vehicles, and I believe that most of the UK automotive sector is supportive of an electric future. However, the reality is that the current level of sales is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to hit the ZEV mandate, and that gap is only going to get bigger each year. We need to be clear that this is not just a case of “Oh, well, we aren’t going to hit the target.” Every sale short of that target has direct financial consequences for UK manufacturers.
Looking around the world, we see that most countries that have put in place sales targets for electric vehicles have had to row back from them in light of the evidence that uptake just is not where it was predicted to be. We need to bring the review forward and make the decision now that the escalation of targets under the ZEV mandate needs to be turned off. This is not something to be looked at in the abstract, on a graph in the corridors of Whitehall; it needs to be looked at in the context of the cold reality of consumer choice and the importance of protecting UK manufacturing. Let us not lose good manufacturing jobs in pursuit of the unattainable—all that will do is supercharge the Chinese automotive sector. That is not going to help the planet as much as we would like, and it certainly is not going to help this country. We have a great tradition of building vehicles in this country, and we want to be at the vanguard of taking the industry into the future, but let us do it in a sustainable way that protects and builds on what we have.
We need to do more to support UK manufacturing through procurement. I was delighted recently to take a Royal Mail delivery van made in Ellesmere Port for a spin, with permission from the owner. That electric van, made down the road, is delivering mail to my constituents. We need to see much more of that, and we need to encourage UK companies to buy from the UK. Every part of the public sector should be required to buy British. Every council, every hospital and every school should seek to maximise that, because every taxpayer pound spent on UK goods goes back into our economy. We can do a lot without legislation, but we need to pursue it with great zeal.
This is all about levelling the playing field, because more needs to be done. When people see barber shops and vape shops proliferate on their high streets, they know that something is not right, as there simply is not the market to sustain them all. When they see some shut down, perhaps for selling illicit goods or for illegal working, it confirms their suspicions that they are not competing with legitimate businesses. When we see them reopen a few months later, perhaps under a different name, people see a system struggling to cope with the scale of organised crime infecting our high streets.
The time for which a shop can be closed for breaching the law will be doubled, but let us also go after the landlords for, at best, failing to do due diligence, and at worst for being complicit in illegal activity. We can do more to support our small businesses on the high street and get the level playing field that we desperately need.
We also need a level playing field in how we treat people at work. We have to accept that bogus self-employment is a business model based on denying workers basic protections at work, and it is absolutely the wrong direction for this country. We promised in our manifesto that we would tackle this, so we should get on with it.
On a related note, the proposed strengthening of the growth duty, which will apparently reduce unnecessary risk aversion, is misguided. Good businesses want their staff to work in safe environments, and they want them to be treated well. This so-called unnecessary risk aversion, referred to in documents that the Government have produced, is an illusion—a straw man—and it has been used to put up with other shortcomings.
We face many challenges. I think we are on the right track, but we need to go much further and much faster. The public are telling us that they need to see results. We are now two years into this Government, and as much as the news cycle is hyper-focused on personality, the King’s Speech is all about policy. It is about how we shape a better future and show voters that they were right to put their trust in the Labour party to deliver for them.
Everyone here knows the perils that lie ahead if we are not bold enough, if we are not determined enough and if we do not use the time that we have to deliver real change. We are nearing the halfway point of this Parliament and, while progress has been made, it is abundantly clear that we need to go much further if we are to show that we have the power to transform the lives of ordinary people in this country.
The clock is ticking. Incrementalism will not cut it. We now need a response that rises to the urgent challenges that our country faces, so let us go out there and do it.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early on the third day of five that we are investing in scrutinising the Government’s programme, at a time when the party of government is abandoning its unique selling point of bringing political stability to our economy after a time of so much churn, with so many Prime Ministers in such a short space of years.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Irrespective of who was responsible, the question is: what is happening now? The reality is that we are facing a danger, notwithstanding the investment of time we are putting into scrutinising the Government’s programme, that it will not remain the Government’s programme for very much longer, such are the very different priorities of those who are lining up to take the Prime Minister’s job.
When the Prime Minister warned his party last week that unleashing a leadership election would bring about chaos, he was quite right, but that chaos also comes with a cost. Such is their horror at the prospect of those lining up to take the Prime Minister’s job, the markets that fund our gargantuan and growing appetite for borrowing are charging a risk premium higher than was charged for the Truss regime, and higher than is charged for Greece when it seeks to borrow. I am not a particular fan of the current Prime Minister, but I urge Labour Members—and, indeed, the voters of Makerfield, who will apparently have a rather more significant input in the settling of this matter—to take account of Hilaire Belloc’s cautionary verses, and, in particular, the tale of poor Jim, who ran away from nurse and was eaten by a lion:
“And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.”
His Majesty told us that the legislative programme would include a Bill to strengthen our relationship with the European Union, but it is far from clear what that actually means. Do the Prime Minister’s red lines—no return to a customs union, or to free movement, or to the single market—still hold firm, and do they hold firm in the view of those who have expressed a much more enthusiastic agenda for returning to closeness with the European Union, among those candidates who are lining up behind him, seeking his job? Labour said in its manifesto that it was going to make Brexit work, but it has made it the excuse for the lacklustre performance of the British economy.
There is a measure of cakeism going on whereby Ministers, including the Secretary of State, tell us how wonderfully they have been doing. They have delivered the fastest economic growth in the G7, much faster than the countries that the Secretary of State identified in the European Union. They have delivered a reduction in inflation. They have delivered—
Sir Desmond Swayne
Quite right: interest rate reductions. They have done all these wonderful things, but at the same time they languish because we are not a member of the European Union. We have heard that criticism several times already today: we would be doing so much better if we were a member of the European Union. The reality is, however, that the European Union is not doing as well as Ministers are trumpeting that we are doing.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Desmond Swayne
No, I will not.
The reality is that Ministers are trying to have their cake and eat it by saying that the British economy would be performing so much better if it were a member of the European Union while at the same time trumpeting its performance.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I am with the hon. Gentleman—I believe the reality is that the British economy is performing in a lacklustre way.
But I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the cause of that lacklustre performance is the huge imposition of regulation in the previous King’s Speech, and the delivery of new employment taxes on every enterprise in the land as part of that deal. The best King’s Speech that we could have had would have been a very, very short one, containing only a statute of repeal of all the impositions of the previous King’s Speech.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
What an abrupt end that was. What a cliff-hanger!
I want to speak briefly about the justice measures in the King’s Speech. Important Bills are being introduced or carried over, and it is disappointing that the Opposition did not nominate justice and home affairs for a full day’s debate, even more so because today those in the other place are debating those very same subjects, which are indeed important.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the subject of home affairs. As the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesperson, I too am disappointed that there is not a day for me to have my say on this matter, and I will try to do so in this brief intervention. When I am opposite the Home Secretary, who makes a great play of shouting things at me as if I am a terrible liberal making unreasonable statements, she tends to imply strongly that by moving to the authoritarian right, the Labour party is seeing off the challenge of the Reform party. I wonder whether Labour Members are reflecting on that in the wake of the recent election results.
Andy Slaughter
That was a bit off-subject, so I will confine my comments to saying that, as usual, we are all disappointed by the official Opposition. We will leave it at that.
Fortunately, the Justice Committee has been involved in scrutinising some of the legislation being carried over—namely, the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which I believe has now been reborn as the courts modernisation Bill, and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, by which I mean the Hillsborough Bill; I hope the House is keeping up with these nomenclatures. I will deal with those Bills before outlining what else the Committee is doing.
First, on the courts modernisation Bill, the Justice Committee has been engaging closely with the Government’s proposals for reform of the Crown court, holding evidence sessions and collecting written evidence to gather views. We have heard from Sir Brian Leveson, whose independent review of the criminal courts formed the basis for the proposed changes, and from a wide range of practitioners, including barristers, solicitors, magistrates, retired judges and victims’ representatives. The Government declined to allow the Committee to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny, so we have conducted our own on behalf of the House, and next week we will publish a major report of our findings. The passage of the Bill through the Commons has been rapid, and there has been little opportunity for scrutiny of its contents by Members and indeed the wider public, despite the profound constitutional implications.
Ruth Cadbury
As a fellow Committee Chair, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could reconsider their relationship with Select Committees and provide more opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny by Committees, which play such an important role in addressing legislation prior to it coming to its formal stages in this House?
Andy Slaughter
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her intervention, and the answer is that there is a balance. We all want the Government to press on with all the wonderful things that they intend to do, which are in the King’s Speech, but that must be mitigated by the guiding hand of experienced practitioners, such as my hon. Friend, in their Select Committee roles.
I hope that our report on the courts modernisation Bill will make a significant contribution to Members’ understanding and analysis of its provisions, and aid their scrutiny and deliberations. I also hope that Ministers will take on board the issues that we will raise.
Secondly, I welcome back the Hillsborough Bill, which is the result of years of committed campaigning led by the families, victims and survivors of the Hillsborough disaster and other public tragedies. I spoke on Second Reading to highlight the areas of the Bill where I thought further clarity was required, including the application of the duty of candour to subcontractors, not just those with a direct contractual relationship; the scope of the exemption from the offence of “misleading the public” for acts done for the “purposes of journalism”; and how the expansion of legal aid will be funded. I am pleased to see that the Government have now published their proposals for the last of those.
When the Bill’s remaining stages take place, I intend to table amendments to require the Government to consider the merits of a national oversight mechanism—an independent body tasked with collating, analysing and following up the conclusions and recommendations made in the course of inquests and inquiries. I will also add my support to amendments relating to the role of the Independent Public Advocate and its information-gathering powers, and to the extension of the duty of candour to subcontractors, who are used by the vast majority of service provides, including Fujitsu during the Horizon scandal. I look forward to the Bill returning so that these issues can be considered in more detail. The national oversight mechanism, championed by the charity Inquest, is getting considerable traction. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Liaison Committee are discussing what may be the best method of ensuring that the recommendations of inquiries are implemented, and the Justice Committee also has an interest in this matter. We are also exploring the wider issue of how information from inquests can be collated and presented to prevent future deaths, whether or not there is a formal prevention of future deaths report. To that end, I am tabling amendments to the Bill that would establish a national coronial database.
Thirdly, I turn to the immigration and asylum Bill. The Justice Committee has been engaging with the Government’s proposal, since it was made last August, for a new independent appeals body to speed up decision making on asylum appeal cases, which is to be implemented via the Bill. In February, we visited the Taylor House tribunal hearing centre in London and spoke to senior judges to try to understand the causes of the current high appeal backlog. From speaking to them, it was clear that the failures in the current system, which have led to high appeal backlogs, are operational. They include: a shortage of administrative officers to check validity and collect papers; a shortage of court lawyers to issue directions and prepare cases for hearing; inadequate legal aid provision, causing essential legal and evidential groundwork to be performed far too late or not at all; poor or absent Home Office representation at hearings; and failure to comply with tribunal directions on both sides. Replacing judges with adjudicators will not solve those problems. Operational investment in the tribunal infrastructure is clearly required.
The Committee will endeavour to shine a light on that as the Bill goes through the House, but our initial thoughts are that replacing or supplementing judicial decision making by the first-tier tribunal with Home Office administrators will complicate rather than speed up the process, and simply move contentious cases to the upper tribunal or administrative court. In addition to scrutinising that significant legislation over the coming months, the Justice Committee will be concluding and reporting on its inquiries on the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders and access to justice, and progressing its inquiry on children and young adults in the secure estate.
It was good news earlier to see the Government launch the White Paper on youth justice. The Committee will be holding individual sessions with senior office holders, including the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Lord Chancellor. We will expand our work on tribunals by launching an inquiry on delays in employment tribunals, which currently have a backlog of over half a million active claims. We will also want to scrutinise the impact of the reforms contained in the Sentencing Act 2026 both on the prison population and the Probation Service, and on offender rehabilitation and public safety.
There are omissions from the Gracious Speech that are a matter for regret. Despite broad consensus, there is no measure to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR. The Committee heard in its access to justice inquiry how that is adversely affecting litigation funding. There is also no proposal for anti-SLAPP—strategic lawsuits against public participation—legislation, despite substantial evidence of the use of litigation to stifle free speech, nor is there anything to help the victims of press harassment.
It is disappointing that calls to introduce a legal right to consular assistance for British nationals arbitrarily detained or abused by foreign Governments have been ignored, and that proposals mooted to reform the position of cohabiting couples are absent. None the less, this is a substantial King’s Speech with a full programme that includes full, wholesale reform of leasehold and commonhold, social housing renewal, closer ties with the EU, and nationalisation of the steel industry. It is to be commended and supported in all those aspects, which are firmly based on sound Labour principles. Who can argue with that?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her elevation to her new position. The subject that I want to focus on—the enhancing financial services Bill—makes me reflect on the fact that I was in office as Economic Secretary for 1,640 days and, since then, we have had seven Economic Secretaries. I fully concede that several were from my party, but it is regrettable that there is not a degree of continuity in that role, because one of the most fundamental challenges facing the financial services sector, which is so important to securing enduring growth, is having Ministers who are able to maintain a relationship with the regulators and work through what, contrary to the way our politics is conducted these days, are quite complicated and delicate changes to regulation, capital requirements, and the way in which the consumer interacts with banks and financial services. I think it is deeply regrettable that that has come to pass.
However, I welcome some of the legislative measures put before us in the King’s Speech, such as the changes to the senior managers regime, removing the degree of certification necessary; the streamlining, essentially, of the functions of the Payment Systems Regulator into the Financial Conduct Authority; the re-anchoring of the Financial Ombudsman Service into the FCA, removing a degree of arbitrage existing in the marketplace; and adjustments to the ringfencing regime. Those are good things, and I am sure that we on the Treasury Committee and across this House will examine the detail of them.
I want to make three other points, if I may, about some of the challenges we face in the economy and financial services. First, we have to own the trade-offs that exist between financial stability and lending capacity. Post 2008, we made a number of decisions as a country to secure stability on an enduring basis, and we have now become too reluctant to recognise that the world is a completely different place. The question this House needs to answer in 2026 is whether the same calibration remains appropriate, and whether the proposals in the enhancing financial services Bill—for example, on ringfencing—go far enough. Are we used to holding on to a framework that protects and apparently gives stability, but which is in fact stopping significant tranches of capital being available to grow businesses and grow the economy?
The second area with which I am very preoccupied is the consumer duty. In the other place, the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee published a report last year, called “Growing pains”, which explicitly identified the consumer duty’s lack of clarity as a source of
“regulatory penalty on investment in UK businesses”.
We must ask whether the time has come when responsibility for where to invest and how to invest should lie more with the individual consumer. We are advancing this notion that somehow we in this place can define all the checks and balances, which we delegate to the regulator, and the moment something goes wrong, we expect that regulator to step in and to offer compensation. The emphasis should now be on reforming the Consumer Credit Act 1974—I think the Government are announcing that today—but that has been taking too long. It was first mooted when I was a Minister several years ago, and we have to be real about the reset that needs to happen as we redefine the level of responsibility that individuals take when investing.
Thirdly, I welcome the regulating for growth Bill’s sandbox measures. They are welcome as a concept in bringing in innovative businesses, in which this country continues to be very strong in financial services. However, we must be real about the fact that the area is dominated by large firms, and the new Economic Secretary will need to work with the regulators to see how we can bring firms in at an earlier stage, so that smaller firms, which may have achieved only a few million in seed round investment, can access the acceleration through that considerable regulatory burden.
Let me finish by making a few other observations about the state of the economy. All Governments intend to do the right thing. The narrative of this Government in their first year was, “We need to reset and bring stability, and from that growth can come.” But when I speak to businesses in my constituency and beyond, I hear that the burdens of the increases in national insurance and the national living wage, the uncertainty around fiscal events, and what happened with regulation have had a material impact. It is not enough to suggest that somehow small retail and hospitality businesses are not where future growth in the economy as a whole is going to come from. That says something about the level of confidence the man on the high street feels about where the Government and the economy are going.
I fear, from widespread reports—notwithstanding today’s welcome news from the IMF, if it proves to be true—that the overall consensus is that the burden of taxation on business and wealth creators has reached a level where people will not invest in this country. Unless the Government grasp that fundamental truth, we will be in a spiral. Every few months there might be a little bit of hope with the adjustment of a prediction, but the fundamental trajectory of confidence in the British economy is just not there. That is reflected in the cost of borrowing which, whether we like it or not, is the markets’ fundamental measure of confidence in the economy’s future, at a time of high borrowing.
I always try to take a constructive view, as I have today. I pointed to the significant positive things in the enhancing financial services Bill, and I welcome other elements in the regulatory growth legislation. But let us have some fundamental honesty about where we are now, notwithstanding all the mistakes that the Governments I was part of may have made. We are where we are now, and we have to be real about the challenges we face to secure enduring confidence and growth in this country.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I have chosen to speak in this debate on backing British business because when it comes to resilience and innovation, my constituency punches above its weight. Like many in the post-industrial heartlands, my constituency has changed over the years, with the loss of industry. The coal pits, Motorola, Plessey and British Leyland are all long gone, leaving deep scars of inequality in our communities. Yet in Bathgate and Linlithgow we have a skilled workforce strategically located at the heart of Scotland, and the area continues to embrace innovation and new industries.
After years of under-investment in national infrastructure and capabilities, we are now entering a new era of industrialisation fuelled by the Government’s ambition. Indeed, the House will vote on nationalising British Steel after the Labour Government stepped in, saving our steel industry and the future of nearly 2,000 workers. Vocational work and apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s mission for young people, closing the skills gap and securing the future of our infrastructure, research and innovation.
Our appetite for risk and advancement must also hold space for learning, and recognise that success is not built overnight. In my constituency, Linlithgow hosts Origin Peptides, an innovator that produces peptides without the nasty forever chemicals, supported by a £7.7 million Innovate UK sustainable medicines manufacturing grant to scale the safer, cheaper production of peptides.
We are in an era when global conflicts have inflated energy, fuel and food costs. The energy independence Bill is vital for our future, and I look forward to scrutinising it. In Bathgate, Invinity produces the UK’s only grid-ready non-lithium batteries. These long-duration, transportable batteries are ready to store renewable power for thousands of homes across Britain. Last week, the batteries were installed at Europe’s largest site of its kind, capable of powering 3,000 homes. They will harness the power of the sun through solar technology and help to deliver the UK’s energy security. How was this achieved? Through the National Wealth Fund, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and private industry working in lockstep, scaling manufacturing and exporting to the world. That matters to business, workers and households in Bathgate and Linlithgow, as well as to new manufacturing across the central belt of Scotland—and, indeed, for our critical energy independence.
Backing British business is a choice to invest in our people, close the skills gap, and use £400 billion of public procurement to champion British firms. The measures set out in the King’s Speech are about not just telling a different story but delivering the future that we want to see in our cities, towns, villages and high streets. Many local high street businesses have struggled to recapture the audience that was forced online during the pandemic.
One stubborn issue we have heard about time and again is late payments. Late payments, weak excuses and silent clients create cash-flow problems for sole traders and small businesses alike. The late payments Bill, long sought by the Federation of Small Businesses, is a game changer, and just one step taken to back our high streets, plumbers, builders, gardeners and retailers.
We must recognise the success of our Prime Minister and Chancellor, who have steadied business confidence—reflected in the IMF’s upgraded forecast today—and who are standing side by side with our allies during global uncertainty, rallying partners around the world. It would also be remiss not to give credit to His Majesty the King, a true statesman who returned home from America having demonstrated British values at their best: care for the world around us and dedication to democratic allies. Most deservedly, His Majesty can enjoy a tariff-free dram.
Backing British business means the UK being a proud and ambitious hub for global trade. The Labour Government have delivered trade deals with India and America, creating new markets for our industries, but we must also speak about Europe with the same sense of ambition, and I very much welcome the steps that have been taken thus far, especially our return to Erasmus+. Our future economic and defence security relies on our collective strength with our European neighbours, so I look forward to considering the European partnership Bill.
From advanced manufacturing in Bathgate to life sciences in Linlithgow, we can see what is possible when the Government and industry move forward together with purpose. The King’s Speech spells out the ambition to rebuild our industrial strength, secure our energy future, and ensure that opportunity and investment are felt in every community across these isles—words with action and deeds with purpose to deliver the security, prosperity and equity that our constituents deserve.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I wish to speak about rural regeneration and the need to back business and create economic growth in rural areas. Around a fifth of the British population live in rural areas, which have great untapped potential, but we do not see the infrastructure in those areas to allow them to reach that potential and provide the economic growth we need.
To illustrate the point, I have picked five areas, the first of which is digital connectivity. The previous Government’s Project Gigabit seemed like a really good idea: to roll out fibre broadband across rural areas, in places where it would otherwise not have been commercial, and connect businesses and homes so that people could do the things that they need to online—whether that is work from home, start a new business or connect their existing business.
In Shropshire, the contract was awarded to a company called Freedom Fibre, which was going to roll out fibre broadband to 12,000 properties but stalled at 3,500 after it could not get the funding it needed to connect the rest. The remaining properties will now be connected by Openreach, but not until 2030. That matters in rural places where, for instance, someone with a farm might allow other businesses to run from redundant buildings that are past their sell-by date and no good for keeping animals. However, those places do not have fibre broadband, which means they are not suitable places for start-up businesses to operate from. The absence of broadband is really beginning to hold us back.
It is the same story with mobile coverage. Ofcom reports that 1.45% of postcodes do not have “good” voice capability. Everyone who lives in North Shropshire knows that is complete rubbish, because it is impossible to make a phone call from lots and lots of places, including while driving down the A5. Prees Green is a particular blackspot where I tend to get cut off when speaking to my husband on my way home on a Wednesday night. There are all sorts of places where it really is impossible to make a phone call, and that is holding businesses back.
In fact, the River Severn Partnership found that 15.33% of postcodes are without good coverage, and the Rural Services Network says that 65% of rural residents across the country experience unreliable mobile signal. That really matters to people trying to run a business, particularly if they are on the road with that business or trying to work from home. It is holding us back. We need the Government to put in place a regulatory environment for the businesses that connect us digitally to ensure that rural places get the service they need. At the moment, they are being held back by the lack of availability.
I will give the House an example. I spoke to a business owner last week—they were actually talking to me about cash and getting to the bank, which I will come to later—who cannot accept payment cards at their premises because they are without a decent signal and any network. They have to give their bank details to their customers, who then go home and make a bank transfer—hopefully. That business is taking on all that risk because it cannot operate a simple swipe-and-pay system. The lack of digital connectivity has that kind of impact on businesses in my area.
It also really affects how farmers—there are over 1,000 farms in North Shropshire—do their business. Theirs are often the worst-connected properties, but farmers need to be online to deal with the regulatory environment within which they operate, and they might need to use GPS to work their farm machinery. All that is a problem if the digital connectivity is poor.
Gregory Stafford
The stories the hon. Lady is telling about the poor connectivity in her constituency echo what I experience in mine, where we have some of the worst full-fibre broadband certainly in the south-east, and potentially in the country, despite being only an hour away from London. I recently surveyed my constituents about mobile coverage and, contrary to popular opinion, more than two thirds were willing to have more masts in their area because of the change with people working from home and in how people do business. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to look forward and ensure that we have connectivity in our areas, rather than looking back to a time when people were operating very differently?
Helen Morgan
I agree entirely. I question the perception that people’s objection to masts is holding us back. In Shropshire, passive infrastructure masts have planning permission and are ready to go; what cannot be achieved is a mobile phone operator willing to put its equipment on those masts. We need to work with mobile network operators to get the connectivity we need.
I will move on to public transport. Shropshire has lost 63% of its bus miles since 2015, compared with 19% on average across England. Places like Woore, a village of around 1,000 people in my constituency, have no bus service at all; others, like Trefonen, have one bus a day. Weston Rhyn residents do have a bus service, but at the moment it just does not turn up because of a road diversion. This is really holding people back.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Like me, my hon. Friend represents a very rural constituency, albeit not quite as beautiful as Tiverton and Minehead. I completely concur with her points about rural transport: it is an absolute blocker for economic development, education and so many other things. Does she agree that growth is not conjured by debate but built by political will? My constituents and businesses need a functioning road from Watchet to Blue Anchor, a rebuilt school in Tiverton and a Government who foster the conditions for enterprise to flourish. To date, the political will has been lacking.
Helen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; it speaks to the point that rural areas have been looked past by the current Government and the previous Government. They have been neglected for many, many years, and if we are to unleash the potential of those rural areas, we need the political will to invest in them.
Shropshire has lost more bus service miles than pretty much anywhere else in the country, but in the funding round in early 2025, Shropshire had the 53rd lowest of 73 allocations, despite being one of the worst-served counties in the country. Local businesses and the local jobcentre tell me that not being able to get staff to their businesses is the biggest problem they face. They struggle to recruit skilled labour and to get people to them because there is very poor public transport. If a person in Shropshire cannot afford to run a car, they are pretty much stranded where they are. If that person is a young person looking for their first job or looking to learn the skills needed to work, they will probably struggle to get work because of the lack of public transport.
Trains are a real problem too. Accessibility at Whitchurch station has been overlooked, as has the connection between Oswestry and Gobowen. Those trains could be transformational for our area.
I welcome the Government’s review of in-person banking services that was announced last week. There is only one town with a bank in my constituency. We need to ensure that everybody can access the services they need. A business owner should not be required to drive many miles simply to change a signatory. I have had a lot of feedback from businesses in my constituency saying that banking services are critical.
Council funding is really important, and councils are critical for economic development. Shropshire does not have Pride in Place funding. It has lost the local growth funding, and it has not been given shared prosperity funding now that it has been phased out. That really impacts our ability to attract people into tourism and to regenerate the area. I would also say that education funding is part of that picture, because skills are essential. In areas where there are low outcomes for children, having very low input into their schools is problematic.
Finally, I want to talk about farming. The family farm tax has held back over 1,068 farms in Shropshire. Milk prices are a real problem. Many of our dairy farmers are producing at lower than cost, and fertiliser and diesel prices are soaring because of the war in Iran, causing a huge crisis of confidence in the farming industry. I look forward to hearing how the Government are going to generate confidence in our farming industry so that our rural economies can thrive.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The King’s Speech set out this Government’s commitment to remove the barriers holding back Britain and to break through the failed status quo. Nowhere is that more urgently needed than in life sciences and medical innovation. Britain cannot become a world leader in life sciences while patients and researchers are trapped inside systems that move too slowly. This matters because behind every delayed trial and every missed opportunity are families running out of time.
This country is uniquely placed to become a world leader in medical innovation. We have extraordinary scientists, extraordinary universities, and extraordinary clinicians. Our life sciences sector is one of the greatest strengths of the British economy. From pioneering NHS research to fast-growing British techbio companies such as Relation Therapeutics, the potential for this country to lead the world in medical innovation is enormous. The challenge we face is not whether we have the talent or the capability to lead but whether our institutions are capable of matching the urgency of patient need. Too often brilliance collides with a system that moves cautiously when it should move decisively.
In few areas are the consequences of that slowness felt more acutely than in rare and aggressive cancers. Since losing my wonderful sister Margaret to glioblastoma —the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40—I have worked closely with clinicians and researchers searching for a cure. That work has included establishing a new glioblastoma drugs trial in her memory, which is now under way at University College London hospitals NHS foundation trust and showing encouraging signs. In doing so, I have seen at first hand how difficult our systems can make it for innovation. What struck me throughout that process was that, even with funding secured and research ready, and with patients searching for further options, progress still becomes bogged down in systems that move painfully slowly.
Glioblastoma is one of the most aggressive and deadly forms of cancer. At diagnosis, patients are told they have months left, not years. For those patients, delay is fatal. Lord O’Shaughnessy’s review into commercial trials found that countries such as Spain and Australia were consistently setting up trials more than two months faster than the UK. Too often, our clinical trials environment is still characterised by complexity, duplication and inertia, when it should be characterised by urgency.
This is not a criticism of the brilliant people working within the NHS or our research institutions—far from it. Time and again, I have met exceptional clinicians and researchers working tirelessly to push boundaries and give patients more options, but I have also met clinicians who feel constrained by systems that are too slow to turn research into treatment for patients. Britain too often treats innovation as something to cautiously manage, rather than something to be urgently delivered. Lord O’Shaughnessy’s review warns that Britain risks losing its world-leading position unless we become faster, more agile and more ambitious, and the warning signs are already there, with the UK falling from fourth to 10th globally for commercial trials between 2017 and 2021. The countries that lead the world in medical innovation will increasingly lead the world economically too. The global race for investment, talent and scientific leadership is intensifying, and Britain should not simply aim to participate in that race; we should aim to lead it.
This is why the NHS modernisation Bill announced in the King’s Speech matters. NHS modernisation cannot simply mean changing structures; it must mean building a system capable of getting innovation to patients faster. If we are truly to modernise the NHS and remove the barriers holding Britain back, innovation and clinical research must sit at the heart of that mission. Britain has the talent, the institutions and the scientific capability. Now we need a system capable of matching that ambition, so that it is our country that stands at the forefront of innovation when the next generation of medical breakthroughs are discovered and delivered. For the families facing terminal illness today, that progress cannot come quickly enough.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Well, what a complete shambles! Less than two years ago, this Government were elected with the largest majority of any Government, bar one, in 100 years. People across our country, including most in my home county of Nottinghamshire, put their trust in the Labour party. Why? Because it promised change. It said it would do things differently, it would be better and it would end the chaos. It would put country before party. And where are we, less than two years later?
Robert Jenrick
We are here—[Laughter.] The hon. Member asks why I changed party. I will tell him why I changed party. It is because millions of people across the country look upon the performance of the last Government, and this one, and say that these are wasted years and that our country needs real change, yet we see nothing for it.
This Government, let us be honest with ourselves, lie in ashes. They have failed. An air of unreality hangs over this debate. Members queue up to speak as if this were a normal King’s Speech. The Prime Minister summoned the King, the Crown, the golden carriages and the fanfares of the trumpets. For what? To paper over the cracks of his failing Government. This, as we all know, is a lame-duck Government presided over by a lame-duck Prime Minister. Where is the Prime Minister? He is in his bunker. Where are most of the Cabinet? They are plotting. I am surprised that so many Members are here—perhaps they are filling in time before the change of Government.
These have been wasted years. That is what Winston Churchill said of the 1930s when he described them as
“years that the locust hath eaten”—
totally wasted time. At a moment when, in our hearts, each and every one of us knows that this country faces the most profound challenges at least since the 1970s, and perhaps more so, we have stagnating economic growth and the rapid deindustrialisation of our country. We have demographics that pose immense challenges, public finances that are on the rocks and getting worse with every passing day, and out of control illegal migration. We have social cohesion challenges of a type that we have never known as a country. Our streets feel increasingly lawless and our town centres are hollowed out.
Those problems cannot all be placed at the door of this Labour Government. They are a result of 25 years of failed politics in this country by the two main political parties and all those who have gone along with them. Yes, I hold myself partly responsible for that, and that is why I chose to walk away from the party and do something new. But today things are getting worse on every one of those measures: 70,000 people have crossed on small boats.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Robert Jenrick
I will give way in a moment.
Mass migration remains rampant. The public finances are getting worse. Look at what the markets are saying: the cost of borrowing is going up and the pound is falling. Unemployment is rising. Great, proud industries, such as one in my constituency, NSK, a business that makes steel ball bearings, are going bust because of uncompetitive energy prices and unfair competition from China—hundreds of people thrown on the scrapheap and now looking for new jobs in north Nottinghamshire. Youth unemployment is the worst that we have known it. We have record high taxes and borrowing. Our country is in a mess. Britain is broken. Yet so little is being done.
Even where the Government have acted, they have made things worse. Look at our farmers: the attempt by the Chancellor to impose the family farm tax, only partially U-turned on, has caused immense pain and suffering to thousands of farmers across our country, including many in my rural Nottinghamshire constituency. I went last year to meet a farmer in West Yorkshire whose father had taken his own life, by hanging himself in a barn, the night before the Budget, because he had read the briefing that the Chancellor had put out; the briefing was correct, but he wrongly feared that the measure would come in the next day. He killed himself. He is not alone.
Think of the pain and suffering that some of the members of our armed forces have felt as a result of the thus far failed attempt to deal with issues in Northern Ireland. The bravest of the brave—the men who served in Northern Ireland during the period of the troubles—now face a knock on the door or a letter through the letterbox. The previous Government, for all their failings, attempted to give a degree of immunity to those men, so that they would never have to live out the last days of their lives facing prosecution in the courts or wasting their life savings on legal fees.
Think of what is happening to businesses the length and breadth of our country. The cost of employing people is going through the roof as a result of the Chancellor’s national insurance increases, making it more difficult to employ people at a moment when unemployment is rising and AI is transforming our economy. We are a 90% to 95% service-based economy, and one of the most exposed economies in the western world to AI—just the moment to increase the cost of employing people. Look at small businesses like pubs, being battered by increases in business rates and every single cost. On every measure where the Government have tried to do something, they have made things worse.
Dr Arthur
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way; he has clearly rehearsed his speech well in front of the mirror. He has been speaking now for seven minutes, and I fear that he has learned well from his master—and I do not mean the one in Thailand—because he gives long descriptions of all the problems in the country, but no solutions; seven minutes without a positive policy offer for people in this Chamber or for his constituents.
Robert Jenrick
Let me give the hon. Gentleman some, then.
We all know that this King’s Speech is not worth the paper it is written on—there is nothing in it. Speaking as a former Minister, it is made up of the very policies that officials pull out of the third drawer of a desk and hand to weak, inept Ministers who have no ideas of their own: “Here you go, Minister. Here’s a substitute for your own thoughts.”
I will tell the House some things that we would do— that Reform would do, were there a Reform Government. No. 1, we would get a grip on the ballooning benefits bill. Let us get the millions of people in this country who are out of work back into the workplace to get the benefits bill down, as a moral imperative. Why write off millions of our fellow citizens, especially the young? How can people be off work with mild anxiety? How can we have people claiming PIP who have not even had a face-to-face appointment with a genuine clinician? This is madness. It has to change. Of course as a country we want a proper safety net, but that is not what we have today, and we all know it. At the moment, we have a farce where people are choosing not to work. That can change. It will not change under this Labour Government, but it can change, and we can save billions of pounds from it.
I will give the hon. Gentleman a second thing we would do: scrap net zero, so that we end the deindustrialisation of our country. Steel, chemicals, fertilisers, glass, ceramics, car making: 2 million jobs depend on high-energy intensive industries. All will be gone within the next 10 years. I wager that many Labour Members represent the good, decent, patriotic Brits who work in those businesses. They are selling them down the river. We need to end net zero and adopt a pragmatic and intelligent way to decarbonise our economy that does not immiserate working people and ruin what remains of our heavy industry. Those are two things that we could do.
I will give the hon. Gentleman a last thing we would do: end illegal migration. The way we do that is not merely to stop the boats, but to end the farce of people coming here on indefinite leave to remain, knowing that they will ultimately become citizens of this country on a short path, costing the Exchequer hundreds of billions of pounds. The Labour party has a policy, we are told, that takes us some way to that; but then we have the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) saying that the Home Secretary should be sacked for having the audacity to propose some pretty weak, but none the less sensible, changes to our legal and illegal migration systems. That gives us a clue about what is to come.
Today is a pantomime. We know this King’s Speech does not exist. We know this King’s Speech will be chucked into the dustbin in a few months’ time. Maybe there will be another King’s Speech. What we know is that what follows will almost certainly be worse. The fate of our country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, does not rest on what is happening in this Chamber; it rests on the Labour party members who will choose the next Prime Minister, because this Prime Minister is finished. We all know that. What comes then will be more failed policies, no answers to the challenges that face our country and no response to the yearning in the country for real change. The only way to achieve that—and we all know it—is a general election.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The right hon. Member will know, when mentioning other colleagues in the Chamber, to ensure that those colleagues are given fair warning in advance. If that has not already been done, I assume that it will be done swiftly.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
As much as I enjoy lectures from the Widow Twankey of Reform, I see this King’s Speech as an opportunity for us all to reflect on the anger that I suspect we all heard on the doorsteps in every constituency across this country during the local elections. To do that, we must be honest with ourselves about the anger that we may feel. How can any of us who say that we believe this country is stronger together—that love is stronger than hate—not accept that we are also angry? I must be honest: this weekend I bumped into the “Unite the Kingdom” protesters, many of them swaggering, beer in hand, through my local station. I honestly felt a guttural sense of anger, which is not right. I do not know those people and I do not know their motivations, but in our current political environment, that was how I felt.
I was angry because I felt that their sense of uniting this kingdom would not include my beloved Walthamstow, a community where we pride ourselves on the diversity of thought, background, and cultures that we all share—although I can promise Members that they are of one mind when it comes to the importance of bin collections, stopping fly-tipping and Thames Water not ripping up the roads. It is now a community in which my Muslim neighbours are scared and my Jewish neighbours fearful because of the violence, intimidation and fury in this place and in our culture wars, where they are used as cannon fodder.
If I am honest, though, my anger was also at myself. I bumped into those people because I had been in central London, at one of those conferences that I think all political parties have on Saturdays, where we all make the same kind of speech, using the same buzz words that we have all been using for the last 20 years. They are a comfort zone of political life, where everyone nods along but no answers are provided. This country is crying out for answers—we are all agreed on that—but the honest truth is that people are not sure that answers are coming from this place, and that is the test that the King’s Speech must deal with.
People want change in every corner, in every community and for every citizen, because right now nobody thinks that anything is working the way it should. As ever, the problem is not Muslims or Jews or bankers; it is politicians—it is us. Whether here, in Palestine, Gaza, the White House or the Kremlin, if we want to show the public that we can build a better world through debate, decision making and discourse, that starts with us. It starts with what we spend our time doing here on behalf of this nation, and whether this King’s Speech offers the difficult questions and answers that this country needs to face the world we are in.
The reason I spend too much time at weekends talking politics is that, for my sins, I chair the Labour Movement for Europe—and yes, looking at the King’s Speech and the European partnership Bill, I think how Brexit has broken all of us. Whether we voted leave or remain, the evidence is indisputable that Brexit has not turned out how anybody thought it would. Jobs and businesses have been lost—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asks what is the problem. He should go and speak to the 16,000 businesses that have given up trading altogether because the only benefit of Brexit was for paperwork creators.
We all walked out of the room, when we needed to be in the room to face the challenges of the modern world, whether that is national security, trade, or the climate crisis that we face. This is not a call to rejoin—that relationship with Europe is gone, and it will be a long time before we are able to rebuild it—but it is a call for us to recognise how damaging that has been for our chances as a country, and why we need to rebuild that relationship.
The European partnership Bill will do deals on food, emissions trading and electricity. Those things are all needed, but they are not enough to answer the challenge that our communities face us with: “How does life get better for us?”. Many of us who were here at the time of Brexit will already be deeply triggered by some of the things that have been mentioned, and it only makes sense to have this argument again if we are talking about a relationship that makes sense in 2026 and 2028, not 2016 and 2019. We must recognise that in the past six months we have been threatened with the invasion of Greenland, by continued aggression in Ukraine, and by a climate crisis that means we have to look again at the single market, the customs union and, yes, at freedom of movement. Any political party that denies that those conversations need to take place is not being honest with the public, because a customs union alone will not cut it.
The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) might be surprised by this, but I agreed with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) when he said we should get a deal that looks like the Switzerland deal. I am sorry he is not here today—I had hoped he would be, Madam Deputy Speaker, to refer to him—to agree with me that to do that, we must put behind us the fights of the past and the old red lines, and use the Bill to give the Government the negotiating mandate to do that.
We must also do what this place consistently fails to do: put families first. If we had not left the European Union, by now every family and every parent would have proper rights to paid leave to be with their kids, and we would finally be able to tackle the gender pay gap and the motherhood penalty. That is why we must ensure that the Bill does not just align for food; it needs to align for families and to put workers and their needs, not just businesses, at the heart of a new deal with Europe.
I give notice that I will try to amend the European partnership Bill, to give this place the chance to fix what it missed in the last Session: the missing piece of employment rights that businesses overwhelmingly support and that give dads and second parents the same rights as their European counterparts. We must also fix the mistake made in the last Session when we removed the European Scrutiny Committee, so that Members can be part of writing that legislation. Even colleagues who may disagree about the outcome of the European relationships that we might want to build would agree that it is time to take back control to this place.
This Bill, this legislation, this King’s Speech must be an opportunity to show our constituents that we get the challenges and barriers that they face in their lives. The honest truth is that they should be a place for discussion. None of the proposed legislation is good to go, but it can be amended through the parliamentary process to get there. Let us start with ensuring that people have confidence in our democracy. Of course we need a representation of the people Bill. There are 5 million reasons why we need to stop cryptocurrencies and company donations that are corroding people’s sense of confidence in British democracy, and we also need to end the loopholes that exist, capping donations for, and indeed from, individuals. Those who can get millions of pounds personally, or who use third-party organisations to hide their tracks, damage us all together.
We must get right the reforms for children with special needs and disabilities. For too long we as MPs have heard those vulnerable stories, seen the frustrations, and recognised that too often the tribunal has been the place of resolution. We must also get leasehold reform and the social housing Bill through. Housing is the cause of poverty in so many communities, particularly mine.
We must ban conversion therapy, because trans people are living in fear right now in this country, and that cannot be right for our fellow human beings. We need the energy independence Bill to work. I want the E in E17 to stand for energy: my community are stepping up to the plate, using our collective bargaining power to lower our energy bills by seeking bulk discounts on solar panels. We need the Government to work with us to get the interest-free loans to ensure that the community can bring everyone together in that energy transition.
We do not want the Government to be caught up in fighting to get rid of juries, when really, if we want to help victims, we should bring in specialist rape courts. Yes, we need to have the difficult conversations about immigration, because in my Walthamstow community we are proud of the contribution of our neighbours, whether they were born here or made their homes here. When we see people attacking others over indefinite leave to remain—people who are our nurses, doctors, scientists, friends and neighbours—we do not see a kingdom being united; we see people playing with culture wars rather than looking at the economic case. We want the legislation to reflect the benefits of immigration to our society.
I will defend to my death the right of people to disagree with me, to hold different opinions about the future of this country and to resolve those through the democratic process, but I will not let myself be silenced or sidelined by them. Maya Angelou taught us that hate can cause a lot of problems, but it has not yet solved a single one. I know in my heart of hearts that feeling angry at the world, including people I do not know at my local train station, solves nothing. It is up to us all in this place to rehabilitate politics through this Session, and to use the King’s Speech to show that we are truly capable of bold, radical thought. I hope to play my part in presenting ideas to my colleagues and securing their cross-party support to make that happen, because this country needs and deserves nothing less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Kirsty Blackman, after whose contribution there will be a speaking limit of five minutes.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I give you a heads-up? I am going to mention a number of hon. Members, all of whom I have contacted in advance to let them know that I will be mentioning them.
There has been an awful lot of talk about regulation in the debate. I remind the Conservatives that the vast bulk of regulation that businesses are labouring under was created during or prior to their 14 years in office. A huge amount of the regulation affecting businesses that transport things abroad or sell things overseas is because of Brexit. There are many reasons why regulation has come in, and not all of them are down to this Labour Government. I agree that it is important to listen to businesses—something that the Labour Government are singularly failing to do—when they ask for easy, small changes to be made that will make their lives significantly easier. The Labour Government—all Governments —should listen to those businesses and consider making those changes.
Since 2024, the Government have been mired in stagnation. They do not seem able to do or achieve anything. Some of the pre-consultation draft Bills that were suggested in the last King’s Speech never made it to Parliament—we never saw them—so even putting aside the current chaos, how can we believe that all the things in the King’s Speech will come before this Parliament for us to make decisions on?
On regulation, the Office for Tax Simplification was started and cancelled by the Conservative Government. If we need a simpler tax system, then surely an Office for Tax Simplification would be the sensible route to take, but that is not the only burden that is faced. I agree that to keep people safe, keep businesses profitable and ensure that businesses can export to wherever they want, we need simpler regulations that make sense and have a purpose—not regulations that are there just because they are what we had 100 years ago, 50 years ago or 20 years ago.
On the red tape around regulation, there is more to be done on pension funds. Despite the Pension Schemes Act 2026, which I largely support, there is still more that can be done to free up some of the money in pension funds. For example, I would love to see more pension fund money going into building more social housing. We know that we will get a return on social housing, as people pay rent on those social houses. I would love to see flexibility introduced, so that the Government can create pipelines for smaller-scale energy projects, such as renewable energy projects for communities, and social housing. Pension funds could then invest our money in them. We must remember that it is our money in those pension funds, but that money is not being invested in ways that will ensure growth, in both living standards and the economy.
Touching on my constituency and jobs in Aberdeen, I recently met a business in my patch called Lows Tradional Fish & Chips. Lows is an excellent chipper; we call them chippers in Aberdeen, but everybody else seems to call them chippies. Lows talked to me about the increase in its energy costs, which have more than tripled. It is important that the UK Government consider that seriously. They claim that they have targeted support for businesses. It should not be just for high-energy businesses that have to use significant amounts of electricity and gas to make ceramics and other goods; that support should extend to smaller businesses that use significant amounts of heat—for example, in order to cook fish and chips. In Aberdeen, the fish is generally haddock, not cod. The Chancellor needs to keep those businesses in mind when making her announcement later this week—potentially on Thursday—about energy costs.
Oil and gas jobs in Aberdeen are disappearing like snaw aff a dyke, which means “very quickly”. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government, who created the energy profits levy, and the result of this Government not listening to people. The Conservatives can talk about drilling all they want, but if they cancel renewables, there is no future for our energy industries. The Labour Government can talk about renewables all they want, but unless we fill the gap in between, all those folk from my constituency and across the north-east—the engineers, and the people who are innovating and creating amazing products that ensure we can exploit energy and provide energy security—will go away. They will go to Malaysia to work, and they will not be here, paying taxes and inventing those things. We need both types of energy generation, and neither of the two main parties are offering that.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it was folly for this Government to cancel the Ming Yang project at Ardersier?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Local jobs would have been created. We have rural population decline; we need to encourage people to move to rural areas by creating those jobs. This UK Government, and past UK Governments, have failed the people of north-east Scotland who work in the energy industries. We need change, or those jobs will continue to disappear.
Scottish National party Members have tabled amendment (c) to the King’s Speech. The amendment says,
“having lost confidence in your leadership”—
Oh no, sorry, that is not our amendment—that is what the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said. I will try again. The amendment says:
“It is clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public to lead this change.”
No, apologies; the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) said that. I will try again to find the amendment that we have tabled about the Prime Minister and our confidence in him. What about these?
“It is in the best interest of the country and the party that the Prime Minister sets out a swift timetable to ensure that a new leader is in place to regain the confidence of the public.”
No, that was the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I am sure I have got our amendment here somewhere, so let me try again.
“It’s clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public, or large swathes of the Parliamentary Labour Party”.
No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee).
“The Prime Minister has…failed to instil confidence in his leadership”.
No, that was the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Sorry, I will find the amendment—it is somewhere here, I am sure of it. Does it say,
“the public across the UK has now irretrievably lost confidence in you as Prime Minister”?
No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I am sure I have the amendment somewhere. Does it say,
“it’s clear from countless doorstep conversations that my constituents have lost confidence in him”?
No, that was the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). I am sure it is here. Does it say that
“you, Prime Minister, have lost the trust and confidence of the public”?
No, that was the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh).
Our amendment says:
“At end add ‘but respectfully regret to inform Your Majesty that the Prime Minister does not have the confidence of this House.’”
Given my amazing confusion about the similarity between what a significant number of Labour Members have said in public and our amendment—it is almost the same wording—I assume that our amendment will be by far the most popular amendment tabled. It clearly has significant cross-party support. I have not yet heard any Member talk in the Chamber today about their confidence in the Prime Minister.
Dr Arthur
I thank the hon. Lady for entertaining us all; she is having fun. I remember the shambolic end to Humza Yousaf’s tenure as First Minister in Scotland— it was shambolic; she will admit that. Having reflected on that period, which was a real crisis for her party and for Scotland, what advice can she offer Labour Members? What did she learn from that process?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I give a tiny bit of advice? Let us keep this short, because there are many hon. Members wishing to contribute to the debate.
Kirsty Blackman
I will try to give a short piece of advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I were in the Scottish Labour party, I would either say, “We are a separate party from UK Labour, and we make our own decisions”, or I would say, “We back the Prime Minister.” It is clear that Anas Sarwar, the leader of Scottish Labour, does not back the Prime Minister, and does not have confidence in him. He and many of his MSPs and MPs have said that Scottish Labour is a separate party, which makes its own decisions. I assume that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) follows his Scottish leader, supports ending the Prime Minister’s reign, and is looking forward to that, like all his colleagues.
As I said, our amendment can hardly fail to be the most popular amendment tabled, given that so many hon. Members from across the House have explicitly stated how much they support our position, so I am sure that they will vote for it on Wednesday.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome many of the measures in the Gracious Speech, including legislation to strengthen our relationship with the European Union. Brexit has been the unmitigated disaster that the evidence always suggested it would be, and it is the Government’s responsibility both to act in the national interest by seeking to build closer alliances with the EU, and to continue to work to build a national consensus that it is in the UK’s economic, security and cultural interests to do so.
We are focused on economic growth in this debate, and economic growth depends on a strong and sustainable education system at every level. The Education Committee’s recent report on higher education funding makes it clear that universities—anchor institutions in local and regional economies—face unprecedented financial pressure, with a real risk of insolvency and no clear plan for managing it. If we are serious about economic growth, we must be serious about the financial sustainability of the institutions that underpin it. In addition to taking the measures in the Gracious Speech, I urge the Government to take with the utmost seriousness my Committee’s recommendations on the steps needed to stabilise our university sector.
I will focus the remainder of my remarks on the proposed “education for all” Bill. This legislation sits at the centre of the Government’s support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Too many families still have to fight to secure the right help for their children. Too many children wait months, sometimes years, for essential support. Too many teachers and school leaders are being asked to meet growing and complex needs in a system stretched beyond capacity. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that that cannot continue, and the aim of making generational reform that will raise standards and build a more inclusive education system.
The emphasis on early intervention, support close to home and collaboration across education, health and care reflects many of the recommendations made by my Committee. The move towards earlier identification of need is right and necessary. National inclusion standards could help to address the deeply entrenched postcode lottery that families face, and provide a baseline for accountability. Investment in workforce training and multidisciplinary support through initiatives such as Experts at Hand shows understanding that inclusion relies on professional expertise, as well as good intentions. However, there are legitimate concerns about capacity in the SEND system and the resources needed to deliver effective and impactful reforms. Parents and carers have expressed significant anxiety about some of the proposals in the Government’s draft reforms, which could both reduce access to existing backstop accountabilities and risk exacerbating friction between parents and carers and schools.
If the “education for all” Bill is to succeed, it must be matched by the resources and workforce planning needed to turn its vision into reality, and it must be based on the lived experience of children and families and the professionals who work with them. Any reform of education, health and care plans must strengthen, not weaken, the ability of families to secure the support that their children need, and to hold the system to account when it fails.
Everyone wants a system that works better and delivers more effectively for children, but no system is perfect, or can be perfect. Parents need to know that, should things go wrong, the system can be held to account through robust and independent mechanisms, underpinned by legislation. For that reason, I strongly encourage the Government to provide space for continued and meaningful engagement at each stage of reform, and to consider publishing the Bill in draft form for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Education Committee. That would allow for the testing of ideas, the identification of unintended consequences, and improvements that would give the Bill the best possible start.
We have a rare opportunity to make lasting change, and to build a system that delivers on the principle of inclusion in practice, provides timely and appropriate support for every child who needs it, empowers professionals and supports local services, rather than overwhelming them. With careful design, proper resourcing and true partnership with those on the frontline, the “education for all” Bill could mark a turning point for a system that is too often characterised by struggle and exhaustion, turning it into one defined by trust, consistency and opportunity. That is a goal that we all should share, and it is by working together that we can achieve it.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to sit here for a number of hours and hear some views that are, frankly, special.
Let me start with some of the factors that have been completely missed from not only this debate but the King’s Speech. I do not think the realisation in this place takes the reality of our situation very seriously. We are broke. We owe not only £2 trillion to the debt markets—which, I am afraid, despite orders to foreigners to hand over more money, we do not control—but £10 trillion to people to whom we promised pensions and the businesses that built our schools and hospitals the last time we had a Labour Government.
We find ourselves in a situation where the conversation in this House has reached a point of unreality, because we are not addressing a very simple fact: inflation is coming down the tracks very quickly because of the decisions to challenge the energy markets directly in places such as Iran. We are seeing enormous pressures steaming up from Iran, from the strait of Hormuz, from the lack of gas flowing and from the absence of fertiliser. They are about to hit us in the grain markets in September, when the first harvest is not complete, and they will hit us in the meat markets in the spring, because that grain will not have led over the winter to the growth of animals for protein.
We are storing up a whole series of challenges for ourselves. Yet here we are talking about how much more we can spend and how much more we can get individuals to put their hands in their pockets, with the promise that they will get the money back in four, 10 or 20 years’ time. I am afraid that is simply not realistic. It is nothing to do with the credibility of this Prime Minister or whomever the Labour party chooses next; it is down to the simple reality that about a year ago, the Government refused to take the first and only decision that would have strategically mattered in this Parliament—to constrain welfare. The moment they refused to do that, they put themselves in opposition to simple financial reality, and the rest of the path was set. I am afraid that is exactly where we find ourselves.
The King’s Speech—the King, if not the Government, did it well—set out another series of wish lists for a Government who are going to last another few weeks. They are an Administration who are simply not going to change the reality, because they are not willing to take the decisions that need to be taken. I am afraid that is the reality of the United Kingdom’s position.
We are not being serious. We are not dealing seriously with the fact that we have young people who want to work and have energy, drive and determination, but who are being sold down the river by parties that are all sticking to triple locks on pensions and promising benefits to people who are already in work—as the Employment Rights Act 2025 does—but not to those who seek employment.
We are seeking to go down a path of control, statism and nationalisation. In fact, we have replaced socialism not with communism, as the Chinese have, or with the kind of authoritarianism that we see in some parts of eastern Europe, but with command capitalism: the illusion of privatisation with the direct intervention of regulation. We are seeing the absolutely predictable results of Government instructing individuals how to behave. Well, guess what? Individuals are opting out. We saw them opting out of hiring when the national insurance rate went up; we will see them opt out of leasing when the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 closes down that market; and we will see people forced out of the choices that they need to build their own lives. That is a hell of a pattern for this Government to set for the country. Let us be honest: with the current way that they are going, there is no way out.
Whoever the Labour party picks as its leader, unless its Back Benchers change and decide that they are willing to take their responsibilities seriously, we know what the result will be: the International Monetary Fund, the debt markets, and many, many people losing their homes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I welcome the extensive measures that this Government are taking in this King’s Speech to create and enable economic growth across the country, including in my constituency in the north-east. As we know, growth is at the heart of this Government’s agenda, and a good deal of legislation has been proposed to ensure we make the conditions right for it. Bills such as the Government’s new regulating for growth Bill will drive our economic development forward. I am also pleased to see a regulation of late payments Bill—something that small businesses have long wanted—which is an important step forward. It was welcome to hear the positive news that the IMF has increased its growth expectations, and it is pleasing to see that the priority of growth will be written into legislation. However, I ask the Minister to confirm that health and safety—a key issue for workers—will be up there with growth as a priority, driving safety for our employees.
The UK’s long-term economic security depends on raising living standards in every part of the country. Places such as the north-east have been left behind for decades, and our young people deserve greater opportunities. We are already taking steps to address that through our action on child poverty—we cannot build a resilient economy without ending the opportunity crisis and ensuring every child has the best possible start in life. True economic growth requires an inclusive system in which every child can go as far as their talent and effort will take them, so we must build on the recently passed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 by taking further positive steps. I am pleased to see in the King’s Speech additional support for educating children with special needs. The Government will introduce the education for all Bill, which aims to transform the way in which special educational needs and disabilities are addressed.
I have recently held events in my constituency to hear from some of the parents, teachers, carers and others whom that Bill will affect. I want to understand how we can help improve the lives of parents, teachers, and the young people themselves. Parents and teachers tell me about the monumental pressures they face in supporting their children and students every day. They worry that without sufficient support, opportunities for those young people will close. They are fighting an outdated and ineffective system just to get those children the support they need, which is why I am glad that the education for all Bill will reform the system and invest over £200 million in training for teachers and support staff, helping them to better understand special educational needs and inclusion, on top of other money that has been provided for capital work on schools. However, naturally, some families fear that the changes will negatively affect them. I hope that the consultation that is ending today will help the Government to improve any forthcoming legislation, ensuring that it meets the needs of parents, teachers and young people and addresses their concerns. Every child deserves the chance to succeed, regardless of their background or their needs, and inclusive education that supports children with additional needs has long-term economic benefits.
I will speak briefly about the regulation of waste operators. It is time for waste operators to be regulated—many are good and reliable, but others are not using permits, and we see the results in the form of fly-tipping locally, which many of our constituents complain about. I am glad that those rules are being strengthened.
Finally, I will touch on energy. In the current global context, energy security is more important than ever. The local authority in Gateshead has created a local power scheme to benefit the area, and I hope that similar community-run power schemes will be part of the Government’s agenda. I am proud to support the King’s Speech, which will continue to create the change that positively transforms ordinary people’s lives.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is mildly eccentric that this is now the third day of a five-day debate on the King’s Speech when this Government are in crisis, but it is absurd to believe that this Government will be able to back business to create economic growth at all if their intention is to build on the legislative achievements—the stranglehold on our British economy—over the past two years. We were told just last week that incrementalism will not cut it, yet time after time, we have heard contributions from Labour Members suggesting that they are going to build on what has been achieved thus far. Well, thus far, what I hear from people in Northern Ireland and right across the country is families asking a very simple question: “Why are we now paying more and getting less?” They are working harder, they are taxed more heavily, and yet public services are under strain, businesses are being squeezed, and opportunity feels further out of reach.
While all this is happening, the Government appear to be more focused on internal drama and ideological priorities than on delivering. The people of this country are not interested in Labour personality contests—they want Government policies that address the pressures they are under. For four days last week, we engaged with thousands of people at the Balmoral show, all of them wondering, “Where’s the hope?” Where is the aspiration that Labour promised them over the last number of years?
Jim Shannon
I know that my right hon. Friend attended the Balmoral show for four days, and that others did likewise. Does he agree that the agricultural sector, in particular, needs some help—not just in Northern Ireland, but across the whole of the United Kingdom—and that this Government do not seem to have a policy for farming? Does he agree that it is time that that was changed?
Gavin Robinson
The agricultural sector does need help, as do many other sectors besides. Just this day, I had a conversation with a lovely young gentleman—a 14-year-old student from Broxbourne in England. He is a secondary school student, and he told me about his school and his classmates. They live in a Conservative constituency, but last year in a mock election, the majority of pupils his age were not interested in this Government; they were putting their store in the Greens. I wonder just how often Members in this Chamber engage with real people and understand their concerns. [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh, but they were not laughing two weeks ago, and I suspect they will not continue laughing.
Earlier in this debate, I raised the issue of defence spending in Northern Ireland. Do Labour Members know that the average spend per head of population is £300, but in Northern Ireland, it has been a fifth of that? I asked whether this Government recognise that Programme Euston, which could see investment in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, could be designated as a defence project. Again, officialdom is reticent. When I served on the Defence Committee with Labour Members for eight years, we fought those campaigns together and secured investment, but now that they are in government, they buy the same official line. There are things we can do to encourage investment, business and economic growth, but I am sorry to say that I do not see them.
We have heard colleagues talk about stability in the economy. I want to see stability in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in the Chamber earlier. We are now two months into a financial year with no budget. Where is the clamour? Where is the concern? Where is the effort to ensure that our politics can work and we can stimulate business and growth? That has not been mentioned, and it is not a concern.
Labour’s big idea is the relationship with the EU. It is a big idea that seems to ignore a referendum that took place in 2016—its Members do not want it mentioned. Forget about betraying the people of this country and a referendum that decided our fate 10 years ago; the bigger concern among Labour Members is betraying the aspirations of their candidates, with one candidate letting slip their view so that the king of the north is left with no clothes. And yet, on a closer relationship with the European Union, what do we hear for Northern Ireland? Nothing. All are still content that laws for Northern Ireland, applying in Northern Ireland, are set in Brussels; for two years, this Labour Government have dishonoured their own position and dishonoured the pledges they made to the people of Northern Ireland to fix it. Talk about a closer relationship with the European Union: in the coming months, customs duties on parcels to customers in Northern Ireland—
Gavin Robinson
I do not have time to give to the hon. Gentleman; as I do not get an extra minute, I am not giving way. I am too close to the end of my speech.
In three months’ time, we will see customs duties on parcels from one part of our United Kingdom to another; by the end of this year, general product and safety regulations that were dealt with last year will be back on the agenda again. Do we hear anything about it? Is there concern? No, sadly not.
I said earlier that it is mildly eccentric, but in fact it is a farce that we are going to have to hear more from a Government which needs nothing more than change itself.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I want to begin by focusing on young people and employment, which is a key aspect of economic growth. For growth with a purpose—to create a society that we can all feel part of and can all contribute to—it is vital that young people get the training to develop skills in the field they want to work in. It is often extremely hard for them just to get initial experience. Firing off job applications one after the other without success, it is easy to lose hope. They do not need the language of work incentives; they just need a chance.
The transition from school or college to work and adulthood can be difficult for anyone, and many people also start with disadvantages. Nobody should have to start their working life without support to find their first job. That is why I was very pleased to see the Government announcement earlier this spring of new investment in training and skills for young people, including the chance of a job for those who have been looking for work longest.
Given the closure of the UK shared prosperity fund, I would like to see the Government ensure continued funding for smaller community organisations that provide employment support for people facing the greatest challenges in finding work, such as disabled people or care leavers. I also urge the Government to take action to radically reform the student loan system, as when young people start work, they are often demoralised to find that their debt increases faster than they are able to pay it off.
I am very conscious of the role that small local businesses play in the economy and in the everyday lives of people in my constituency, but also of the challenges they face because of cost pressures and wider developments such as the growth of online shopping. Hair salons remain an important part of our high streets, largely run and staffed by women. They are a key source of apprenticeships and employment for young people under 35, and they generated an estimated £5.8 billion for the UK economy in 2023-24.
Victoria and Janet have owned Aura salon on Aigburth Road in my constituency for 24 years, and they have trained numerous young hairstylists over that time. Nevertheless, after weathering the financial crisis and the pandemic, they have—at least temporarily—stopped taking on new apprentices, like many other salons. I urge the Government to look again at how they can support small businesses like Aura salon.
In December, I visited another local small business in my constituency, the Motor Museum recording studio, which has always offered training and career opportunities for young people in record producing, mixing and engineering through its strong links with the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts, Liverpool University and Liverpool John Moores University.
The success of Olivia Dean and Lola Young at the Grammys was a major stimulus for the UK music industry, and a reminder that the creative industries are a key part of the UK economy. The Motor Museum has played a significant role in the industry’s success story over the 37 years of its existence, playing host to recording sessions by major UK bands like Oasis and the Arctic Monkeys, as well as artists from all over the world.
However, recording studios are facing an uncertain future. They are assessed for business rates in the same way as other business premises, like offices, on the basis of square footage, but it is the sound that studios create, not the space, that makes them distinctive. I urge the Government to consider assessing recording studios separately from other businesses, just as film studios are.
In her Mais lecture, the Chancellor highlighted once again how important it is that growth is not confined to London and the south-east—and recording studios are certainly not. They are part of the essential infrastructure of the music industry, and they are where so many young musicians take the first steps in their career. Without them, there would be no albums and no tours. We must not lose them.
Labour was the first party to refer specifically in a manifesto to the concerns of small businesses when, in 1906, it highlighted:
“Shopkeepers and traders are overburdened with rates and taxation, whilst the increasing land values, which should relieve the ratepayers, go to people who have not earned them.”
In closing, I urge the Government to do all they can to support small businesses in our UK economy.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Since being elected by the people of Bridgwater, I have sought to be a strong voice for local families, small businesses and community groups across my constituency. I am saddened that, during those two years, life has got more difficult for so many people. The cost of living is rising faster than two years ago, unemployment is higher and small businesses are struggling.
The reason for these problems is that this Government are making life harder for people who work hard and do the right thing, and too often they reward those who do not. Labour is taxing and spending and borrowing too much. It is taxing those who work, those who employ people, those who save, those who invest, those who create jobs, and those who build up a family farm or family business and want to pass it on to their children. It seems that the only people better off under Labour are train drivers and those on benefits.
Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) set out the borrowing plans of the last Conservative Government. We planned to borrow £323 billion in the five years from April 2024. This Labour Chancellor is planning to borrow £583 billion over the same period, which is an 80% increase—an extra £260 billion borrowed over five years. All that extra borrowing must be paid for.
Poor economic management and chaos within the Labour party mean that Britain is now paying 5.1% to borrow money for 10 years.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
King’s Speeches are partly about what a Government do, and partly about what a Government do not do. The omission in this King’s Speech is exactly as my hon. Friend suggests: a macroeconomic approach, particularly to productivity. This is a huge drag on our economy, and one might have expected further measures to be announced dealing with that macroeconomic problem, for it relates closely to the problems that he has set out in his speech already.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
The rate that Britain is now paying is higher than at any time over the last 20 years—in fact, it is the highest rate since the last time Labour was in office. Britain’s finances are in a precarious position precisely because Labour is doing what it always does: spending other people’s money like there is no tomorrow.
The Government announced a holiday tax in the King’s Speech. This will enable councils to tax holidays taken in this country even more than at present. Most people who take their holiday in Britain are British. They already pay VAT at 20% on their holidays, and Labour wants to tax them further. This will hit local businesses in Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean in my constituency. Many families who holiday in Somerset are not wealthy. A tax of £2.50 per person per night will take £70 a week away from a family of four. That is money taken out of their pocket that they cannot spend with local businesses.
It has been interesting to watch Liberal Democrats in Somerset squirming over their plans for a holiday tax. While their colleagues in Bristol and Bath have welcomed the tax, calling its introduction a victory for Liberal Democrats, those in Somerset do not quite know what to say. No doubt they will make their position clear before next year’s local elections.
Helen Morgan
I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats’ whole point is that local government should be able to decide on its own policies, because they will be appropriate in some cases and not in others.
Sir Ashley Fox
And I would like to know from the Liberal Democrats in Somerset whether they think it appropriate to take money from my constituents in Berrow, Brean and Burnham-on-Sea and spend it in Taunton and Yeovil. For some reason, they seem reluctant to say.
The King’s Speech confirmed the Government’s plans to curtail our constituents’ right to a jury trial. It is a tragedy that this Government are trampling on our ancient rights and liberties. They claim that it is because of the backlog of cases in the Crown courts, but that backlog was not caused by jury trials, and it will not be reduced by curtailing the right to a jury trial. Labour Ministers have failed to provide any evidence that this will increase court efficiency. It will not bring swifter justice, but it will undermine confidence in our whole justice system. It is a reform without any rational justification. I believe that the Government are wrong, and must reverse their course.
My constituents want secure borders, affordable energy, safer streets, economic growth and opportunities for their children, and that is why the Conservatives are setting out our alternative King’s Speech. At a time of international instability, the Government should be cutting welfare spending in order to spend more on defence, but instead we are stuck with a feeble Government who threaten both our economic and national security.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Since the last King’s Speech, we have seen great steps forward under this Labour Government in their first parliamentary Session: the Employment Rights Act 2025, the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation; the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, establishing Great British Rail to improve services and keep fares down; the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, providing security and dignity by ending no-fault evictions; and the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Act 2026, lifting 450,000 children out of poverty. So it is welcome that in this King’s Speech further steps are being taken to support our country, at a time when so many are struggling with the cost of living, when our ties with Europe desperately need strengthening, and when global uncertainty weighs heavily on us all. I particularly welcome the measures to strengthen economic security, namely the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill and the European partnership Bill.
British Steel is an industry that supports 37,000 direct jobs, and supports many thousands more through its supply chains. It is vital to our economic resilience and our industrial future, but for decades it has been in private hands. I welcome the Government’s willingness to bring in new legislation to renationalise British Steel, and our commitment of up to £2.5 billion to modernise and decarbonise the sector in the face of the climate crisis. However, I do wish to press the Government on a key point: the public interest test in the steel industry Bill. While it is right that such powers are exercised responsibly, I urge Ministers to ensure that the test is applied in a way that genuinely puts the public before private profit, rather than being constrained by a desire to reassure investors above all else. Furthermore, if we accept the principle that steel is too important to fail, why should we stop there? Across the country, people see the consequences of privatisation every day: sewage in our rivers, spiralling energy bills, and unreliable postal services. Let us bring all essential services back into public ownership and ensure that the wealth they generate benefits the public, not private shareholders.
I very much welcome the European partnership Bill, which seeks to strengthen our trade and investment relationship with the European Union, building on the important work begun last May when the Government and the EU held their first joint summit since we left. The EU is, of course, not without its flaws, but given the uncertain and unstable times that we face, particularly as Trump continues to prove himself unpredictable and unreliable over and over again, partnership with our closest neighbours will provide security. This is essential for farmers in my constituency of Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr.
Some 75% of Welsh food and drink exports go directly to the European Union and the livelihoods of many of my constituents depend on reliable access to those markets. It is for that reason that the proposed food and drink agreement is so vital. It is a deal that could add up to £5.1 billion a year to our economy, boost agricultural exports to the EU by 16%, and reduce delays at the border. This was a manifesto commitment, and fulfilling it will provide much-needed certainty for our farming and wider communities. If we are serious about tackling the cost of living crisis and supporting long-term economic growth, a key part of this will be deepening our relationship with Europe—strengthening trade, enhancing collective security, and building a future based on reliable partnerships.
I also welcome the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, commonly known as the Hillsborough law. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) has worked tirelessly on this legislation. It is essential that it is passed in full as one of the first Acts of the new parliamentary Session, with the proposed duty of candour applying to all public authorities, including the intelligence and security services. The bereaved families and survivors affected by state failure and cover-ups deserve nothing less.
Finally, I welcome the commitment to ending new coal licences in the coal licences Bill. While Wales’s coalfield communities can rightly be proud of their heritage, it is vital that we now protect them from the environmental and social harms of further extraction. That is essential for those living near the Bersham colliery spoil tip in Rhostyllen, in my constituency. Given that private companies are now seeking to mine coal tips, which would inflict the same issues on communities, this type of extraction should also be prohibited.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Last year I attended the funeral of my step-grandmother, Diana Faure Walker. I adored her, and I was so proud that she had been decorated in the war for her service as a nurse after D-day. She believed that Britain was a hope for the world. That was not naive idealism, but the resolve of the generation who won the war.
Today, liberal democracy in Europe is under threat from a dictator again, and too many of our generation are turning to fear. We are facing a Reform party Government, consisting of the same people who cost us £100 billion a year with the Brexit vote. Put them in government and the current chaos will seem like nothing. But there are still three years until the next election: enough time to set a new national mission, achieved with a new economic model to bring new hope. Of course we must restore economic relations with Europe, but we must also dramatically increase defence research and development to power economic growth and defend liberal democracy.
Academics now agree that the economic dominance of the United States is powered by public research and development, especially in defence. It was through American and British research and development that we learned how to mass-produce penicillin, which saved thousands of lives after D-day, yet for the last 30 years we have failed to use at scale the No. 1 policy to maximise growth. The Government have made some progress, but today we spend £22 billion a year on public research and development while the fastest-growing advanced economies spend double that.
The Government are rightly concerned about more borrowing, but we can remove most of the credit risk for defence research and development borrowing by issuing bonds jointly with our European and Canadian allies. We should follow the advice of Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank, who urges the EU to reduce debt by borrowing for R&D at scale. Even with additional borrowing, the debt-to-GDP ratio falls as growth takes off.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, which relates closely to an intervention that I made a few moments ago. If we are really to address the productivity gap, two things are essential: R&D, which breeds innovation to make our economy more efficient and effective, and investment in skills—particularly high-level skills, but skills across the board. Neither of those elements is emphasised in the King’s Speech. The hon. Gentleman clearly thinks they should be, and so do I.
Chris Coghlan
I entirely agree.
Imagine where scaling up defence research and development could lead our country. In three years’ time we could have a resurgent economy and Putin defeated. Together with our European, Canadian and Ukrainian allies, we could have defended liberal democracy. As I left my grandmother’s funeral, they played Fred Astaire’s “The Way You Look Tonight”, a song that she loved and danced to with British soldiers. The hope of that generation lives in us.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the measures in the Gracious Speech, which will enhance the lives and prospects of the people of Exeter. The starting point for the King’s Speech was
“an increasingly dangerous and volatile world”.
Few Governments have had to simultaneously tackle a decade and a half of under-investment and a dire fiscal situation, alongside the shock waves of trade tariffs, terrible wars and a cost of living crisis—not to mention the rapacious pace of technological change, and a fast-changing climate driving global instability.
Despite all the obstacles, the Government continue to set out a prospectus for change that is working. In the last year, the British economy grew faster than any other economy in the G7, and Members will note today’s IMF upgrade to growth prospects this year. We have also seen the biggest fall in NHS waiting lists for 17 years. In Exeter, more than 4,000 fewer people are on waiting lists, and ambulances are already arriving 30 minutes faster than they were last year. We are delivering new Sure Start-style services, breakfast clubs, and investment in our schools and colleges, and the 30 hours of funded childcare is already making an enormous difference to families. This is real change, but for change to accelerate and to last, we need economic growth.
It is clear that we are engaged in a battle of ideas, both in this Chamber and around the world. In any such battle, we should turn to Tony Crosland, who famously argued in “The Future of Socialism” in 1956 that economic growth is central to social solidarity and greater equality. By growing the economy, we can share the proceeds of growth fairly and invest in our social realm, making us all richer economically, socially and culturally, and more secure.
Seventy years on from Crosland’s masterpiece, the global economy is very different, so where will growth come from? First, through greater trade with Europe. In our unstable world, and with uncertain partners, our stability, prosperity and security rely on meaningful partnerships with like-minded nations, so I welcome the European partnership Bill, which will boost growth in the south-west. At a time of balkanisation and uncertainty around the world, the UK must redefine and enhance our relationship with Europe, and our geography, values and economy all point in one direction. The Bill will increase trade with Europe, break down barriers and erase frictions.
Secondly, we must embrace the technological revolution. Exeter already leads the way in green energy, digital infrastructure and research. Artificial intelligence presents great challenges but also great opportunities, and I want Exeter to be at the heart of the tech revolution. From our world-leading universities to our thriving science parks, such as Exeter science park, and science institutions such as the Met Office, the south-west has become a powerhouse for scientific discovery and technological advancement.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has often said, growth cannot be purely powered from a narrow base in financial services, and from London and the south-east. As in the 19th century, growth must be powered by strong regions and cities, by innovators and entrepreneurs, by small and medium enterprises, and by science and technology.
Growth will come from tackling the climate emergency, developing the post-carbon technologies that will save us, and managing the just transition to an environmentally sustainable economy. All this requires an active state to take long-term decisions on investment and research. It requires successful and supported world-class universities, such as Exeter University, to deliver the job-ready graduates our businesses need, and to actively help innovators to commercialise and productise their research—to start up and spin out, and to scale up. It needs more active and deeper capital markets so that British innovation can more easily become British success.
Thirdly, we need to unleash the potential of every young person. I welcome the new national focus on skills and apprenticeships, and the education for all Bill. We must tackle the scandal of hundreds of thousands of young people not being in employment, education or training. Exeter’s young people do not lack ambition or drive; they lack the platforms on which to stand. Exeter college, the best tertiary college in the country, now delivers 95 different apprenticeship standards and pathways in partnership with 1,100 employers, meaning it is ranked third nationally for apprenticeship starts, which is remarkable in the 48th biggest city in England. I am delighted that the Government will further equip the college to help young people to reach their potential, by becoming a construction technical excellence college.
We are working with Exeter city council, and with our universities, schools and businesses, to put rocket boosters under the ambition of Exeter’s rising generation. Trade, technology and young people—three sure-fire routes to economic growth. Let us never forget that politicians can encourage and craft the conditions for growth, but it is businesses that create the growth itself. I particularly welcome the small business protections Bill. I know from my own business experience over 15 years, and from speaking to Exeter’s small businesses, that cash flow is the lifeblood of any business.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the small business protections Bill. Small and independent businesses are the backbone of the economy in my constituency. Many of them are really struggling at the moment, and they are not seeing much else in the King’s Speech. They are struggling with the increase in national insurance costs and the cost of living. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to support small businesses?
Steve Race
I am sure the Minister on the Front Bench will answer in more detail at the end of the debate, but I absolutely agree. We can all do more to support small businesses, and measures in the King’s Speech will help such businesses across the country. I welcome the regulating for growth Bill, which will embed the presumption of growth in the work of regulators. Too often the framework of regulators has failed to balance the need to deliver with the duty to regulate. I look forward to seeing the details of that Bill.
As ever, I take my inspiration from Exeter and its businesses, entrepreneurs and workers. New Motion Labs, Intelligent AI, Brain in Hand Ltd and RoleMapper are four examples of the new economy that is thriving in Exeter. Across my city and region, we are fashioning the answers and forging the future. The King’s Speech lays the foundations for economic growth and shared prosperity—based not on trickle-down economics or anarcho-capitalism, but on investment and modernisation. We are engaged in a battle of ideas, both here and around the world, and I say bring it on.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there seems to be a complete lack of understanding from those on the Government Benches of the absolute disaster they are presiding over when it comes to the economy and, most importantly, growth. The evidence is hard to ignore. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) talked about a battle of ideas—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind Members that if they have intervened in a debate, they might like to have the courtesy to wait a while before departing the Chamber.
Gregory Stafford
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Exeter talked about a battle of ideas, but those on the Government Benches seem to be totally devoid of any ideas that will actually get this country moving again. The ITEM Club forecasts around 160,000 job losses this year alone, with manufacturing, retail and construction expected to be hit the hardest. Unemployment has risen month after month and now stands at 5.2%. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs payroll data shows 110,000 fewer people in employment than when Labour took office.
In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, in Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, there has been a 28% increase in the number of young people claiming unemployment-related benefits in a single year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric that comes from the Government: young people unable to get a foothold in work, businesses pausing recruitment, families feeling the squeeze in their bills, and high streets losing momentum.
The reason is not difficult to identify, and businesses across the country are telling us the same thing: Labour has increased the cost of employment, raised taxes and layered on regulation that is undermining confidence. The Employment Rights Act alone introduced more than 330 pages of additional obligations on employers. The Government’s own assessment acknowledged a cost of around £1 billion a year. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors warned that the legislation would reduce hiring and investment, which is exactly what we are seeing. What is the Government’s response? A regulating for growth Bill. It is like asking a vegetarian how they would like their steak cooked. The reality is that this is not the way to get growth.
At a recent hospitality roundtable in my constituency, one publican told me that there is now “no incentive to hire someone under 25”. That should concern every single Member of this House, but Labour Members simply parrot the Government’s talking points. They are totally detached from what is going on in the real world. The unemployment rate is now close to one in six among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I cannot believe that Labour Members are not being told this by their constituents. For many young people, their first job is the foundation for everything that follows—skills, confidence, independence and ambition—but too many are now finding the door closed.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is right about young people, and he will be as shocked as I am that over a million of them are not in education, employment or training. Much has been said about growth, but what matters is per capita growth—making all our people better off—and yet, to go back to my earlier point, there is nothing in the King’s Speech about investment in skills, which allows people to get their foot on the ladder, businesses to thrive and the economy to boom.
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend is right. Per capita growth is down, and that is a shocking indictment on the Government.
Across our high streets and the hospitality sector, the pressure is becoming severe. To give some local examples, John from Birdies café in Farnham told me that his business rates are rising from around £290 a month to approximately £1,600 a month, and his energy bills have increased from £300 or £400 to about £,3500. As a result, he has already let a member of staff go.
Wey Hill in Haslemere is one of the areas most affected by business rates. The average increase in rateable values is 82%. That is entirely unsustainable for small shops—a butcher, a kitchen shop and a party shop. These are not enormous businesses. At the same time, retail sales are falling and confidence is weakening across the sector, yet the Government still do not appear to grasp the impact of their decisions.
In the King’s Speech, instead of backing enterprise, the Government are increasing the cost of employing people. Instead of reducing the burden, they are adding to it, and instead of restoring confidence, they are eroding it. Thirty-year gilt yields are at their highest level since the 1990s, and higher borrowing costs mean higher mortgages, higher debt interest and less capacity to fund public services. The Government are presiding over stagnation and apparently calling that a strategy. Good news: there is a different path, which we Conservatives laid out in our alternative King’s Speech. I say to the Ministers on the Treasury Bench that we are not precious about it; take every single policy and enact it, because we want the best for Britain. We will support them in every way we can, if they pick up those policies. They include reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, cutting energy costs by removing unnecessary levies, restoring domestic energy security by renewing North sea licences, and properly cutting business rates for high streets and the hospitality sector.
Jobs are not created through legislation, regulation or press releases; they are created when businesses are confident enough to invest, expand and hire. That requires lower costs, lower taxes, cheaper energy and a stable regulatory environment. Labour came in promising growth, but we have seen anything but. Unless there is a change of direction soon, the cost of this Labour Government to our country will only rise further.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the measures set out in the King’s Speech, and the wider Government programme to back British businesses. In the face of ever more disabling global headwinds, it is crucial to have a Government who accept an interventionist role, whether through renationalising British Steel, setting up Great British Energy, tougher regulation of the water companies, competition reform or tackling late payments. There is acknowledgement that an engaged state is needed, and that leaving things to the market simply does not work.
It is disappointing and frustrating that even now we are having to relitigate the debate about whether reaching our climate goals and protecting our planet is compatible with economic growth and prosperity. On the one hand, we have the Tories and Reform peddling fallacious arguments about the cost of net zero, and completely failing to grasp the importance of ending our dependence on volatile fossil-fuel markets—with an apparent abject ignorance of things like electric arc furnaces and carbon capture and storage. On the other hand, we have the Greens and their anti-growth agenda, not understanding that for redistribution, we first need to have a growing, strong economy to redistribute from; that to solve a housing crisis, we need to support our construction industry; and that we can pursue economic growth in a way that helps us protect the planet, rather than plunder it.
Indeed, many companies in my constituency of Bristol East, some of which are attracting international attention, are showing how that can be done. Matter was recently runner-up for the Earthshot prize, having developed washing machine filters that will filter out 97% of microplastics. LettUs Grow’s aeroponic growing systems were being talked about at the desertification COP that I attended in Riyadh in 2024, and Vertical Aviation is pioneering electric flight with a very cool plane. At national level, clean energy is the fastest-growing sector of the economy, bringing jobs and economic growth back to de-industrialised communities—and it has huge export potential.
When I was climate Minister with the international energy brief, I saw that the British model for offshore wind was seen as the gold standard, in everything from the way we financed it through contracts for difference to the innovation of floating offshore wind and offshore hybrid assets, such as the Nautilus and LionLink interconnector pilots. Whether I was at North Seas Energy Co-operation events, or talking to the President of Azerbaijan ahead of COP29, there was great interest in what we were doing and recognition of our expertise. The same was true of our progress on small modular reactors, fusion, and carbon capture and storage. It has to be said that that was not always recognised by other parts of the Government. Sometimes, there was a battle to stress to them just how crucial the drive towards net zero could be to our economic opportunities. Too often, progress was stalled by, “Treasury says no,” “No. 10 says no,” or “The Department for Business and Trade says no.” The knee-jerk reaction was that regulation or intervention would be a burden on business.
To take forest risk commodities as an example, in the Environment Act 2021, the previous Government committed to introducing regulations to stamp out deforestation in our supply chains. The EU was on the same mission, using the EU deforestation regulation. When I was a Minister in this Government, there were lengthy discussions about whether we should stick with the UK approach, centred on illegal deforestation, or adopt the EU’s approach, which was based on sustainability. Those discussions were valid, but what was not valid was some quarters suggesting that we should not regulate at all. First, there was the reputational crisis. How could the UK, which co-chaired the global Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership with Guyana, and the forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogue with Malaysia, call on other countries to protect and restore our precious forests and peatlands if we were not prepared to act ourselves? We would have no moral standing. Secondly, businesses want this. I met companies such as Ferrero, and major supermarkets, who want the Government to act, set the direction and show leadership, so that they can plan accordingly. They do not see that as a burden. It is lack of certainty that businesses hate. They are perfectly willing to get with the programme, if they know what the programme is.
We saw misplaced caution in other areas, too, such as on our manifesto commitment to 1.5°-aligned transition plans. One other area where I suspect other parts of the Government machine have been acting as a drag on progress is the development of voluntary carbon and nature markets. We know that public money and philanthropy alone will be nowhere near enough to enable us to meet our climate and nature goals. We also know that private finance is interested in investment, whether that is driven by the need to offset its own emissions, decarbonise portfolios, or ensure biodiversity net gain—or whether it is driven by insurers’ worries about climate risks and so on. In London, we have the world’s leading financial centre, and we are the best place to lead—many international visitors to last year’s buzzing London Climate Action Week told us that—but the consultation that concluded on 10 July last year seems to have gone into the ether. If the Minister can reply on only one issue that I have asked about, can she tell us what has happened to progress on the voluntary carbon and nature markets?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is strikingly surreal to be debating a King’s Speech from a Government who are patently on their last legs. This is the King’s Speech of a Prime Minister who is working out his notice in Downing Street. It is equally surreal that after the biggest electoral trouncing that any Government have ever had, particularly in red wall seats, and in areas that voted strongly pro-Brexit, the Prime Minister thinks that the answer is more Europe. Dear help his wit, if that is his solution. Of course, that is also the solution of the wannabe Prime Ministers who are queuing up, bristling with European credentials—although I notice that Andy Burnham is feverishly trying to cover his Europhile tracks, because he thinks they might not go down too well in Makerfield. It is the height of folly for any Government who have been so trounced in an election in those areas to think that the answer is more Europe, but we are told that that answer will come in the European partnership Bill. I suspect that it will be a mere shell of a Bill, loaded with Henry VIII powers, so that as we increasingly align with the EU, this House will not even have the right to scrutinise those measures.
What does “dynamic alignment” mean? I can tell the House what it means, because I represent a part of the United Kingdom that, sadly, has continued to be dynamically aligned with the EU. It means that we become a supplicant rule taker. It means that we are subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. It means that laws of absolute folly impose costs on our constituents. Let me give but one example. Northern Ireland is subject to the European vehicle type regulations. What does that mean? It means that buying a new car in Northern Ireland costs £4,000 more than it does in Great Britain, because it can be imported to and used in Northern Ireland only if it meets EU standards. That is what it is to be a supplicant rule taker in the United Kingdom.
Ben Coleman
The sanitary and phytosanitary rules, which are being discussing and negotiated with the European Union, will be implemented by the European partnership Bill. Does the hon. and learned Member not accept that that will give us a seat at the table, when it comes to developing food and drink standards? Does he not also take a certain amount of pleasure from the fact that the Bill will remove the food and drink trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which arise from Northern Ireland’s effective membership of the European single market?
Jim Allister
I am sorry the hon. Member is so ill informed. Let us take the SPS deal. The Government are seeking an SPS deal not between the United Kingdom and the EU, but for GB and the EU. Why? Because, shamefully, in all SPS measures, the Government are going to leave Northern Ireland subject to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the EU. It would not be so bad if they were saying that they will have an SPS deal to take back sovereignty over SPS matters in Northern Ireland, but they do not even have the courage to say to the EU, “If we’re going to align, we’re going to make the laws for the whole United Kingdom.” They are prepared to continue to make Northern Ireland subject to the foreign jurisdiction of the EU.
What does that mean, and what will dynamic alignment mean for Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland? It will mean huge disfranchisement of the people of this United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, there are over 300 areas of law in which we do not make and cannot change the laws; they are made by a foreign Parliament. This Government are going to mirror that for the whole United Kingdom. That means that the people we represent cannot elect anyone to make those laws; they are disfranchised. Disfranchising is the very antithesis of democracy, yet it is the democratic price of dynamic alignment. What about the financial price? How much are this Government going to pay the EU to be a supplicant rule taker? It will be tens of millions of pounds, I am quite sure, but the Government have not wanted to tell us. That is the challenge: let them tell us how much it is going to cost financially.
I want to comment on one other Bill. The energy independence Bill will wilfully shut down our oil and gas industry. Only the deluded would want to produce a plan that will make us weaker, poorer and more dependent on others to meet our energy needs. Here we have a Government saying, “Let’s choose to leave billions in value under the sea, so we can squeeze our taxpayers for the money that is required to buy oil and gas from a foreign Government.” Where is the logic in that? It is the ultimate delusion, and it is because of such delusions that this Government are heading for the exit.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Earlier this month, I was privileged to be involved in the inaugural Money Made Human awards organised by 1st Class Credit Union, a large national credit union that was started by postal workers at Royal Mail 35 years ago but now spreads across the communication industries. The whole concept of Money Made Human is to recognise that every single decision we make on a macro or microeconomic level affects people. We can choose to make it simply about numbers on a spreadsheet and lines on a graph, or we can make it about human dignity: having enough money to pay for the weekly shop; to live in decent-quality, affordable housing, whether with a mortgage or rent; to pay for one-off big purchases such as a new washing machine or a new fridge; or to pay for all three kids, who all go to the same school, to go on the same school trip at the same time. In the words of the chief executive of 1st Class Credit Union, Gayle Lloyd, prosperity only really comes when people feel able to do those things.
For many reasons similar to those of the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I welcome the inclusion of the enhancing financial services Bill in the King’s Speech. It recognises the role that credit unions and mutuals play in modern financial services. It also provides scope for large credit unions such as 1st Class to expand and develop, but still, at their core, to live their values. It enables them to support the much smaller, community-based credit unions, to which the same people come in every week to pay part of their pension, their wages or their benefit money—a reminder that not everybody claiming universal credit is not working, because nearly 40% of universal credit claimants are employed and in paid work—into funeral plans, insurances, savings and loans.
I want to place on record my thanks to the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury for everything she has done so far to support the sector and the thousands of people, predominantly pensioners, who have seen their funeral savings disappear. By bringing together stakeholders to find a solution, we may be able to get some redress and peace of mind for vulnerable people. This is our opportunity to take action, such as making it illegal, not just immoral, to withdraw these products with only 30 days’ notice. I am sure the new Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, will not only carry on the Chief Secretary’s excellent work, but add her own perspective—not just with mutuals and local banking services, but in tackling economic abuse and coerced debt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) talked about the importance of health and safety legislation. I want to delve a bit more deeply into that, particularly in relation to the regulating for growth Bill. In the time we are in, it is wrong that every single piece of major health and safety legislation has a “19” in the date. The key primary legislation was in 1974, and the regulations used on a daily basis were set in 1992. Health and safety legislation needs to be updated for the world we live and operate in now. Every single one of the health and safety statutory instruments relates to physical health; there is not a single one about mental health and wellbeing. What is one of the biggest reasons why people leave the workplace? It is mental ill health and wellbeing. People who have suffered mental ill health have the longest journey back to the workplace. We need to build on the work of companies, such as AG Barr in my constituency, that are ensuring that mental wellbeing is as important as physical wellbeing for their workers.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
For my constituency, the King’s Speech was underwhelming; a timid affair, not the radical bold change our country needs right now. In the previous parliamentary Session, my constituents were promised change and a Government focused on growth. Instead, we have the farm tax for those producing our food and a job tax for our local businesses that impedes the very same growth.
In Stratford-on-Avon, one of the key industries is hospitality and tourism, which is why I have long called for better rail and bus connectivity for my constituency, and why I will continue to press for it today. Stratford-upon-Avon is still without a direct train to London and has no reliable or direct late-night rail service to Birmingham. We are also without adequate bus connections between our rural towns and villages. The Government claim that their top priority is growth, but how is our local economy supposed to grow without adequate public transport infrastructure to get people to their places of work, and to get young people to college and other places of learning or to their first job?
Stratford is home to one of the finest theatre companies anywhere in the world, the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the home of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, yet it is difficult for people to visit us. This leaves local businesses to suffer. Our hospitality and nightlife industry is being starved, and it is young people who are paying the price most of all. Hospitality and tourism are young people’s industries. These are often the first jobs our young people take, the sector in which they build confidence, skills and careers. When those industries struggle, young people struggle with them.
For constituencies such as Stratford-on-Avon, the creative industries are also central to our economy, our identity and our future. The Government see the sector as one of the eight growth-driving sectors in their industrial strategy, yet the reality is that the sector is already under immense pressure. For example, since our departure from the European Union, touring across Europe has become more difficult, more expensive and more bureaucratic than ever before for performers, musicians and arts and culture organisations, yet there has been little meaningful support from the Government for those industries or for the communities that depend on them.
Brexit has made us all poorer. By clinging to red lines such as blocking a customs union and access to the single market, and dithering over a youth mobility scheme, the Government are locking Britain into higher prices and weaker growth, but most importantly they are letting our young people down. For that reason, I am again calling on the Government to: scrap the employer’s national insurance jobs tax; support local businesses by reforming the unfair business rate system; implement an emergency VAT cut for hospitality and leisure; and support our young people, our businesses and the creative sector with a bold, renewed EU-UK deal which includes a customs union, access to the single market and a youth mobility scheme.
My constituents struggle with poor transport connectivity, but they also watch the condition of the Rivers Alne, Arrow, Avon and Stour deteriorate before their eyes. After recognising the failure of the Conservative Government to properly regulate water companies, this Government have quickly followed in their footsteps and allowed more than half a million sewage spills into rivers last year alone. My constituents have seen only rising water bills. They are paying through the nose to companies that do not respect the environment they live in. The clean water Bill will establish a new regulator. I call on the Government for that regulator to be a strong regulator with the power and determination to hold water companies properly to account and end the sewage scandal once and for all. The Government must also legislate to measure the volume, not just duration, of sewage spills, and strengthen powers for local authorities and communities to monitor river health. We need to place power in the hands of the people who most cherish the areas they are responsible for.
People in Stratford-on-Avon deserve reliable transport, thriving businesses, opportunities for young people and a clean, protected natural environment. They deserve a Government willing to invest in rural communities, defend our waterways and stand up to failing companies where regulators have been asleep at the wheel. My constituents are tired of excuses, tired of sewage in their rivers, and tired of being treated as an afterthought. They want action and they deserve nothing less.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the ambition in the King’s Speech to grow the economy, raise living standards and make Britain a secure place to invest, but for my constituents in the City of Durham growth cannot exist only in national figures or ministerial speeches—it must be felt in everyday lives. That means secure work, better wages, stronger businesses and young people imagining a future close to home. The Employment Rights Act 2025 saw massive improvements in that regard and the measures in the King’s Speech will help further. I particularly welcome action on late payments. For many small businesses in Durham, late payment is not a minor irritation; it damages confidence and stalls employment.
Durham is fortunate to have a vibrant range of high-quality businesses. Every year, I run a small business of the year competition and I am overwhelmed by how many constituents get involved. Whether it is past winners such as Daisy Rose Coffee House, Vanity Hair Salon, Newhouse General Store, the Weigh to Shop or numerous other businesses across the constituency, the message is very clear: they are the bedrock of our communities. We must acknowledge the severe challenge facing our small businesses, particularly in a sector that is vital for the city—hospitality. They are being squeezed by skyrocketing costs and the impact of the cost of living on their customers. If we want them to thrive, we need bolder steps to ensure long-term viability. The Government may say that the business rate system has been improved, but the feedback from small businesses is clear: this is the same old system, just tinkered with. A comprehensive overhaul to support them is urgently required.
We need to see the Government row in behind strategic employment sites, such as the . Stalled for years, this critical site has now been purchased by a new developer and is on the cusp of delivering the benefits promised to the city. It will be a measure of the Government’s commitment to delivering growth in all our regions.
I also welcome the focus on removing barriers to growth and building better trading relationships with our European neighbours. These issues sound technical, but they really matter to the north-east. Our region was historically a net exporter to Europe, meaning steps to reduce burdens on exporting businesses will have a huge impact on our local economy.
As we go further with clean energy, Durham could be at the heart of the transition. Energy independence must create high-quality jobs, support local supply chains and give people the skills they need to seize these opportunities. Durham University, through its Energy Institute, brings world-class expertise to Durham. It is carrying out pioneering work on energy sustainability and geothermal energy. The very mines that powered our industrial past could literally heat our homes in a green future.
Alongside long-term environmental benefits, we need immediate structural support for our communities. That means real investment in local training, ensuring young people from Durham are equipped to build these systems. I saw that potential first-hand last week when I spoke at the regional T-level networking event in Durham. It brought together colleges, employers, young people and local partners to discuss how we build the skills pipeline our economy needs. That is exactly the kind of practical partnership we need to stop the persistent brain drain that forces our brightest graduates to pack their bags. We need local economies strong and diverse enough to allow them to stay and build beautiful and meaningful careers in the City of Durham. That growth relies fundamentally on connectivity, so I welcome the inclusion of Northern Powerhouse Rail. Specifically, the Government must now prioritise fully the reopening of the Leamside line.
The King’s Speech sets out an important direction, but the test will be delivery. For Durham that means supporting small businesses, good well-paid jobs, unlocking the sustainable energy potential of Durham University, investing in skills and ensuring the green economy creates opportunities that local people can build their lives around.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
A King’s Speech allows a Government to provide a reset—a signal to the general populace that they want to do something different and are going to build on the last Session. The Prime Minister said that the purpose of the Bills contained in this King’s Speech was to strengthen our economic security. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State said that it was about building national resilience.
I have listened for nearly four hours to Members on the Government Benches tell this Chamber and the country about all the positives contained in the Bills that will be brought forward within the next Session. I have looked at how the Bills proposed by this Government will affect the people of South Antrim—the businesses, employers and employees—and the people of Northern Ireland.
Reading through the King’s Speech, there is a section that covers the territorial extent and application of the Bills. When I listen to what Government MPs say is good about these Bills, they say that this extent will cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but the reality is that it will not—it does not—because so much will depend on the European partnership Bill. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has already explained some of those challenges.
I have listened to discussion of the regulation for growth Bill. So many of those regulations in Northern Ireland are still countermanded and managed by European Union regulations. I listened to how sandbox powers will be brought forward, and how they will lessen legal powers and release from bureaucracy people who want to create employment. The Secretary of State says that the powers will increase skills in Northern Ireland, but they will not initially apply in Northern Ireland—in fact, they may never apply there because of the European partnership Bill.
At this minute in time in the EU, the Commission will be looking at who it is going to be negotiating with. Is it going to be negotiating with the current Prime Minister or, in a few months’ time, will it be negotiating with a British Prime Minister who is probably more pro-EU than some on the European Commission themselves? Why would the Commission move now on the regulations that the European partnership Bill would bring about?
Let us look at the implications for energy independence and strengthening our energy security. I was at a recent evidence session of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, where John French, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, made it clear that if Northern Ireland was fully integrated with the GB energy market, we would see a 20% reduction in our electricity bills.
George Freeman
The hon. Member makes an important point about regulation in Northern Ireland. When in government, I championed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which gives this country the ability to grow disease-resistant and drought-resistant crops—the potato that typically requires 14 applications of high-carbon toxic fungicide can, with technology developed in Norwich, be grown without. Does the hon. Member agree that the Act is a big opportunity for Northern Ireland? It could be growing those potatoes without the fungicide, with huge environmental benefits, but under the European partnership Bill, it will be denied that opportunity.
Robin Swann
I agree with the hon. Member. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned earlier that every Northern Ireland politician who is worth their salt was at the Balmoral show last week, along with members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The continual message was that agriculture in Northern Ireland is being strangled by some of the regulations coming from the European Union, preventing us from bringing forward a truly world-leading agricultural industry.
On energy, the cost of fuel is impacting heavily on Northern Ireland, and that has a knock-on impact on our steel industry. There is a fantastic manufacturing base across Northern Ireland, but our businesses now face a dual burden. The Windsor framework necessitates the application of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism on at-risk goods from Great Britain, which effectively creates a carbon border in the Irish sea that could add up to £200 million in annual trade costs and increase major project expenses by 5%.
Our steel importers will also face a triple jeopardy of global levies, including US tariffs of up to 50%, an incoming UK regime that slashes tariff-free quotas by 60% this July, and ongoing EU safeguarding duties of 25% on goods that are deemed as at risk under the Windsor framework. That plethora of additional costs on raw material coming into Northern Ireland is not balanced out when we hear that this Government want to invest in our small businesses, especially our defence SMEs in Northern Ireland; they promised a £50 million investment coming into those small industries, while at the same time adding costs to their power and raw materials.
The implications of the Bills in the King’s Speech have the potential to be truly life-changing. For example, there would be opportunities for my constituency if the powerhouse rail Bill and the railways and passenger benefits Bill could be brought to Northern Ireland, opening up the Knockmore line and Belfast International airport.
The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned the enhancing financial services Bill. There is an opportunity for this Government to come into Northern Ireland and make a real difference in car insurance, if they were to take the powers proposed in the Bill to regulate claims management companies in Northern Ireland in the same way as they do across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
In the time that I have, I would like to touch on two important areas with regards to backing business and creating economic growth. The first is the tourist levy. London is the gateway to British tourism. Of the 38 million inbound visits to the UK in 2023, just over half were to our capital. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of this measure, but I would like to see a little more pace and progress. That legislation could do so much for boroughs such as Brent, which includes Wembley stadium; I hope there will be a 50:50 split in the visitor levy.
Secondly, I want to touch on high streets, which I have mentioned in this Chamber a number of times. When we talk about growth and investment, we have got to think about where that comes from. We have to ensure that we have resilient local communities. If the Government committed to scrapping “aim to permit”, which is part of the Gambling Act 2005, there would be a dramatic effect on the growth of our local economy and high streets. “Aim to permit” means that councils are often powerless to refuse applications for betting shops, even if there is public protest and the clustering of shops, like there is in my constituency. As shown in videos I have made, gambling shops are disproportionately found in areas that are more economically deprived, so the Government would be carrying out a justice for all those areas if they were to scrap that measure.
I have asked people what they want to see on their high streets, and even people coming out of gambling shops did not say gambling shops; they said they wanted gyms, libraries and cinemas—literally anything but a gambling shop. This change would cost the Government nothing and could have been done in the King’s Speech—I am disappointed that it was not—but we can make progress. I acknowledge the Government’s gambling impact assessment, introduced through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. That is a good step forward in ensuring that local people’s voices are listened to, but it really is not enough. I wrote a letter to the Government that had almost 300 signatures, and I will continue to update that letter until the Government do what I ask—it gets more signatures all the time.
I warmly welcome the drive for economic growth. The IMF has upgraded the Government’s growth forecast, which is good, but we need to do better and think about where that growth comes from and who it will benefit. I feel that ending “aim to permit” will do exactly as I have outlined.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I will begin with an issue where the Government have promised action time and again but have failed to act: solar mega-plants. If rural communities are to host nationally significant energy infrastructure, we must be compensated fairly for doing so. An entire parliamentary term has passed, and yet the Government have still not regulated mandatory compensation, despite promising to do so.
The consequences are real. In Rutland and Lincolnshire, a 2,100-acre industrial plant with 10-foot solar panels will fence in some of our villages on all sides for the next 60 years—a decision that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) happily signed off on in his first 24 hours as Energy Secretary. Mallard Pass has subsequently been purchased by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a company with a global transaction value of $30 billion.
Last Friday, I convened a meeting with Quinbrook and the affected parish councillors from Rutland and Lincolnshire. I had to intervene just to get the executives in the room, and what they put on the table was an insult. They have refused to honour the promises made during the application process to pay per megawatt generated, reinterpreting it to mean only energy exported—a sleight of hand that will cost my communities £44,000 a year.
Let us put this in plain terms. A solar plant is estimated to generate annual revenues after finance and operating costs of £10 million to £15 million a year, and yet the company claims it can afford to give my communities only a paltry £96,000 a year.
Sir John Hayes
I am delighted to hear what my constituency neighbour is saying, because she is right; these careless corporates who have little interest in energy—and even less in the environment—are riding roughshod over the will of local people in order to impose huge plants on the best and most versatile land. As I said to the Prime Minister recently, this compromises our food security at the very time that we should be building greater economic resilience.
Alicia Kearns
My right hon. Friend is completely right. What is breathtaking about this offer of £96,000 a year is that in a previous meeting—in a statement the company now disavows—we were told that paying compensation any higher would make the project financially unviable. That is to say that a project generating £15 million a year would be made financially unviable if it upped its offer to £144,000 a year in compensation.
I wonder how Quinbrook’s investors and shareholders would feel if I asked them why margins are so narrow and whether they can have confidence in Quinbrook. I give notice today that if that offer is not substantially improved, that is precisely what I intend to do: I will name every investor and every shareholder on the Floor of this House, and I will write to them and ask whether they are comfortable with what is being done to my communities in Rutland and Lincolnshire.
Quinbrook is offering less than 40% of the rate being offered on comparable developments in the east midlands. In fact, the only national programme offering less than Mallard Pass is Cleve Hill, which—surprise, surprise—is also owned by Quinbrook. Over the two years of construction works, Quinbrook issued a good-will handout of £200,000 as a one-off donation—not for each year, but across the two. Some residents’ homes have already lost 70% of their value. My question is: when will the Government stand up for us? I intend to amend the Government’s energy independence Bill to make community compensation mandatory for solar developments and to backdate it, but the Government could act first.
The King’s Speech also contained no measures to ban SLAPPs—the use of aggressive, unfounded legal threats to silence whistleblowers. I will use parliamentary privilege today to expose one of the most stomach-churning examples I have encountered. I hope this will shame the perpetrator into silence and similarly force the Government into action.
The company, which is called Enough, sells self-swab rape kits to women and children, and it does so on the back of a series of lies: that the kits are admissible in court—they are not; that women are more likely to be raped than to get cancer—they are not; that 430,000 people are raped in the UK every year—they are not; and that owning of its devices will deter a man from raping you—as if it is my responsibility as a woman to stop a man raping me.
More than 40 sexual assault charities have urged against use of the kits. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has also spoken out against them. The Advertising Standards Authority is investigating the company, as is Trading Standards. The kits prevent proper evidence collection and stop perpetrators’ DNA being checked against police records. A case has already collapsed because of the use of one such kit.
In a debate on Times Radio, I told one of the founders, Katie White, that I had seen the threatening letters that Enough had sent to rape charities and young women across our country. When asked if this was true by the journalist, Katie said, “No, not true.” This was also a lie.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend is making a really important point. I was previously the Minister responsible for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Traditionally, the MHRA’s influence has been in denying proper companies permission. It seems to me that now, in a digital age, we have a different problem, which is people coming up with rubbish and selling it over the counter unofficially—digitally. Do we not need a much more powerful set of legal and financial disincentives to really hammer the people selling these sorts of products?
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend has enormous experience, and it is exactly the MHRA that we need to look at. This is not a medical device, yet it is being treated as such.
I want to pay tribute to the brave young girl who has shared with me the letter sent to her by Enough. She is not a journalist or a campaigner, and she does not have the protections that I enjoy as a Member of Parliament, so Enough thought it could silence her. The first letter, signed personally by both founders, Katie White and Tom Allchurch, told her that she had seven days to comply, or they would pursue
“injunctive relief, damages for defamation, and recovery of legal costs.”
They accused her of scaremongering.
Then—and I want the House to hear this clearly—they said to a young woman who had simply dared to raise concerns:
“Carefully consider the long-term consequences of continuing this campaign…you not only risk serious legal considerations, but also lasting damage to your personal reputation, career prospects, and future opportunities.”
They threatened to destroy her future because she posted questions on Instagram. A week later, to ensure there was no ambiguity, they sent a second letter, explicitly calling it a cease and desist. This is predatory, and it is not a one-off.
A rape charity has also shared with me a letter it has received from Enough—lawyers threatening a rape charity into silence. I will tell Members what that letter said. After once again threatening legal action, Enough had the audacity to write:
“Our client considers such an approach to be in the best interests of survivors.”
Citing the best interests of survivors—said by a company that lies to survivors.
Enough’s targets are rape charities and young women. It has tried to make their lives hell. I urge the Government to ban self-swab rape kits, and I urge them to honour their promise to legislate against SLAPPs. I am speaking out because Enough has intimidated people into silence, and rape charities are quiet because they do not have the financial means to take legal action—legal action that would distract them from their duties to survivors.
What I have described today is a window into how our legal system is being weaponised to silence the vulnerable and punish those with the courage to tell the truth. We in this House, and the Government, must choose the side of victims and rape charities and make sure that individuals who commit rapes face the justice they deserve, instead of it being stolen by a company selling lies to women. It must end.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
That was a very powerful and upsetting speech. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for raising that issue. There is a lot to think about.
In a world of growing uncertainty, our country’s economic security has never mattered more, which is why I have to say I am delighted by the European partnership Bill in the King’s Speech. Right now, our rigid distancing from the EU is simply holding us back. It has piled costs on to business and has done nothing for ordinary people. If Members visit the Italian-Spanish deli on the King’s Road in my constituency, they will see that the shelves are half bare because the white van person who used to make buying runs across northern Europe cannot or does not want to do the paperwork any more. A drinks importer in Fulham is paying £100 to £150 extra per pallet. These are import businesses, but the costs fall on exporters just as hard, and small businesses can least afford the costs they now face.
Large sectors are also paying heavily for our rigid distancing from the European Union. British cars now have to meet a separate set of regulatory requirements just to enter European markets, and it is costing the automotive sector £600 million a year that they did not used to have to pay. In chemicals, leaving the EU REACH registration scheme and creating an entirely separate one has left the UK industry facing a £2 billion bill. In pharmaceuticals, British products are waiting for four to six weeks for batch testing before they can get into European supply chains.
Ten years ago, none of those costs existed. Why not? We all know the answer: because we and our European neighbours were in a single market together. Once outside that market, Britain became subject to all these new trade barriers, just like any non-EU country, which pushed up costs.
Indeed, in the food and drink sector, costs for British exporters have risen by as much as 20%. Since 2023, businesses have had to pay for over a million multi-page export health certificates just to trade with the EU, at a total cost of between £90 million and £210 million. Each certificate costs up to £200 quid. This did not used to be the case. A salmon shipment can then face sampling costs of £1,400 on top. The cost can be £1,200 for a consignment of beef or cheese. If you have got the forms even slightly wrong, valuable produce can be held at the border, or spoiled entirely.
Sir John Hayes
As you might know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I try to read a lot of fiction—I read two novels a month—but I sometimes think I do not need to, because what we are hearing now is a fiction about the European Union. In every Department in which I served as a Minister, I tried to encourage the procurement of British products and services, including vehicles. Every time I did so I was told that it was impossible because of EU regulations and rules, particularly state aid rules. That disadvantaged British businesses large and small. We have been freed from that now, which is why Ministers on the Treasury Bench can preside over a regime that procures British goods and services, and I know that every day they try to do so.
Ben Coleman
I am most grateful for that intervention, but it does not in any way even attempt to address the point I was making about the loss of money to this country through trade and the fact that so many businesses have gone under.
On state aid and product procurement, I will accept that one of the most unpalatable things that civil servants have always said, along with “commercial in confidence”, is, “No, we can’t do that because of EU procurement rules.” After the changes to EU procurement rules there was, even while we were in the European Union, a huge amount that you could do to prefer small and local firms, as I knew when I was deputy leader of my local council and got officials to do that. The civil servants you were dealing with perhaps should have looked again—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We have been here for two years; you have to stop using “you” and “your”, because it refers to me. It was not me who was dealing with civil servants.
Ben Coleman
I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Such officials as gave that information could have looked again.
Dawn Butler
Does my hon. Friend remember when a former Tory Prime Minister gave a guarantee to small businesses that there would be no paperwork to trade with the EU, because they recognised how much of a disadvantage and how problematic it would be?
Ben Coleman
It will come as no surprise to anybody that what the previous Prime Minister said and the truth perhaps did not have the closest of relationships.
It is absolutely no surprise, looking at what has happened, that the London School of Economics found that new border checks and paperwork pushed up UK prices by more than 7% between 2019 and 2023, adding around £250 to our grocery bills. It is also no wonder that 20,000 small businesses, all with fewer than 10 employees, have simply stopped exporting to Europe—not by choice but because the costs got too high.
The war with Iran is making things even worse. It is pushing up energy and food costs around the globe. Our country’s economic security demands that we do all we can to reduce business costs and limit price increases, working with our European allies. That is where the European partnership Bill comes in. For months now, the Government have been negotiating a new sanitary and phytosanitary—food and drink—agreement with the EU. This would sweep away the certificates, checks and fees that have added so many costs to food and agricultural trade with Europe. The aim is to wrap that up by the next EU summit, but to bring it into force we need the European partnership Bill.
Under the SPS deal, multi-page export health certificates, phytosanitary certificates, port health authority costs and sampling costs would all go. The Bill will support that. It will also provide the framework to implement an emissions trading agreement, which will link the UK’s emissions trading scheme with that of the EU. That will give us a larger, more stable carbon market, support investments in new technologies and help us to decarbonise more efficiently. Together, the food and drink deal and the emissions trading agreement could add nearly £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040.
Ben Coleman
I am afraid I will not; I have given way twice, and I do not think I will get any more time.
The European partnership Bill will also give Ministers the essential power to keep UK regulations in step with EU rules more broadly, without needing an Act of Parliament every time. The jargon phrase that we have heard is “dynamic alignment”—keeping our rules compatible with those of our largest trading partner, rather than constantly playing catch-up.
Crucially, this is not a one-way street. Unlike the situation we have now, this will give the UK a seat at the table in Brussels where food standards are being developed. Parliament will also retain its say before any EU rules are applied here. We will be replacing the patchwork of ad hoc fixes that we have now with a clear and stable framework that businesses can plan around. Importantly, if we pass the Bill, which I expect we will, that will be a sovereign decision, freely made—not because we have to but because the prize is too great to walk away from.
The European partnership Bill will deliver real relief and real advantages for food and drink businesses now. It will pave the way to bringing down costs in other areas such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and automotive. It is a patriotic and hopeful Bill. It will boost British business and strengthen our country’s economic and energy security. I look forward to it building our country’s growth and future in Europe.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
At the heart of the King’s Speech lies a fundamental misunderstanding of how economic growth is created. Growth comes from the grassroots, not central planning. It certainly does not come from Whitehall or European micromanagement and regulation; rather, it comes from everyday people in our constituencies who get up early, work hard and build businesses from nothing while incurring risks themselves. It comes from Governments getting out of the way of people’s lives and allowing enterprise to flourish.
In Romford, the entrepreneurial spirit is deeply ingrained in our community. Ever since King Henry III granted our market charter in 1247, our town has thrived through enterprise. My constituency has always been a town of market traders, small businessmen, shopkeepers and the self-employed. Napoleon’s remark that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers should fill us with pride, as our entrepreneurial spirit is the foundation of Britain’s success as a prosperous, free-trading nation.
Yet today my local high street, like so many up and down the country, tells a very different story. Successive Governments, and this Government in particular, have made it harder, not easier, to operate a successful business here in Britain. Only this Government could stand here claiming to back growth while simultaneously hammering employers with a tax on employment through higher national insurance contributions. The people of Romford made their views known very clearly on 7 May, with every single council seat in my constituency—all 23—being won by Reform UK. Ordinary working men and women have simply had enough. Watching their communities fall into terminal decline while the national Government effectively destroy people’s livelihoods is simply unacceptable.
Two of those Reform UK councillors, Diane and Russell Smith, are landlords of the Wheatsheaf pub—a family-run business started by Russell’s father. They are risk takers, and they are indispensable to our local economy. It was never their intention to enter frontline politics, but they could no longer tolerate watching their community fall into disrepair and seeing the so-called Government of working people fleece small business owners and local traders like them and make running a successful commercial enterprise intolerable. They are right.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Member is right that the pubs, clubs, small shops and associations—the things that Edmund Burke called the “little platoons”—are what constitute civil society. Yet successive Governments, including this one, have capitulated to huge, corporate, multinational, globalist businesses. Nothing in the King’s Speech casts us in a separate, distinctive direction, and the hon. Member is right to champion those little platoons in a Burkean fashion.
Andrew Rosindell
The right Member is, as always, completely correct. Our nation’s success is built on grassroots entrepreneurial spirit, not bureaucracy, corporate control or Government regulation—and certainly not Brussels interfering with our affairs yet again, after we had a referendum in which the British people voted overwhelmingly to get out of a political union with Europe. Now, the Government want us to have a pathway to growth, apparently through closer alignment with the European Union. We do not yet know what the contents of the so-called European partnership Bill will be, but it is bound to mean more powers being stripped away from this place and the British people, with the introduction of so-called dynamic alignment—the regulatory straitjacket that will be imposed on us by Brussels. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said to the Prime Minister only last week, the Labour party’s solution to growth is to make the UK a subservient rule taker from a foreign Parliament. That is unacceptable. The socialist solution is always more central planning, more spending and more bureaucracy. It failed in the 1970s, and it will fail again today.
What this country needs is not more Whitehall diktats or Government intrusion into people’s lives, but another 1979-style Margaret Thatcher revolution for enterprise—a period of national rejuvenation defined by cutting back state intervention and giving people back control over their lives. We must cut the waste and red tape strangling business, scrap IR35, and give our tradesmen, freelancers and small firms a fair deal again. We need to lower and simplify corporation tax to make Britain one of the best places in the world to build a business, instead of watching as the wealthy flee our shores.
We must abolish inheritance tax, so that families can pass on what they have built through a lifetime of work. We must reform welfare, so that those who can work do work, but ensure that those who are vulnerable are genuinely cared for. We must reward effort, protect the vulnerable and, most importantly, bring back respect for the hard-working taxpayer. We need to cut waste, restore discipline to public finances, and spend where it helps working people and small businesses, rather than propping up the bureaucracy and needless white-collar workers. I want Romford to thrive again, but we can achieve that only if we stop treating small businesses like cash machines, and start treating them, rightly, as the backbone of our economy and the lifeblood of our communities.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on backing business to create economic growth. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to removing the barriers to growth in all corners of Britain. With all the hubbub of the last week, it may have escaped the attention of many that GDP grew by 0.6% in the first quarter of 2026—the highest level of growth across the G7. Although that is positive, it needs to mean more than a percentage point on a graph for communities like the one I represent in Dagenham and Rainham. Small and medium-sized enterprises in seats like mine form the backbone of the local economy and play a vital role in delivering infrastructure, which is why I welcome the announcement of the small business protections Bill, on late payments. This legislation represents a historic moment for small companies, who often suffer at the hands of big business and because of poor payment practices. It is my hope that the legislation outlined by His Majesty last week will support more free-flowing supply chains across the country.
Speaking of supply chains, these are exciting times for growth in Dagenham and Rainham. The lower Thames crossing project is playing an integral role in bridging the gap between small and medium-sized construction companies and large national infrastructure projects. I spoke at the lower Thames crossing roadshow in Rainham recently, and it was encouraging to see so many local and family-run companies being awarded contracts and opportunities to upskill their staff.
Although my seat did not become the new home for London’s three historic markets of Billingsgate, Smithfield and New Spitalfields, I am still working closely with the City of London, and partners across the south of my constituency, such as the Thames freeport and Ford UK, to determine a new legacy for Dagenham and Rainham. However, “new opportunities and investment” cannot translate into more datacentres springing up across our brownfield sites, draining resources, contributing to the urban heat island effect, and offering very little in terms of jobs for local people. Artificial intelligence, for all its advancement, cannot be all we have to offer the world, and as the steel industry nationalisation Bill progresses through this House, I hope that it will pave the way for a resurgence of British manufacturing excellence and industry.
I stood for election on a platform of bringing back jobs that people can raise a family on. That is what the people of Dagenham and Rainham want and deserve, and that is what I am determined to deliver, under a Labour Government, so imagine my joy when His Majesty and our Government set out a plan for apprenticeships, beat the drum of education for all, and painted a vision of a place where every child succeeds and is not held back by poverty, special educational needs or a lack of respect for vocational education. Growth does not work when we all pull in different directions. It works when we deliver opportunities on the ground to everyone, everywhere. That is the mission of this Labour Government, and it is my personal mission to ensure that my constituents in Dagenham and Rainham thrive.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituency is the single biggest contributor to the Exchequer of any constituency outside London. It is home to almost 5,500 businesses, and their opinion matters. As their representative in this place, I want to convey the message from the small businesses, entrepreneurs and major employers that this King’s Speech and this Government are failing to protect them, failing to promote them, failing to get growth, and failing them. Businesses are struggling with everything, everywhere, all at once, with pressure from rising national insurance costs, business rates, wage increases and energy bills, and Government policies are exacerbating the pain, rather than alleviating it. Retailers are trying to keep the high streets alive, while footfall drops and costs rise. Employers want to recruit, invest and grow, but they increasingly feel that they are being punished for taking on staff and building businesses in the UK. One said to me:
“It’s just too hard. I’m out. Instead of carrying on and creating wealth and jobs, I’m retiring.”
At least they are still here. Some are eyeing up getting out of this country altogether and offshoring.
Hospitality businesses are under enormous strain. Across much of Europe, hospitality is recognised as a strategic sector that is worth supporting through reduced VAT rates. In Britain, cafés and restaurants are still largely paying the full 20% VAT rate, while also absorbing soaring energy costs, higher staffing bills and rising business rates. The VAT rate for hospitality in this country is one of the highest in Europe, second only to that in Denmark.
The high street is hurting. Laurent Trenga, who owns Thames Ditton Bakery, has described just how unsustainable things have become for many small high-street businesses. His monthly energy bill is now nearly as high as the rent for the shop. He pays around £1,250 for energy, compared with £1,000 for rent. He says it feels like he is paying “two rents”, simply to keep the ovens on. On top of that come corporation tax, VAT and rising staff costs—all in a small village, where footfall is down because of the cost of living. Business owners are working harder than ever, while being rewarded less and less for taking the risk of running a business.
Daytona outdoor go-karting in Sandown Park has told me about the combined impact of rising wage costs, high VAT and soaring business rates. Its business rates have risen by £100,000 in two years, and when the minimum wage rises, every wage band goes up, so that the grades can be differentiated. That creates huge pressure on employers across the hospitality and leisure sectors. That business’s concern, which has been echoed by others, is that money will simply stop moving through the economy. Many business owners are now seriously thinking about scaling back, relocating or closing altogether.
None of this has been confronted in the King’s Speech. Surely, after the local elections, the Government have woken up and smelled the coffee. They must act with urgency to tackle both the cost of living crisis and the cost of doing business crisis. This means cutting hospitality VAT to 15%, as we recommend, until April 2027, bringing energy bills down, and finally getting serious about economic growth by negotiating a new UK-EU customs union. These measures would help save jobs, support struggling high streets, grow the economy and put around £270 back into each person’s pockets by next year, giving businesses and families alike a much-needed boost in confidence and stability.
I have mentioned a customs union, and it is good to see that the Government’s inertia on Brexit has finally been broken by both candidates for the Labour leadership, although it is interesting to see that the one who is not in this place has U-turned already, within 48 hours. The economic damage from Brexit is becoming harder to ignore, so why do the Government still not move to fix it more wholeheartedly? Last November, the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that Brexit had reduced UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, with investment significantly lower and business confidence badly weakened by years of uncertainty and instability, but the King’s Speech is yet another wasted opportunity for British businesses and ambition. Of course, the biggest gift a Government can give to business is stability. Instead, business leaders are warning that investment decisions, as well as the country’s reputation, are at risk, with more infighting, more scandals and more jostling for power.
It is such a shame that this Government are following the chaos of Tory Governments. It is such a shame that this Prime Minister has wasted his mandate to reform welfare, properly reset our relationship with the EU and create a business friendly environment. He promised that this would be an Attlee Government. The only characteristic they share with the Attlee Government may be having one term.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Hon. Members across the House have already referred to the fundamental and structural challenges we face as a society and an economy. One that has been mentioned is the challenge around the rapid rate of technological change. That brings opportunity and benefits for many, but it also brings uncertainty and exclusion for others. It is a challenge that highlights the more general need for Government intervention to nurture and protect, for regulation that does not hinder but encourages growth, and for growth that is necessarily inclusive.
Because of the limits of time, I will concentrate on one area, the European partnership Bill, which will focus on rebuilding our relationship with Europe in this fractured geopolitical and economic world. Europe is our largest and closest trading bloc, and breaking down trade barriers with it will help businesses to grow, create jobs and ease cost pressures for UK households. I support these positive moves, prioritising trade, business and jobs above refighting past political debates.
That said, we should be more ambitious in aligning requirements for British businesses with EU standards where possible and appropriate. Many UK companies are already required to follow the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive in order to trade with our biggest external market. We risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products, while UK companies—following best practice in order to trade with our closest and largest neighbours—are undercut by less responsible enterprises.
Some 50 leading businesses have already signed statements calling for human rights due diligence legislation, including brands such as Tesco, Twinings and John Lewis. Such legislation could promote more ethical consumption, allow companies to better manage risk and help British businesses to grow. The European partnership Bill is an opportunity to align our due diligence regime with EU standards. Following the responsible business conduct review, I hope that the Government might see the Bill as an opportunity to make those changes happen.
I am proud to support this Government’s agenda of regulating the market, so that it works for consumers and small businesses, and of putting fairness and dignity at the heart of our economic system. I welcome the proposed legislative measures in the King’s Speech to support good business, and over this parliamentary Session, I will continue to urge Ministers to take forward measures to ensure human rights and environmental due diligence in supply chains. The successful future of our economy, further growth in our economy and good-quality jobs can be based only on responsible and sustainable business practices, with strong workers’ rights and protections for consumers. I am confident that measures in the King’s Speech will build on legislation in the previous Session on delivering those goals.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
There is no more important issue for the country than the stubbornly low growth rate and the structural barriers to the growth, productivity, enterprise, innovation and investment that this country so desperately needs, solutions to which have defied successive Governments since the coalition and the political crisis that Brexit unleashed in 2016. It gives me no pleasure to highlight that, for my constituents in Mid Norfolk, the King’s Speech is irrelevant without real delivery on the ground. In Mid Norfolk, the small businesses on which we rely are shedding jobs; disposable incomes are falling; high streets in market towns such as Dereham, Watton and Attleborough are struggling; pubs are closing; farmers are moving away from farming food to take the Government incentives for solar panels and commuter housing estates; and public services are being overwhelmed by rising demand from new housing and an ageing population.
This is fuelling a surge in political anger, which explains a lot of the election results last week. Across Suffolk, Norfolk and the fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, rural deprivation, rural poverty and the disproportionate impact of high energy prices on the rural economy—where, according to Treasury figures, every cup of coffee, schoolbook, pencil, lesson and journey costs 20% more than in cities, yet rural areas are underfunded—are driving real anger, based on real grievances. People are now paying European levels of tax for American levels of public services, and they are fed up. Unless we—this Government, this Parliament, this media, this Whitehall—respect and understand the grievance and set out a truly bold plan to deal with it, I fear that the rich will continue to leave this country, that the middle classes, the engine of growth, will conclude that it is no longer worth putting the work in, and that the poor will turn to the black market and crime.
Sir John Hayes
For that to happen, Governments and Parliament must take back control, and successive Governments have divested themselves of that control by, as Simon Case said when he left office, giving more power to unelected and unaccountable bodies of all kinds and types. For the Government to act, they need levers to pull to make the kind of difference that my hon. Friend described, and Governments have less and less ability to do that, yet the King’s Speech does not address that fundamental need for a change of direction.
George Freeman
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The King’s speech that my constituents loved was the King’s speech in Washington, in which he spoke for the very best of this country. My point is that it is in all our interests—I say this as a friend of mainstream politics and democracy—that we tackle this challenge more boldly.
I welcome the speed with which newly elected Labour MPs have realised the scale and urgency of the problem of public and voter anger, stubbornly slow growth, rising unemployment and demand for public services exceeding capacity, but they are in danger of going for the wrong prescription. What we need is a renaissance of enterprise and innovation across the public and private sectors. Convenient though it may be for my party politically, the idea that the answer is a regicidal political infighting crisis and a leadership contest in office is for the birds. Take it from me: my party has tested that idea to destruction, and we have all paid the price. We do not need a Labour party beauty contest. We need a Parliament and a Government that get more urgent about the many laudable things they have set out to do, but we do not have 10 years to deliver it—we have a couple of years.
If the Labour party knifes this Prime Minister, he will be the seventh who will have been got rid of because of the structural deficit. I remember, when I first arrived here in 2010, the brilliant Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies explaining what the structural deficit is, and it is worth repeating. The normal deficit is when a Government do not earn as much as they are spending; because the economy has taken a downturn, they borrow a bit to keep spending and then pay it back. The structural deficit is that bit of the deficit that goes up every year even when the economy is growing, and it is driven by four things. In 2010, it was being driven by welfare, public sector pensions, and—the big one—health, and debt interest was remarkably low. After the coalition, we had capped off the rise in public sector pensions, incredibly painfully, and we had capped off the rise in welfare, incredibly painfully. Health has continued to defy reform, and it is bankrupting the public sector. We are now spending more than 50% on health, welfare and social support. That is simply not affordable.
We cannot cut, borrow or tax our way out of this. The only way out is to grow, not through dumping cheap housing across the countryside, but by backing the industries of tomorrow.
Sir John Hayes
I might press my hon. Friend a little further. The other way of dealing with that is to improve productivity, as I said earlier. He is right, of course, that the cost burden is fundamentally important, but it can be made better through greater efficiency. Indeed, the Government themselves have said that, as successive Governments have, but we must put in place measures—very often, tough measures—to deliver that kind of productivity.
George Freeman
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will make a slightly different point, which is that there are huge opportunities for good growth in this country. Speaking as someone who has had a 16-year career backing the industries of tomorrow, whether it is in fusion, SMR nuclear technologies, agritech, bioscience, the bioeconomy on Teesside, or the satellite economy in Glasgow, we have an opportunity to turn these into the industries of tomorrow. I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy commitment to do it, but it is at 50,000 feet; we need to drop down to some more tangible and bolder policies to back those industries.
I know the Secretary of State gave a tub-thumping speech about the 1980s, but the truth is we have made a lot of progress over the last 20 years. I was doing my work as the Minister for Life Sciences, for agritech and for Science and Technology following in the footsteps of Paul Drayson and David Sainsbury. In life science, fusion, AI and quantum, we have built an unbelievably competitive economy, but other countries are moving fast. Our competitors are more agile. We are terrible at adopting technology in the public services. Our scale-ups are not getting the finance they need in the city. Kate Bingham in The Times today is right.
How do we unlock this? I want to suggest a ten-point plan for renewal. I support the Government’s ambition. I say this because if all of us fail, the Benches to my left of pub populists who are promising everything will win, and we will see even deeper disillusionment. I am calling in this speech for, first, real honesty of a 1979 scale about the extent of the emergency; secondly, bold devolution to the people, cities and mayors who know how to do it better—frankly, they could not do worse than Whitehall—thirdly, serious Whitehall reforms, so that we end the juvenile process of His Majesty’s Treasury playing Departments off against each other for funding, which in the end comes very late and is taken back; and fourthly, a serious backing for the innovation economy. I welcome the £20 billion of R&D, but how we allocate it is key. We need to allocate it in a way that attracts private investment. Fifthly, we need a bold revolution of tax incentives for enterprises—a new deal for new business. There should be no national insurance or VAT for a couple of years for someone starting a company and growing it. Sixthly, we need regulation for innovation. That is not just cutting regulations, but leading in setting the regulation. I welcome the Government’s work in setting up the Regulatory Innovation Office. We then have skills and patriotic capitalism. I do not think it is communism to get the city investing in British business. Boldness—
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am excited by this Government’s vision and commitment to renationalisation. We have started renationalising rail with Great British Railways, thus ending the subsidising of foreign owners. That, alongside freezing rail fares, means businesses and their workers can look forward to reliable, cheaper rail travel that expands where businesses can locate and where workers can seek employment. I also note the reopening of several rail stations nationally, and I of course continue to ask that we consider doing similarly in Stoke-on-Trent South. Connectivity is key to our economic growth.
In this King’s Speech, we see much on transport, including the railways and passenger benefits Bill and Northern Powerhouse Rail. There I see a new rail route proposed from Crewe to Manchester. While I welcome that, I must raise the continuing concern that High Speed 2 causes throughout Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. I ask that any new rail investment assesses the impact on Stoke-on-Trent. We have a conurbation with the city and towns such as Kidsgrove and Newcastle-under-Lyme of over 400,000 people. It is an area with huge growth potential if we have the investment and connectivity we need. It is not about speed; it is about capacity and the assurance of direct services to Manchester, Birmingham and London, plus eastwards to Derby and Nottingham. We still sit in stasis in Staffordshire in the sorry shadow of the old HS2 plan. I ask that we consider upgrading the west coast main line in Staffordshire, tackling the key pinch points and giving resolution to the people and communities impacted by the travesty of HS2 thus far.
Alongside renationalising rail, we now see the steel industry nationalisation Bill. Bringing back strategically important industries such as steel into the ownership of the British people is something I am deeply proud of, but of course I would like to see this vision continue. I would like us to be braver still, and I encourage the Government to renationalise the water industry. I commend the Government on their work so far to tackle the appalling and—in the view of many—criminal shambles that private water companies have inflicted upon this country. I welcome the plans to overhaul the regulatory regime with the clean water Act, but will it be enough? Our rivers are dead, and sewage flows over our fields and streets and into our sea. I have seen this in my constituency in Trentham and Tean. My constituents and I would welcome this Government throwing out the foreign private interests that have devastated our waterways and siphoned off profits, and delivering a water sector owned by the people of this country.
I also note that the Government have an investment plan of up to £100 billion for improving our water infrastructure. I hope that this investment uses British businesses and products, including the pipes, tiles and bricks produced by the ceramics industry, so that every penny spent re-enters our own economy. We back British business by building British.
Of course, as the MP for Stoke-on-Trent South and the villages, I cannot let a debate focusing on British business go by without repeatedly mentioning ceramics. In the last parliamentary Session, we saw ceramics recognised in the industry as a foundation industry. I have championed advanced and technical ceramics throughout my time in this place, and I am delighted to see its inclusion, alongside refractories, in the British industrial competitive scheme, but we need to do more for all of our ceramics sector.
Many of my ceramics businesses tell me of their frustration with exporting to the EU. They can export to the US easier than they can to our nearest and biggest market. Hence, I welcome the European partnership Bill. Creating closer links to Europe is key to our economic future. We can do this strategically without having to revisit the toxic Brexit debate of old. We are rebuilding a partnership that works for us and our European partners. Closer dynamic alignment is vital. As we are essentially talking about trade, I again ask that we have a trade envoy for British ceramics. We need to promote our iconic tableware, our sanitaryware, our bricks and, most certainly, our technical ceramics. We also need to tackle the crippling issue of Chinese dumping and the flooding of fakes into the British market. We need to support our home-grown industry, and I am a proud signatory of the GMB’s potters’ pledge.
I have many times raised the strategic value of investing in the manufacturing of fibre and of carbon matrix composites. That is vital to ensuring that we have control of key supply chains within aviation, defence and nuclear industries. We are currently dependent on a handful of overseas factories. Despite this country owning many of the IPs, once again manufacturing occurs elsewhere. We need to bring it home and centred around the Potteries’ developing advanced sector.
Of course, ceramics is a gas-intensive industry and so has additional challenges to face. I note that this King’s Speech introduces the electricity generator levy Bill, but we need a bespoke solution for the ceramics industry. We need help now.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I stood in this Chamber in September last year and spoke of my pride to represent 52 pubs and three breweries. I warned the Government then that, despite their protestations that they were supporting businesses, their hikes in employer national insurance contributions and business rates were hitting hospitality hard. Since then, Winchcombe’s Corner Cupboard inn has closed, and the Inferno Brewery has vacated Bredon Road in Tewkesbury. If the Government do not row back their business taxation, I expect to be back with an updated list.
There is one very clear route to economic growth in Gloucestershire. The M5 junction 9A and A46 Ashchurch project requires a Government injection of approximately £1 billion, but it will unlock 100 hectares of employment space while releasing capacity on the UK’s crucial trans-midlands trade corridor. It is a key enabler of the Tewkesbury garden communities project. Combined, those projects will facilitate tens of thousands of new homes, with the community infrastructure that is so desperately needed.
In the current geopolitical climate, backing business for economic growth means unleashing the UK’s world-leading defence manufacturing sector, and few regions of the UK boast Gloucestershire’s engineering heritage. In my constituency, I proudly represent Babcock, GE Aerospace, Moog and Safran, each at the top of a chain of small and medium-sized manufacturing and logistics enterprises. The M5 junction 9a project can further enhance Gloucestershire’s contribution to economic growth through the sector, and help the Government to meet their pledged 3% of GDP on defence by 2030.
If the UK is serious about generating growth, we cannot be cowed by taboo. We must reckon with the reality that leaving the European Union has been a diplomatic and economic disaster. Reform UK wants to abolish the Office for Budget Responsibility, perhaps because it reported that the UK economy will be 4% smaller by 2035 for having left. That will not help my constituents with the cost of living crisis. Indeed, the OBR’s estimation seems conservative compared with that of other economists. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates a deficit of 5% by 2030, and the US National Bureau of Economic Research says that by last year the impact was already negative by 6% to 8%. No greater mechanism to effect economic growth is available to the Government than negotiating a new customs union with the EU.
Last year I met UK businessman Steve Wisbey, who explained the nightmare of red tape that Brexit has caused UK businesses. He spoke of the additional costs of work visas since freedom of movement was surrendered, of temporary import licences, and of cash flows inhibited by VAT now paid up front. Other Members might be keen to avoid rehashing the old arguments of Brexit, but we must not deny its cost. Backing business means undoing the damage caused by Brexit.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
My constituency of North West Leicestershire is right in the centre of the UK. It is a constituency of makers and movers, with around 25% working in logistics, and a further 15% in manufacturing, mining and utilities, the latter of which aligns with one of the broader industrial strengths of the east midlands, as one of the most manufacturing-intensive regions in the country.
North West Leicestershire is also home to one of three sites in the only inland freeport in the UK. However, the site proposed for Leicestershire has created considerable concern for the local community. The proposed site was identified as a freeport by previous Conservative administrations, both locally and nationally, but it is next to an 825-year-old village with heritage status. When we are considering growth, we need to make sure that we take our communities with us. They need to be part of the decision-making process, not to feel that they are an afterthought.
North West Leicestershire also has 4,000 people working in the construction sector, which is an important sector for us, as well as nationally headquartering a number of house builders. There are also three Ibstock brick sites and a number of quarries in my constituency. We have significant construction capacity, and a real opportunity to meet our social housing targets, as well as the social housing renewal ambitions set out in the King’s Speech, by using the industry strengths that we have right on our doorstep—British bricks building homes so that families can thrive. I welcome Secretary of State’s earlier mention of ceramics, and I look forward to a further announcement.
My farmers have been feeding our country for generations, and play a core part in the growth opportunity offered by the European partnership Bill announced in the King’s Speech, which has potential to increase agricultural exports to the EU by 16%. The Bill also offers smoother trade arrangements with the EU. Capturing the potential of current trade agreements is key, with my constituency being home to East Midlands airport—the largest small-parcel freight operation in the country. Making sure that our SMEs can access those trading relationships and opportunities will also be key when it comes to growth.
Also beneficial is the introduction of the small business protections (late payments) Bill announced in the King’s Speech, which will improve cash flow for SMEs and support business resilience. It will also mark the biggest action on late payments in 25 years. That is interesting to me, because in 1998 I wrote my dissertation on small business support, and I pointed out the impact of late payments as a barrier to growth. Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion a year and close around 38 small firms every day. Just imagine the growth potential if small businesses could invest the money that they are simply owed. Access to finance is also a huge concern for SMEs, but as the last two physical banks in my towns are departing—Lloyds in Coalville is closing at the end of next month, and NatWest in Ashby is due to close imminently now that we have a temporary banking hub—I worry that my constituency is already at a disadvantage. We cannot underestimate the impact that will have on my local businesses, which is why I welcome the work on the enhancing financial services Bill.
I also want to talk briefly about the establishment of new forests across the UK, replicating the success of the national forest, which is central to my constituency. The pioneering work that the national forest has done in creating new growth opportunities for rural businesses has been transformational, so much so that even the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor wants to get in on the act and get a forest too.
I have said it before and I will continue to say it: the national forest is a treasure, but access is limited without access to a car. Poor transport connectivity is not only an inconvenience but a real limiter of growth. When people cannot reliably get to work, businesses struggle to recruit and retain staff. When roads are congested and public transport is patchy, productivity suffers and investment goes elsewhere.
As I have mentioned before, when we do not have a single passenger rail service across my entire constituency—despite being a logistics hub, despite having an international airport and despite being home to the east midlands rail freight terminal—my businesses will continue to feel the impact. There is a huge opportunity in expanding rail and I am hopeful that the railways and passenger benefits Bill opens up the discussion about towns like mine being served by rail.
Backing British business means backing people, high streets and the infrastructure behind them. The Bills laid out in the King’s Speech are a promising start, and success will depend on whether the smallest firms can be considered in delivery.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am pleased to speak in today’s King’s Speech debate, with the theme “Backing business to create economic growth”.
I know from meeting businesses across my constituency in all fields—be it hospitality and retail, manufacturing, haulage, technology, agriculture and horticulture, or the creative industries—that they are ready, willing and able to play their part in achieving economic growth for this country. However, right now it is hard to see how that will be achieved given that businesses are being squeezed from all directions. They are facing rising costs, additional employer national insurance contributions, sky-high energy bills and a workforce who are struggling to get to the end of the month with anything left in their bank accounts.
Although my Chichester constituency is often described as “affluent”, the cost of living crisis is felt acutely there. In fact, last month a Resolution Foundation report entitled the “Slurp Index” looked at the ratio of average gross hourly earnings to Guinness pint prices. It concluded that in somewhere like Trafford, the average median hourly wage will earn someone just over four pints when they are getting a round in on a Friday, but in Chichester, it does not even stretch to two and a half pints, which would not make anyone popular with their co-workers. It’s halves for everyone in Chichester—I’m very sorry.
The high costs in Chichester are compounded by the fact that desperately needed improvements to the A27 have been removed entirely from the Government’s road investment strategy. Without investment, the road will continue to strangle regional trade and competitiveness for Chichester. It feels more and more likely that it is quicker to get around by sea than by the roads in my constituency.
That brings me to the clean water Bill, which aims to undo years of dissatisfaction with the water industry. Over the weekend, I joined the Surfers Against Sewage paddle-out protest. Ironically, we were told not to get in the water because a sewage outflow had discharged into the Solent and the water was not safe. It did not stop us from getting in and highlighting just how important our water is to us in the Chichester constituency, as Chichester harbour is a national landscape.
The legislation that the Government are bringing forward must deliver an overhaul of how our water industry is regulated, starting with the scrapping of Ofwat—a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for since 2022. In the legislation, I hope that we will see many of the 44 amendments that the Liberal Democrats tabled at Committee stage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, and which the Government chose not to accept.
One of those amendments included a statutory responsibility for water companies to measure the volume of spills they release, rather than the arbitrary measure of time, as doing so would accurately reflect the actual levels of pollution. This is vital, as the Environment Agency looks to enforce stricter targets at waste water treatment works around my constituency in sensitive areas that have seen high levels of pollution, like Bosham, Chichester harbour and the chalk stream River Lavant. There was discharge into the River Lavant for a total of 285 days in 2024—but that was counted as one discharge; we need to know the volume rather than the time spent discharging. This issue fills my inbox, because in Chichester are passionate about our rivers, coastline and national landscape.
Another key issue that residents raise with me is the behaviour of rogue property management companies. Chichester residents are living in properties where the verge is not maintained and saplings are dropped into holes in the ground and left to die, before being removed six months later for the whole process to start again. Residents describe management companies as faceless, with non-existent customer service except when they are told that their service charge is increasing exponentially. In some cases, that has led to residents moving from the homes they fought so hard to purchase, because they can no longer afford to live there. In the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, the Government have the opportunity to tackle this issue head on.
Sir John Hayes
I met residents of Georgian Court in Spalding a day or two ago. They live in a McCarthy & Stone home, and their freeholder has put up their ground rent by around 100%. That is exactly the kind of thing to which the hon. Lady is drawing the House’s attention, and it must be dealt with in the Bill set out in the King’s Speech.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Regulating these companies effectively and putting a cap on excessive service charges, particularly when there is no evidence that the service is actually being delivered, would really change the game for a lot of people who feel trapped in their estates. I have met with the Housing Minister and shared my residents’ accounts with him, and I hope that the legislation being brought forward will start to address the issue.
As has been seen throughout the country in the recent local elections and current polling, the Government have failed to seize the initiative when it comes to the direction of the economy. People wanted change, but they are still left wanting. There was much in the King’s Speech that my constituents hope will make a difference to them, including in relation to the matters that I have raised, the police reform Bill, the ticket tout Bill or the European partnership Bill. However, given the record of this Government, many people will be quite rightly concerned that these reforms will once again be either U-turned on or fudged. I hope they are wrong, and I will of course continue to work for my constituents in Chichester to ensure that their concerns are properly represented.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I welcome the King’s Speech last week. In a volatile world, the question of domestic economic resilience is paramount. Whether it is the conflict in the middle east driving energy price instability, supply chain disruption or a rise in global uncertainty, Britain cannot afford inaction or simply to hope that global shocks will be contained or pass us by. We need an active concordat between Government, business and communities to strengthen our resilience and ensure our prosperity.
The King’s Speech set out an agenda focused on growth, investment, infrastructure, innovation and economic security. Crucially, it recognised that growth must exist not just in Whitehall spreadsheets or the boardrooms of financial institutions in the City; it must be felt in communities like Coatbridge and Bellshill. For decades, businesses—particularly small and medium-sized ones—have felt that the Government work around them rather than with them, so one of the most important measures announced in the King’s Speech was the small business protections Bill on late payments.
For too long, businesses have been pushed to the brink because they completed work and paid wages and suppliers, but waited months to be paid themselves. According to the Small Business Commissioner, late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion annually, with small business owners spending around 86 hours each year chasing unpaid invoices. That is time that is not spent innovating, hiring, exporting or growing. The proposed reforms include stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner, mandatory interest on late payments and maximum payment terms, and they all represent a positive step.
I also welcome the regulating for growth Bill and the plans being put in place to place a greater emphasis on innovation. That is particularly important for emerging sectors like AI, clean energy, advanced manufacturing and defence technologies. I certainly hope that the Government look to prioritise some of the R&D on clinical research for motor neurone disease—an issue that is very close to my heart.
Innovation matters greatly for post-industrial communities in North Lanarkshire, Scotland’s fastest-growing economy. We are already seeing there the potential of advanced industry and digital infrastructure, with Scotland’s first AI growth zone and companies like Cairnhill Structures in my constituency, which is rebuilding bridges in Ukraine that have been destroyed by Russian forces.
I welcome the support for clean energy investment and for securing domestic steel production, which reflects an understanding that modern economies cannot grow on weak foundations. Recent global events have exposed the dangers of over-reliance on volatile international energy markets, so expanding home-grown clean energy and supporting a new generation of nuclear power is not just sound environmental policy but sound economic security policy. Certainly in Scotland, the SNP should end its decades-long dogmatic opposition to new nuclear.
Growth is strongest and most sustainable when working people are secure, skilled and fairly paid. We have made great progress through the Employment Rights Act and the uplifts to the national and living wages, but we must go further, particularly on apprenticeships. It is a national scandal that apprenticeship starts for advanced manufacturing dropped by 40% under the previous Tory Government and by 30% in Scotland under the SNP. We have to redouble our efforts to end the erosion we have seen under Opposition parties, but we also have a moral obligation to support the 1 million young people who are not in education, training or work to reach their potential. That will be a critical act for transforming our economy.
This King’s Speech recognises that economic security, national resilience and living standards are deeply intertwined. It recognises that Governments have a responsibility not merely to observe the economy but to help to shape the conditions for growth, innovation and long-term prosperity. In a world that is becoming more uncertain by the day, that approach is not ideological—it is necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Olly Glover, who I believe was standing.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—I had forgotten how to do it.
When assessing the effectiveness and suitability of the King’s Speech, we need to consider what we need for a great and renewed United Kingdom. First, we need a fairer society with greater opportunities; secondly, we need an economy that works for people; and thirdly, we need a strong and globally relevant United Kingdom.
Starting with a fairer society, the King’s Speech contains some good intentions in relation to housing, with the social housing renewal Bill and the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill. However, the former falls a long way short of real action on social housing, with the Government continuing to refuse to refocus their targets on social housing specifically, and with no clear legislative plan to properly regulate property management companies and their charges.
The proposed Bills on health and education also both fall short. The Government continue to prevaricate on the desperate need to act on the findings of numerous reviews of adult social care, which is the best way to support our struggling NHS. The focus on special educational needs provision is welcome, but the proposals in the King’s Speech are unlikely to succeed without investment in state special schools, which is necessary to reduce significant local authority expenditure on private special schools and transport to distant special schools.
On transport more widely, measures to improve taxi and private hire safety and regulation, railway investment in the north of England, and private finance for roads have merit. However, it is important that we do not blindly follow the Treasury’s obsession with avoiding capital spending. There are many examples of private finance initiatives that ended up as very poor value for money on a whole-life-cost basis, which is what we should think about rather than “sign and forget” private finance deals.
While votes at 16 are welcome, real ambition is missing when it comes to fixing our broken politics. The Government’s proposals do not address the real need to modernise the House of Lords, deal with grubby money in our politics, or introduce a fair voting system that delivers election outcomes that bear some resemblance to how people vote.
Perhaps the greatest omission for my constituents is yet another failure to deal with the dysfunction of our planning system—centrally imposed housing targets without the same targets or focus on the infrastructure and public services needed to support them, whether that is healthcare, transport, or large-scale leisure. Councils are often blamed for not providing those services, but much of the fault really lies with central Government.
On an economy that works for people, we face the twin challenges of small and local businesses being under massive pressure and some very large companies needing to be prodded to play fair and respect consumers. The Government’s proposals go some way towards dealing with the problems with big businesses, but totally absent from their agenda are things that would really help small and local companies, such as business rates reforms, measures to rejuvenate our high streets, and initiatives to encourage greater employment.
The Government’s plans include some welcome measures to better protect consumer rights and reduce costs. The energy independence Bill and the electricity generator levy Bill are long overdue attempts to ensure that consumers feel the benefit of our move towards renewable electricity generation and accompanying grid upgrades, including by reducing the effect of electricity prices being determined by a small amount of gas power generation. However, we need more and faster action on home insulation, a heating oil price cap and the creation of an energy security bank to finance critical green energy generation upgrades. These steps are exactly what we need. Climate change prevention cannot be done to people; it must be done with them, and the benefits have to be very clear to people, economy and planet.
The clean water Bill is an attempt to end the likes of Thames Water charging ever-higher water bills while delivering inadequate upgrades to reduce water leaks and sewage dumping, aided by a toothless Ofwat largely watching from the sidelines. What is missing from the Government’s proposals is the radicalism needed to assuage justified public anger by mandating water companies to publish the volume and concentration of discharges from emergency overflows and to end sewage dumping at key bathing sites by 2030, and by making all our water companies become customer-owned public benefit corporations.
The King’s Speech also lacks a credible plan to help more people to get into the workplace, which will happen only with investment in skills, education and training that adapt to changing societal and economic needs, in improvements to the Access to Work programme, and in research and insight into the many reasons why some people do not work.
On international matters, it is welcome that the Government have acknowledged the need to try to do something with their European partnership Bill. However, the Bill continues to reflect the Government’s self-delusion on the Europe issue. Those with expertise in the matter are clear that there is very little growth to be had by tinkering around the edges of our existing inadequate agreements with the European Union. Only by joining the customs union and single market will we regain the significant economic and security benefits of being part of humanity’s most successful peace and economic project. It is interesting that it apparently takes an undeclared leadership contest and crisis within the Labour Government for the idea even to start to be discussed and maybe accepted.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Last Wednesday—it seems so much longer ago—saw the second King’s Speech of this Labour Government, with 37 Bills to address the UK’s economic, energy and national security at a time of gigantic global challenge, much of it unforeseeable at the time of the last King’s Speech in 2024. A stunning proposer—from Bradford like you, Madam Deputy Speaker—was followed by the Prime Minister’s forceful plea for a change to the status quo, which he mentioned 10 times. I was having visions of “Rockin’ All Over the World”, but he was, of course, spot on.
After the first King’s Speech—no, not the Colin Firth film—of employment rights, renters’ rights and rail nationalisation, the sequel will bring British Steel into public ownership in the public interest, end the leasehold scam and see a social housing Bill for a million families trapped on waiting lists in temporary accommodation. Some of it was promised by the Tories and never delivered.
On broken promises, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the fateful vote that bequeathed us Brexit, I welcome the EU partnership Bill and the Government’s rebuilding a stronger relationship with Europe. We were told that Brexit would make us richer, that we would see migration down and that it would make us more secure. Wrong on all three counts. As the mum of an undergrad, I know that Brexit robbed young people of their ability to work, study and live easily in Europe, so I applaud the youth experience scheme and rejoining Erasmus. I would suggest the circular economy directive as one to sign up to.
The referendum was indeed fateful, but not fatal, thanks to this Government’s action securing the highest growth in the G7. I would say that circumstances have changed so dramatically since 2024, it might be time to consider relaxing some of the red lines on single market and customs union membership. Just a thought.
Unlocking barriers to growth is also in the Bills on the industrial strategy, national security, investing in defence and the armed forces, and repairing public services like the NHS, policing and special educational needs. On immigration reform, I must forewarn the House that I will be one of probably a number of MPs lobbying for the modification of the earned settlement proposals, but they are not inked in yet, so we are hopeful.
I regret that there is nothing in the King’s Speech on my ballot Bill on ticketing to fix Oasis-style rip-offs and surge pricing. My old union, the University and College Union, is disappointed that there is nothing much in the King’s Speech for universities or further education, despite the multiple crises that the sectors are facing.
But we are where we are and, as I have said, it is an ambitious programme with 37 Bills. As events in the strait of Hormuz affect prices at the pumps in Acton, the energy security proposal in the King's Speech is very welcome. If implemented, it will mean that we are no longer at the mercy of those who would push us around in foreign wars but can withstand global instability, with clean, home-grown energy independence. All these are things the Tories would never do, and Reform—none of whose Members are in the Chamber at present—would undo.
Much has been done and there is much more to do, including repairing and rebuilding the European alliances that have been so damaged by 14 years of Tory rule, the first five of which, I should remind the House, were propped up by the Liberal Democrats: they too were handmaidens to austerity, although they tend to forget that nowadays. It has not been an overnight process, but reversing the Tories’ mess to build a more resilient country is under way. Our constituents voted for change, and they expect their Government to get on with it.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
In 1603, Britain saw the Union of the Crowns. That moment began a journey that would lead to the Acts of Union and the growth of not only our modern democracy but the most powerful economic and industrial force that the world has ever seen. This story was not written by one nation alone; it was a political union of nations enabled by the sharing of skills and resources from every corner of these islands to build something far bigger than anything that could have been achieved individually, with each nation bringing its strengths and each nation benefiting from the strengths of the others.
The benefits of the Union are clear and the ties run deep, but if we are to make that case properly, we must be honest about what has gone wrong. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I speak to too many business owners in Scotland who do not feel supported—too many who feel squeezed, taxed and ignored. Both their Governments have made poor choices. In Holyrood, the Scottish National party has chosen campaigning for independence over economic delivery. It has pulled funding from specialist technical facilities that could have created hundreds of jobs, and refused to back new nuclear, despite Scotland’s engineering heritage and energy expertise. After 20 years of SNP government in Scotland, businesses do not need another referendum. They need stability for investment and growth.
In Westminster, Labour’s jobs tax has made it more expensive to employ people and more expensive for firms to expand. Higher running costs mean higher prices for working people, and fewer job opportunities for part-time workers and for young people, at a time when the level of youth unemployment is nearly 16%. Inheritance tax changes have introduced a survival risk for family businesses in the UK, opening them up to hostile takeovers. Businesses need Labour to acknowledge that more than 80% of jobs are in the private sector, in small and medium-sized enterprises, and that increasing taxes on those jobs is not a recipe for growth but, all too often, the death knell for local jobs.
In Scotland, recent elections should have been a clear sign for both Labour and the SNP. Only 14% of Scots said that independence was one of the most important issues facing the country, while 63% said that the cost of living was one of the top issues deciding their vote. As a result, 56% of Scottish votes went to unionist parties, a clear sign that people want stability and not another referendum. The English council elections told a similar story of voters looking beyond old two-party habits and desperate for change.
It is clear that our current voting system in Westminster is part of the problem. Too often, seats in Parliament do not reflect what people voted for. A fairer, proportional voting system, which Liberal Democrats want to see, would make politicians listen more and would encourage collaboration. It would mean fewer sudden swings from one extreme to another, and a steadier environment for businesses to invest and grow.
Although this House may be the mother of Parliaments, that does not mean that it cannot change with the times. Britain has so much potential, and we must be ambitious. Too often we have been too timid, too bureaucratic and too concerned with political differences. I urge everyone here today—everyone who is left—to come together and push for what is best for people in every corner of the UK. While we may need compromise to find agreement, it is the job of every Member of this House to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of change that benefits all our constituents and celebrates our diversity and tolerance.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The House may not know this, but Hyndburn was the engine of the industrial revolution, for it was in Oswaldtwistle, where I live, that James Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny back in 1765, which revolutionised the cotton industry. This spinning machine enabled subsequent advancements in textiles machinery, which ultimately paved the way for the mechanisation of the entire manufacturing process. What is often missed in the story about James is that he faced opposition to his invention by the weavers, who smashed up his house and forced him out of town. The spinning jenny brought down the cost of yarn, and it was natural for those workers to be fearful of the impact that this would have on their livelihoods. It was right that they sought to protect their future, but through this innovation and those that followed, the mills in Accrington, Oswaldtwistle and Great Harwood, and the workers who powered them, became the backbone of our economy.
Today, I believe that we can draw lessons from that history. We stand once again on the precipice of a new industrial revolution. We stand at a point in history that will be examined closely by future generations. AI is a bright new technology that offers us huge hope and opportunity. Indeed, when I asked it what the biggest opportunities of AI are, it told me that it is less about replacing humans and more about expanding what humans can do at scale. However, there is also plenty to be wary of. AI is going to cause the greatest amount of disruption, particularly to industries such as coding, law, accountancy and other highly skilled professions.
Alongside this technical revolution, there is the fact that the era of globalisation as we know it is over. The risk of being dependent on foreign capabilities for our data storage, our defence capabilities and our manufacturing, and for the skills that we need to build our economy and support our businesses, so that they can thrive, cannot be overstated. The solution is to back British business, to buy British, to make British bricks—ideally, the Accrington Nori bricks—to build British houses, to be proudly patriotic, and to create the conditions in my constituency and across this country for our businesses to thrive, to invest, to grow and to create the jobs that are needed.
I was pleased to see in the King’s Speech that we will
“deploy the power of an active State in partnership with business and enable reforms that support higher growth and a fair deal for working people.”
I urge the Government to go further and faster on that commitment, whether it is on procurement policy, energy policy or cutting red tape. We need an industrial strategy that outlines how investment will deliver the jobs, supply chains and sovereign capability in the skills and infrastructure that we need for the future. This is not a time for making tweaks around the edges; it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to meet the scale of the challenge and to build back better.
In places like Hyndburn, we need active intervention by the state on things like infrastructure. For example, there is an opportunity for a freight terminal in Huncoat, and the chance to support RedCAT, a catapult in my constituency that needs funding to help businesses bring products to scale. That could be a game changer for many local businesses—Senator Group, Emerson & Renwick, What More UK, Rospen Industries, Langtec, Fagan & Whalley, and so many more.
I want to cover briefly the importance of skills. I am proud of the progress that the Government are making in this area, and I am pleased that the current Session will focus on apprenticeships, tackling youth unemployment and, of course, a plan for SEND. I hope that these plans will put colleges, such as those in the East Lancashire Learning Group, at the heart of the Government’s ambitions. It is time that college teachers had pay equity with other teachers. It is time that colleges received the respect that they deserve, and the funding that they need to help our most vulnerable and disadvantaged students. We can be the Government who put right the wrongs of the Tories and finally unlock the potential of millions of young people.
Before I close, I offer one final word to my hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and to her successor as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. There is £120 million sitting there, stuck in children’s tax funds for children who lack the capacity to access them. If we can break this, that money will go directly into local economies across the country. I hope that point is not lost as my hon. and learned Friend takes on her new job.
The King’s Speech is clear in its ambition to increase growth, expand investment and improve our public services. It is a Labour programme due to the fundamental belief that underpins it: that access to opportunity is for all. I look forward to working with colleagues to support and strengthen the Bills that will come before us in the Session ahead.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
We all agree that we urgently need to get the economy growing again. However, the Bills in the King’s Speech do not represent the big, bold economic change that the country needs. I will talk today about just two things that would create economic growth: trade, and balancing tax and spending through our fiscal framework.
On trade, our country prospers when fair markets for goods, services, capital and labour operate effectively. Trade makes this country great. Raising barriers to trade makes it harder for the economy to grow and erodes the tax base on which our vital public services depend—and the cost of doing business skyrockets, whether for a small business person in my constituency or for a large financial institution here in London.
The evidence of the damage that Brexit has done is in plain view. America’s National Bureau of Economic Research, which produces non-partisan economic research, estimates that by 2025, the Brexit process had reduced UK GDP per capita by 6% to 8%, investment by 12% to 18%, employment by 3% to 4%, and productivity by 3% to 4%. That comes at enormous human cost.
The UK-EU reset has some good elements, but each element, which is being painfully negotiated, returns merely some of the benefits that we all used to have. Our young people may soon have the opportunity again to travel and work abroad. We may rejoin the EU’s energy market, cutting electricity costs and making both markets greener and more efficient. The Government have been working hard on an SPS agreement on food with the EU. That would hugely reduce costs and delays for our farmers, and the benefits would be felt in Oxfordshire and rural communities across the country. It would bring cheaper food to supermarket shelves, which is good news for all of us. But consider the logic: the Government are now fighting really hard to rejoin the EU’s single market in food products, while remaining resolutely against rejoining the single market for anything else. Where is the logic in that? Two things are painfully clear. We are expending enormous political capital to recover just a fraction of the benefits we once had, and even that goal is wholly insufficient, given the scale of the challenge that our economy faces. We need to be bolder and aim higher.
I turn to the UK’s fiscal framework. Let us have a think about how well it has worked over the last quarter of a century. In the last 25 years—a period spanning at least eight different fiscal frameworks—we have not had a single year in which tax receipts have exceeded spending. The 2024-25 deficit was £153 billion, which was 5.2% of GDP. The consequences of this are severe: our national debt has ballooned to £2.9 trillion, equivalent to 94% of GDP. When I look at our fiscal rules, the words that come to me are, “Lie to me.” The tradition works something like this. The Government of the day assure the country that all targets will be hit—not now, when it actually matters, but at a completely unknowable forecast date, five years hence. That five-year target rolls forward and is never reached. Spending is front-loaded in years one, two and three, and tax rises are backloaded in years four and five—ideally, the other side of a general election.
Traditionally, voters have been lied to because the alternative means politicians confronting and explaining a financial situation that nobody wants to face. Is this failure inevitable? No, it is not. Other countries have moved in the other direction and cut their debt-to-GDP ratios. Sweden had a financial crisis in the 1990s, with a debt to GDP ratio of above 80%. Its response was the 1996 Budget Act, one of the most rigorous fiscal frameworks in Europe, which fundamentally reshaped how taxation and parliamentary scrutiny interact. Most importantly for our situation today, the principles of this framework continue to command very strong cross-party support. That does not mean that there is agreement on specific spending or tax decisions—these remain contested—but the framework rules themselves are treated as largely above partisan dispute. That is precisely why the Swedish model is so frequently cited internationally. I am asking everyone in this Chamber and everyone listening to think seriously about whether we could do something similar here. After all, we are far better off addressing this very large problem now, before a financial crisis forces our hand later.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Bellingham and Downham in my constituency are some of the most deprived areas in London and, indeed, the country. These areas need the radical change that Labour promised in 2024, and I believe that the action to achieve this must be rooted in a foundation of economic stability. That is why I welcome the Government’s approach to the economy. It may have been missed, but just last week, it was reported that the UK had the fastest growth in the G7, despite the backdrop of conflict in the strait of Hormuz and eastern Europe.
There are over 3,000 thriving businesses based in Lewisham East, and many of them are small and medium-sized enterprises. A missed or delayed payment can have a deep effect on those businesses’ sustainability, which is why the Government’s small business protections Bill, on late payments, is relevant. It will protect businesses from being mistreated in any way. Construction firms are the largest sector in the constituency, accounting for 16% of registered businesses. The Government’s plans to ban the deduction and withholding of retention payments under construction contracts will protect supporting industries, safeguard construction workers and help get Britain building again.
Turning to Europe, which so many in this Chamber have mentioned, I welcome the closer ties with the European Union that will be delivered through the Government’s European partnership Bill. It will benefit many businesses across my constituency. Indeed, when I was first elected in 2018, it was on a promise to repair the relationship between the UK and the EU, and I am pleased to note that the Government are progressing that commitment. The Bill will stabilise our trading relationship and set the stage for agreements on emissions trading and electricity trading, benefiting the environment, advancing our net zero goals, and securing our long-term energy future. I very much welcome the youth experience scheme and our rejoining Erasmus.
I wish to speak about cladding remediation. In my constituency, many freeholders in buildings such as Park View in Lee Green have felt trapped in their home because of the delay in correcting dangerous cladding, which is causing them such distress. I ask the Government to please look again at those in buildings of under 11 metres who have been caught up in the cladding crisis from no fault of their own.
Finally, I turn my attention to high streets. Of course, we all want to have pride in our towns and cities. We want them to thrive, businesses to develop and be stronger, and people to be really happy and secure in their area. Like my constituents, I want to be prouder of, and to feel safer in, Catford town centre, which is in great need of regeneration. There are opportunities for new homes, more businesses and social spaces, building on the amazing initiatives and benefits already there, such as Catford House. Goldsmiths, University of London, will use some of the premises for its teaching, and there is a plan for a cinema to return to Catford. Will Ministers look again at Catford town centre, and will they meet me to discuss this further, so that progress happens in this area of my constituency?
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I welcome the King’s Speech and the Government’s focus on backing business to drive economic growth across every part of the United Kingdom. I declare my interest at the outset as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the wood panel industry.
I want to begin with a positive vision of what Government can achieve when they work in genuine partnership with industry, supporting British manufacturing, strengthening domestic supply chains, creating skilled jobs and delivering the homes and infrastructure our country needs. The UK wood panel industry ought to be and should be central to that mission. It is a strategically important British sector, supplying essential products including chipboard, MDF and OSB to construction, housebuilding, furniture manufacturing and home improvement markets. It meets around 65% of domestic demand using British timber and recycled wood, directly employs more than 2,300 people, and supports a further 8,500 jobs across the wider supply chain.
Last year’s CBI report confirmed that in 2022 prices the wood panel industry added £1.1 billion of gross added value to the UK economy. Yet despite that contribution, wood and wood-based products are too often overlooked in industrial policy, particularly compared with steel, cement, ceramics and glass. That must change and it must change quickly. Timber security is national security. The UK currently imports more than 80% of its timber and wood products, leaving us exposed to global supply shocks, price volatility and geopolitical uncertainty. I welcome the solid foundation this Government have laid, but I urge Ministers to go further. First, timber security should be formally recognised within national security and supply chain resilience planning. Secondly, wood and wood-based products should be explicitly recognised within the industrial strategy as strategic construction materials, alongside steel, cement, glass and ceramics. Thirdly, we must support domestic forestry expansion and ensure that productive planting targets are actually met. Without the raw material, we cannot build the resilient supply chain we need. This is not a niche issue. It goes to the very heart of growth, jobs, housing, net zero and national resilience.
I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to modernising public procurement and backing British business through public contracts. The Cabinet Office is right: it does matter where things are made and who makes them. Procurement should be used to put Britain’s national interest first and to back British industry. That principle must also apply to wood panel manufacturing. When taxpayers’ money is invested in infrastructure, defence accommodation, public housing and regeneration, we should be asking how we maximise the benefit to British jobs, British manufacturing and British supply chains. We have already seen the UK wood panel industry successfully win defence accommodation contracts, supporting domestic employment while delivering excellent value for money. Public procurement should not be a race to the cheapest product available anywhere in the world. It should promote quality, sustainability, resilience and long-term economic value here at home.
Kirsteen Sullivan
We have just heard mention of the very ambitious Government plan for investment in national infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider the safety of workers in our procurement contracts and include inclusive personal protective equipment in any specification for public sector procurement going forward?
Lillian Jones
I agree. Health and safety should be written into public procurement contracts as standard.
Finally, economic growth is about not only national strategy but the small businesses and entrepreneurs driving our local economies at home in our communities. On the day of State Opening, I was delighted to welcome to Westminster my constituent Elaine Borland, founder of Kilmarnock-based Blowin’ Free Gin, whose premium small-batch Agronomist gin is the very best of local produce and innovation—it is available to try now in the Strangers Bar. Businesses such as hers are exactly what we should be championing, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to supporting them through exports and by promoting British excellence.
I welcome the direction set out in the King’s Speech, but I urge the Government to go further and faster: recognise strategic industries, back British supply chains, use procurement to strengthen domestic manufacturing and ensure that growth reaches every nation and region in our country. When we back British industry, support local enterprise and invest in resilient supply chains we do more than grow the economy; we create skilled jobs, strengthen the communities we serve and build a more secure future, giving hope to our great nation.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The urgent need for, and the strategic imperative of, economic growth matters nowhere more than in Buckingham and Bletchley. My constituency lies at the heart—the engine room—of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. If we get economic growth right, it will enable us to support high-growth businesses across my constituency and beyond, strengthening the local economies of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keyes and enabling the UK to develop a strategically important economic region. It will build a globally competitive, modern British economy, with higher wages and more opportunities for the families and communities I represent in Parliament.
In addition to the measures that the Government introduced in the first parliamentary session, I established the Bletchley investment taskforce, bringing together local leaders, employers and investors, as a vehicle to attract the businesses, investment, jobs and apprenticeships that communities in my constituency need. In the coming weeks we will publish our first investment prospectus for Bletchley, and I am grateful to colleagues from across Government who have been supporting our work.
In Bletchley, firms such as Pulsar Fusion and Carnot Engines are developing innovative technologies that are global leaders. On the other side of my constituency, the advanced engineering cluster surrounding Silverstone is home to a number of world-leading Formula 1 teams, again showing that when Britain invests in its people we can be global leaders.
There are also parts of my constituency that are home to a number of rural enterprises, family farms and small independent businesses, which are all contributing to local growth and prosperity. Those businesses are asking not for special favours but for the right conditions to grow: access to capital and talent, fair regulations, and lower barriers to trade. That is why I welcome a number of the measures in the King’s Speech.
The regulating for growth Bill is particularly welcome because over the last 25 years Britain has become a country, as Members across the House have mentioned, where the regulation system is too slow, too fragmented, and poorly suited to confront the pace of modern technological change. Other Members have also mentioned the enhancing financial services Bill and the wider Leeds reforms that will come with it. I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), for all the work she did to lay the foundations of that Bill.
Financial services are one of Britain’s great strengths, providing the investment that drives growth across all sectors of our economy. That is particularly relevant to Milton Keynes, as it is home to a growing suite of financial and professional services firms such as Santander and Allica Bank, both of which employ people in my constituency. A globally competitive financial services sector is imperative in enabling high-growth companies in my constituency to access the capital that they need to innovate and create jobs. However, we also need to mobilise more British capital towards British assets, particularly high-growth companies. As many Members debated in the last parliamentary session, it is now important that the Government focus on implementing the Pension Schemes Act 2026.
I also welcome the small business protections Bill. Late payments and non-payments continue to damage firms of all types and sizes across the country, including in Buckingham and Bletchley, particularly those operating within tight margins. The stronger protections in the Bill for smaller companies will help local firms across my constituency.
I will not be as effusive about the European partnership Bill as some other Members who have spoken, but I believe it is in the national interest to take the required measures to reduce unnecessary friction for exporters and businesses trading with our European neighbours, regardless of whether they are farmers or other high-growth companies. The success of the King’s Speech in the coming months will depend on whether we match it with the ambition of local companies, such as the ones in my constituency. I look forward to playing my part in ensuring that those measures are implemented as soon as possible.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, specifically relating to Rolls-Royce.
We in Derby are proud to be a manufacturing powerhouse. At Litchurch Lane, more Elizabeth line trains will be rolling off Alstom’s production line. At Rolls-Royce, thousands of employees are working to deliver the future of aerospace and nuclear. Our brilliant SME community is pioneering cutting-edge innovation day in, day out. As a city, we do not talk about growth—we power it.
When we speak about backing British business, we are speaking about backing places like Derby. Time and again, this Labour Government have voted with confidence on what our city is capable of delivering. Last year we welcomed a massive £9 billion investment confirmed for the Unity contract with Rolls-Royce to deliver the next generation of AUKUS nuclear submarine reactors. We are cracking on with making Derby the home of Great British Railways, getting the headquarters set up in the heart of our city.
However, for far too long, hard-working people in our city have not felt the benefit of our industry’s success in their own lives. Our city’s manufacturing sector is world class, but when it comes to health equality, transport investment and child poverty, Derby has been left lagging behind. Too often, the wealth and success created by industry has not translated into better living standards or stronger opportunities for the communities who helped to build that success in the first place.
That is why whenever we talk about backing British business, we need to bring our communities with us. The King’s Speech is clear that supporting working people and backing British business goes hand in hand. Led by Mayor of the East Midlands Claire Ward, and backed by our brilliant Chancellor, who was also at the launch, with investment, confidence and stability, that is exactly what Team Derby is all about.
Team Derby is about ensuring that every pound of investment flowing into our city delivers real change for residents, whether that is raising living standards, guaranteeing fair wages or delivering real opportunities for people to get on in life. It is about regenerating our city centre so that we can take pride in it. It is about investing in skills so that young people growing up in Alvaston, Sinfin or anywhere else in Derby can walk into high-quality apprenticeships and build a lifelong career. At its heart, it is about ensuring that when companies succeed in Derby, and across the country, communities also succeed, because backing British business means backing the people who power those businesses—our communities.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Growing Britain’s economy is vital if we are to raise living standards and improve our public services. However, we need to recognise that growth that fails to tackle social inequality will mean that all the economic gains remain at the top of our society. In fact, between 2010 and 2019, the UK’s GDP grew by 1.9% every year, but the wealth gap widened by nearly 50%. Very few of us felt better off during that time, despite the figures showing that the country’s wealth was growing.
Poverty is not just unfair; it is economically reckless as well. Reducing income inequality to the level of more equal OECD nations would save the UK up to £128 billion annually in reduced costs in areas such as crime and imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health and improving healthy life expectancy. But none of that will be possible if we continue to use the same austerity-driven measures of the past. Put simply, we cannot cut our way to growth; it takes investment. In my view—I have mentioned this in the Chamber before—our pension funds offer one way to achieve that. We should remember that these funds represent the deferred wages of millions of workers. Directing pension funds toward socially beneficial projects is one way that our Labour Government can rewire our economic model so that it delivers for ordinary people.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is one of my favourite socialists in the Chamber. Does he accept that were he to change the duty of trustees from getting the best return possible for their pensions, the result will be that future pensioners will enjoy a lesser income? Is that what he wants for future pensioners?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
The point that the hon. Gentleman makes assumes that investing in green technology and social housing will not give a decent return, but the evidence is to the contrary, so I think that he is wrong in his premise.
Workers’ money should be invested in things such as green technology and social housing because they are stable, reliable sectors that build a better future for the very people whose contributions fund them. I know that Ministers are looking to the AI revolution as another way to grow our economy. There is little doubt that AI is a transformational technology that will bring with it many benefits to our society, but in order to fully realise those benefits, it is important to put in place safeguards to ensure that the technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole—rather than simply being a vehicle by which large tech companies make even bigger profits. That is why we need the democratic shaping of technology. We need to work with innovators, workers and unions to steer UK research towards automation that creates or improves jobs.
Without robust regulation, we risk steering society towards an unpredictable and turbulent future that does not work for the public. I have already raised with the Government the prospect of considering some kind of employment levy on companies that replace large-scale workforces with AI, and I hope that they will give that some consideration. That links to my belief that we need to rebalance our entire taxation system. Capital gains could be taxed at the same marginal rate as wages. There are also windfall taxes that could be levied on banks, utilities and other corporations that are making excessive profits. We could also have a wealth tax on those with assets of more than £10 million.
Our economy needs to grow, because all the evidence shows that the more unequal a society is, the higher its risk of becoming dysfunctional. As income differences widen, people are less likely to trust one another, and we see a breakdown in social trust between our communities. Getting the right kind of growth in our economy is therefore essential—not just to make people better off but to create a more equal society that works in the interests of every one of us.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to this debate on backing business to create economic growth. I would like to start by congratulating the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion. It seems like only moments ago that she was a colleague on the Treasury Committee, and now she is in charge of the whole nation’s spending, so I wish her the most enormous amount of luck. I also want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will be mentioning by name some colleagues who have not been in the debate, but I have warned their offices that I will be doing so.
I want to focus in this debate on a simple truth that many businesses across this country have come to recognise, which is that when it comes to backing business to create economic growth, Labour does not know what it is doing. Labour does not know how to govern when times are tough. It entered government without a plan and we are seeing the consequences. I am afraid that this goes deeper than the Prime Minister. Only one Labour Cabinet Minister has started a business, and none of the Prime Minister’s wannabe rivals has worked in a business or a start-up. This matters because it goes to the core of this Government. Whose side are they on? Time and time again, Labour shows that it is on the side of “Benefits Street”, not on the side of people who work, who strive and who save.
When this Labour Government came into office, they had a choice. They wanted to deliver growth. They could have backed business. They could have supported enterprise. Instead, they delivered higher taxes, higher costs and higher uncertainty, and I am afraid that the consequences are now undeniable. Business confidence has collapsed to record lows. The Institute of Directors reported its lowest-ever confidence reading in March 2026, and the Confederation of British Industry says that businesses expect their activity to fall. Jobs are being lost, payroll jobs are down, and the ITEM Club has forecast that there will be 160,000 further job losses this year because of a slowdown in growth and rising energy prices. Retail sales are weak, and nearly half of all businesses are now worried about business rates, which are rising sharply.
It all started with the Chancellor’s first Budget. Labour’s £25 billion jobs tax has increased the cost of employing someone by around £900 per person and, as a direct result, youth unemployment is at a shocking 15.8% on Labour’s watch. For an average pub with eight employees, national insurance means an extra £7,200 bill every year. At the same time, Labour has squeezed our high streets with rising business rates. The result of all this is that one in eight business leaders are planning to leave Britain and 30% of those on The Sunday Times rich list have fled high-tax, socialist Britain. That is a vote of no confidence in this Government.
The damage is not confined to business; it is spreading across the whole economy. Inflation is up. Borrowing costs are surging, with gilt yields at their highest level in decades. Debt interest is spiralling towards £140 billion a year. We are now paying more to service debt than to invest in our future. That is the direct result of a Government without a plan.
So what will happen if we get a new Labour Prime Minister? Will that help businesses and the economy? No, because Andy Burnham wants higher taxes and more borrowing, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) wants higher taxes and more borrowing, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) wants higher taxes and more borrowing. Businesses can see where this ends. It ends in low growth and unsustainable debts. Perhaps the IMF will have to be called in, as it was under Denis Healey.
I thank colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have contributed to today’s debate, and spoken powerfully for their constituencies and the businesses that they represent. Their speeches were beams of light shining into this Chamber from the real world. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) spoke about debt and chaos. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the importance of small businesses and deregulation, and the impact on them of national insurance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) referenced the debt markets and the pressing need for welfare reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), in an outstanding speech, spoke about his local businesses, and said that the last thing they need is another holiday tax.
In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) highlighted the impact on jobs for young people, and in a powerful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) spoke about solar farms and the shocking information about self-swab rape kits. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke about rural businesses and rural deprivation, and made an outstanding contribution on turning things around for his constituents in Mid Norfolk.
Turning to the King’s Speech, what do we see? We see a King’s Speech full of more intervention, more regulation, more taxes and more uncertainty. There is even—I am not making this up—a regulating for growth Bill: more compliance burdens dressed up as protections and more top-down control from Whitehall. Labour Members describes it as growth coming from an interventionist Government, but they are wrong. Growth comes from entrepreneurs who take risks. Growth comes from businesses that invest and hire. Growth comes from workers who strive and succeed. That is why we have set out a clear alternative: a serious plan, a credible programme.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am going to make a bit of progress on our serious, credible plan—a pro-growth alternative King’s Speech, with 16 Bills designed to get Britain working again.
First, we will give people jobs and hope with our get Britain working Bill. We will repeal the job-destroying elements of Labour’s Employment Rights Act, saving businesses up to £5 billion a year. We will restore flexibility in the labour market, and reintroduce minimum service levels to protect essential services from strikes. That means more jobs and lower hiring costs—a labour market that rewards work.
Secondly, we will back our communities with our back our high streets Bill. We will introduce permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, which will support 250,000 of the smallest businesses with lower bills, leading to stronger high streets and protecting jobs. While Labour targets family businesses and farmers with punitive taxes, our plan is simple: we will scrap the family business and family farm tax, and back those who grow our food, create jobs and create wealth.
Thirdly, we will cut red tape with our deregulation of business Bill. We will scrap unnecessary environment, social and governance reporting requirements, which cost businesses millions every year—less bureaucracy, more time to grow and more investment.
Fourthly, we will restore industrial competitiveness with our save British industry Bill. We will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism for the offshoring of emissions, axe the carbon tax, which pushes up energy bills, and repeal the zero emission vehicle mandate. That will lower costs and lead to stronger industries—jobs kept in Britain.
Fifthly, we will tackle energy costs—many hon. Members raised energy costs in their contributions today—with our cheap energy Bill. We will cut electricity bills for businesses by 20% and household bills by £200 by taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and scrapping the Energy Secretary’s renewables subsidies. That will give businesses immediate relief and greater competitiveness, and lead to stronger growth.
Beyond those Bills, we have plans to scrap stamp duty to get the property markets moving, to properly fund our armed forces, to reform welfare, to get people back into work and to approve new North sea licences for energy security. Because growth is not achieved through slogans—
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Is the hon. Gentleman going to achieve growth through a slogan?
Ben Coleman
I was going to say that I cannot be the only person in the House who is thrilled by the great list of exciting things that the hon. Lady is setting out for the country. I wonder why she did not do any of them during the 14 years she was in power, why it is only now that she has ideas for the country, and whether she could have done something that would not have led to the catastrophe that we are trying to put right—just a suggestion.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am afraid it is the historical role of my party to clean up the mess that Labour Governments leave behind. Growth is not achieved through slogans; it is delivered through serious and sustained planning.
In conclusion, the debate comes down to a clear choice: Labour’s approach—
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Member mentions Liz Truss from a sedentary position. Is he not aware that gilt yields are now higher than at any time during that brief period? I am sure he will be welcoming the higher taxes and more borrowing that his Government have caused, the higher energy costs imposed on his local businesses, the more regulation that has led to less growth—or he could adopt the Conservative approach: lower taxes, lower costs and less regulation. [Interruption.] The Business Secretary says “More growth” from a sedentary position. He may be referring to the first quarter of this year when the biggest thing that happened for growth in this economy was vehicle repair. I call that the pothole growth strategy, and I am afraid that that is the reality if we dig into the growth numbers.
Our approach is less regulation and more growth. Ultimately, this is about values. Labour has the wrong values. It is for “Benefits Street”, and we are on the side of people who work, people who strive, people who save. Only the Conservative party has a plan to reduce costs and deliver the growth that we all want. Only the Conservative party is ready to govern. Only the Conservative party will back great British businesses to build a stronger economy for the future.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to close today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of the Government. I am grateful to Members for their contributions, including the Business Secretary for his excellent opening speech and the shadow Business Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for her kind words—although I note that I did not qualify as a “beam of light”, nor others on the Government side. I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that whichever part of that £5 million charitable donation the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—he is not here, unfortunately —spent on his amateur dramatics course, he ought to ask for his money back.
Two years ago, the Chancellor stood at this Dispatch Box following the first King’s Speech of this Labour Government. She committed to rejecting the failed economic approach of the 14 years prior and to charting a different economic course, reinvigorating our economy after years of chronic under-investment, austerity and poor productivity, and the only Parliament in recorded history when living standards actually got worse. The Chancellor committed to charting a different course so that our economy delivers for people right across this country.
As a result of that approach, interest rates have been cut six times since the general election. In March, the spring forecast showed inflation coming down, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was good enough to highlight, and real wages continuing to rise. Last week, ONS data showed borrowing falling by around £20 billion compared with the year before. Importantly, economic growth accelerated sharply in the first quarter of this year, rising to 0.6%, despite the Iran war. Of course, today we have had the IMF upgrade to growth this year as well.
I am afraid I have to correct the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), because GDP per capita is up too. These things are the result of the fiscally responsible choices that this Government have made, and it is responsibility for a clear purpose. That same purpose will always be at the heart of who we are as a Labour party: improving the lives of working people right across the country.
We increased the national living wage and the national minimum wage. We have frozen prescription costs, and we have frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years. We have scrapped the two-child benefit cap, lifting 450,000 children out of poverty. We are helping parents to save up to £8,000 a year with our expansion of Government-funded childcare, free breakfast clubs, and the new school uniform cap on branded items. Those things are helping millions of families across the country.
The conflict in the middle east is putting pressure on energy markets and creating renewed fragility in trade and supply chains. The Conservative party and Reform would have raced into that costly war—the Leader of the Opposition was clear about that at the time—with damaging consequences for both our national security and our economy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are shaking their heads and saying it is not true, but one of two things must be true: either the Leader of the Opposition said that she wanted to take us into the conflict and she meant it, in which case she has catastrophically poor judgment, or she said that she wanted to take us into the conflict but did not mean it, in which case she is deeply confused and Conservative Members have more things to worry about than catastrophically poor judgment.
By contrast, the Prime Minister made the right decision to keep us out of that conflict. Because of his decision, and because of the action we have taken to stabilise the economy over the past two years, Britain today is in a stronger position to withstand the uncertainty and insecurity in the global economy.
As well as immediate support with the cost of living, we must also create the conditions for shared prosperity. That means more jobs, businesses expanding and investing, and people in every community and part of our country having greater security and more of their own money to spend. That is what a Labour growth agenda means. The Chancellor has been clear that she wants to ensure that that growth is stable and resilient. Why? Because that means people secure in their jobs and households secure in their finances and, in our increasingly uncertain world, it means that families the length and breadth of Britain will be more confident and hopeful about what the future holds.
All that is the basis on which the pro-growth legislation set out in the Gracious Speech is being delivered. That begins with legislation to reform and modernise regulation, to ensure that rules are proportionate to risk, and that businesses are able to expand and grow to the benefit of our economy as a whole.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his constructive comments about our enhancing financial services Bill. I confirm that the Bill will maintain the UK’s competitive edge by enabling the sector to support businesses of all sizes to invest and grow, including credit unions, with reforms to the common bond. We will ensure that regulation ensures more lending to small businesses, and we will give Government the power to take action on in-person banking services.
As many Members highlighted, the small business protections (late payments) Bill will tackle the scourge of late payments which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) wrote in her dissertation some years ago, cost the UK economy £11 billion each year and lead to the closure of 38 UK businesses every day.
We must also build resilience to protect our critical infrastructure. Steel is strategically important to our economy, which is why we acted last year to avoid a sudden halt to production at Scunthorpe, protecting workers and the community that depends on the site. It is why we are now bringing forward legislation to give us options to protect Britain’s steelmaking capability.
We have already announced major energy investments, including for the UK’s first ever small modular reactor in Anglesey and the next generation of nuclear submarines in Inverclyde. Our nuclear regulation Bill will modernise the way new nuclear projects are regulated so that we can deliver safe, secure and affordable nuclear power and infrastructure sooner, while maintaining strong environmental protections. Unlike a number of the Opposition parties, including the Greens and the SNP, this Government recognise the importance of new nuclear for our energy security, our climate security and our economic security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked about the voluntary carbon consultation. The Government have published a summary of responses and a formal Government response will be published over the summer.
As Members have noted, we must improve connectivity and boost trade to unlock growth. Labour has been saying for years that far too many parts of Britain lack basic and reliable transport connections, and all the many positive economic benefits that flow from that. Some of these points were echoed by Members, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Northern Powerhouse Rail will help to build a northern economy that reaches its full potential. Backed by up to £45 billion of Government support, the new route will drive jobs and investment across a single, well-connected northern growth corridor. We are also taking steps to protect and grow the freight industry.
On the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) about the overnight visitor levy, the levy is a key means by which we are delivering our manifesto commitment to devolve new revenue-raising powers. Revenues from the levy will support local economic growth and mayors will make decisions, informed by local consultation, about how revenues should best be invested in their region.
Britain will work closely with those who share our values and interests, which means a closer and more constructive relationship with Europe. That is why we are bringing forward the European partnership Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
I am delighted to hear that we will be working more closely with the European Union. As the hon. and learned Lady may know, my wife, being French, will be particularly pleased about that, but what will that mean for the agreement we have struck with the Pacific nations in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or the deal that we did with the Australians? Will the hon. and learned Lady be cancelling those deals as she focuses on the European Union, or will she be staying out of the customs union and the single market, and therefore being focused much more on being a rule taker? I am interested to hear her response.
Lucy Rigby
The right hon. Gentleman’s wife, and potentially he himself, will be pleased to know that those two things are entirely compatible. We will have to cancel absolutely nothing at all. The key point is that where it is in our national interest to align with EU regulation, the Bill will enable us to do so.
I want to address some specific points that were raised about Northern Ireland. The Government have worked closely with devolved Governments to design the Bill. The application of the agreements we are making alongside the Windsor framework will sweep away the majority of regulatory barriers for businesses moving agrifood goods.
Jim Allister
If the Minister is truly interested in sweeping away some of the barriers of the Irish sea border, in circumstances where sanitary and phytosanitary rules are being aligned, would the natural and proper constitutional move not be to take back control of the SPS system in Northern Ireland, instead of leaving it under the jurisdiction of the EU? If we are going to do a deal, let it be for the whole United Kingdom, so that the whole United Kingdom aligns, if that is what the Government think, instead of leaving Northern Ireland exclusively subject to the laws that the EU makes.
Lucy Rigby
As I said, the Government have worked closely with devolved Governments in the design of the Bill and we will continue to do that.
To conclude, the pro-growth legislation set out in the Gracious Speech will drive this country forwards. The Conservatives had 14 years to deliver their legacy, which left our economy weaker, left people poorer and, most of all, left our country smaller in stature. This Government are undoing that legacy and our pro-growth legislation will allow us to accelerate the change that the country deserves to see.
Our approach of a productive, active, agile state will ensure that we generate growth and lift living standards for people right across this country, not just for a few people and postcodes, but everywhere, because we value the contribution of the whole of Britain. The Bills in the King’s Speech are the path to a stronger and fairer future, and I commend the King’s Speech to the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jake Richards.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Business without Debate
East Hagbourne Post Office
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I present on behalf of 175 constituents a petition regarding the closure of East Hagbourne post office. This is in addition to a non-parliamentary petition signed by 1,100 members of the local community.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of East Hagbourne in the constituency of Didcot and Wantage,
Declares that the loss of the community post office branch in the East Hagbourne Community Shop would be damaging to the village and wider community, and that the volunteer-run community shop is not in a position to take on the Post Office’s new ‘local’ model.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage the Post Office to ensure that the community model is restored to the East Hagbourne Post Office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003198]
Audiology Services: Doncaster
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start this debate by welcoming the Minister to her seat and to her new role, as I believe that this is her first time responding from the Front Bench. I am sure that she will be excellent, and I look forward to her response.
Doncaster has a long and proud history of supporting the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. It is home to the historic Doncaster school for deaf children, which was founded on 2 November 1829 by Rev. William Carr Fenton. That legacy continues today through the Carr Fenton Foundation site, which provides a nationally recognised resource, including a nursery, Yorkshire Rose college, employability services, and so much more. However, not long after I was elected, it became clear to me that audiology services in Doncaster were a huge cause of concern to many of my constituents. People were waiting years for basic appointments, hearing aids and even essential hearing aid repairs—sometimes three, four or five years.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House. It is not just Doncaster that is impacted by this issue, because Doncaster and Bassetlaw teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust stretches right across Bassetlaw. I have had similar experiences with my constituents; in fact, every time I have a meeting or a coffee morning, or am knocking on doors, I will find somebody who has been waiting years for treatment. Today, a coach tour of 50 constituents came to the House, and two of them have had problems getting treatment for audiology issues.
I will talk about Martin, who I met this morning. He has hearing aids, and had issues with them, as his hearing had changed. He has waited more than three and a half years to get them replaced. In fact, he can no longer use them, because they do not meet his needs. That is one story; there are many more. While I know that the situation is improving, and treatment is given every time I raise a case with the hospital, there are many thousands of people across my constituency who face this situation. This is a very important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend again for raising it.
Sally Jameson
That goes to show that this is a widespread issue. This is happening not just in Doncaster, but further afield, and thousands upon thousands of people have been impacted. At one stage, the audiology service at Doncaster royal infirmary temporarily shut down. While some of the emergency cases and children’s cases were reallocated to neighbouring services, a lot of people were left with pretty much nothing. They were totally uncertain about when, or even if, they would receive an appointment.
The impact on the hard-of-hearing community in my area has been truly devastating. Waiting lists have grown well into the thousands, and many people have felt isolated and forgotten. During this difficult period, the integrated care board and the Doncaster and Bassetlaw hospital trust have worked to improve the service, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) has pointed out, that took a lot of time. Alongside campaigners Maggie and Paul, who formed the Doncaster Audiology Action Group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), we held regular meetings with the NHS to press for action. With the support of the fantastic Healthwatch team, an audiology action event was held last month, giving residents the opportunity to access information about the service and receive basic hearing aid repairs, as well as to speak directly to stakeholders and support services.
There is still a long way to go; the waiting list is still too long. Constituents contact me, and there are times when I can contact the hospital and we manage to speed up treatment, but not in all cases. Eighteen months on, improvements are beginning to show. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated audiology team at Doncaster royal infirmary, who have worked tirelessly to try to turn the service around. However, this experience has shown me just how important audiology services are, yet how often they are overlooked.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that the audiology action day was phenomenal, and that those in the audiology services at Doncaster royal infirmary are doing everything they can to improve the service that they offer my constituents, who are their patients. I have been exploring other opportunities; for example, I have been working with Specsavers in Thorne, to see whether there are services available on the high street that we can maximise and use. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to work with the integrated care board, and either use high-street shops that can provide patients with services much closer to home, or introduce pop-up services, maybe in isolated rural areas, like mine in the Isle of Axholme?
Sally Jameson
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, some appointments were outsourced during this period, but if we are honest, it was not enough. The waiting list is still far too long, and too many people have been waiting four or five years, so part of our collective ask as MPs for these areas is that the Minister continues to press the ICB to look at what resource is available for outsourcing more to the high street—at least in the short term—so that we can clear the backlog and get the waiting list back under control in a more effective way.
Without proper audiology care, lives can be fundamentally changed. People become isolated from their families, their communities, and society as a whole. I have had people get in touch with me who have stopped going to family events because they cannot hear the conversation properly—they end up sitting in a room, not enjoying themselves and unable to participate in conversations. That is incredibly isolating, and in a world where we talk a lot more about loneliness, particularly following the covid pandemic, that needs extra scrutiny. Just by clearing the waiting list and getting people appointments, we can really change lives. Hearing loss also affects confidence and wellbeing. I have heard from constituents who have been worried about keeping their job because they cannot hear properly on the telephone. This impacts all age groups, and those at all stages of life. This experience has shown me personally just how important audiology is.
Jo White
I am concerned about the link between loss of hearing and dementia. If somebody who is experiencing hearing loss goes down that horrible path of dementia and loss of memory, the lack of communication can spiral and make their condition explode. It becomes much more life-changing, much more quickly. Access to audiology services for people with dementia, or symptoms of dementia, is absolutely imperative, and I am so worried that those people are missing out on this very important course of treatment.
Sally Jameson
My hon. Friend is completely right. In a world in which we focus a lot on how we can treat and slow the progress of dementia and Alzheimer’s, this is something we really need to look at. That is key, and it is worrying and disappointing to us all that our constituents will be more susceptible to this issue because they do not have the service that might be available in other areas.
Lee Pitcher
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) mentioned dementia. This is Dementia Action Week. The ability to hear is so important, not just for the obvious reasons, but in the broader context of dementia. This is about dignity and being able to enjoy precious moments. The Alzheimer’s Society has a regular “singing for the brain” event at Cantley community centre, and it is a beautiful way to bring people together. The ability to hear, converse and grasp that music is so important. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) agree, in Dementia Action Week, that we must continue to fight for audiology services for that reason? What a wonderful way to show that we care—doing something in this place to help all those people who will live with dementia in the coming years.
Sally Jameson
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I reassure him that I will not attend the Alzheimer’s Society’s “singing for the brain” event in Cantley, as that would be devastating for everyone who had to hear it. It is important that we start to raise awareness of the knock-on effects that poor audiology services can have on wider society, and on people’s health generally.
I ask the Minister to consider the following important points. First, will she ensure that the NHS 10-year plan includes greater investment in training audiologists across the country, so that areas like Doncaster never again face such severe staff shortages? But this is not just about investment; it is also about raising awareness. Many young people would not even consider audiology as a career, and would not even be aware that it exists. Part of this is making sure that the workforce plan reaches out to young people, and informs them about the different jobs available in the NHS, as opposed to just the traditional ones that everyone thinks about. We need to do more of that locally, and I know my hon. Friends here will that that point into schools and colleges. We have a new university technical college, specialising in medical science, opening in Doncaster in the not-too-distant future. I will definitely be banging the drum on this, along with my hon. Friends, to make sure that audiology is included, so that people understand from an early age that it is a good career, available to them.
Secondly, will the Minister carefully consider the recommendations of the Kingdon review, including the recommendation on the introduction of a single professional register for audiologists, improved governance for audiology services and reform of how children’s audiology services are delivered? It is so important that we get audiology right at the earliest possible stage, because when these problems are missed, it can be truly damaging later in life. It is so important that we capture young people who require support, and also that lessons are learned from audiology failures, so that we do not find this happening again. Whether in Doncaster or in other parts of the country, it is important to look at that. Potentially under-resourced or at-risk NHS diagnostic and children’s services should also be highlighted, so that immediate action is taken to make sure that services do not fall below standard.
If the situation in Doncaster and Bassetlaw shows us anything, it is that audiology can no longer be treated as a Cinderella service in our NHS. If we are really going to move to prevention as opposed to cure, it is really important that this becomes a recognised priority, so that deaf and hard-of-hearing people receive not only the support they need, but the quality of life that they deserve. I hope that this debate is just the start of an important conversation that needs to take place here in Westminster and across the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) for securing the debate. I commend her advocacy on this issue, and thank her for all her tireless work on behalf of her constituents in bringing it to the House's attention. I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked a business question on the subject during the last parliamentary Session. It is clear that there is strong local concern across Doncaster, and I am immensely proud to respond directly today during my first debate as a Minister.
Let me begin by acknowledging what many constituents experience when audiology services are not working well. It is deeply frustrating when people need a hearing assessment, a follow-up appointment or a hearing aid repair and cannot get it within a reasonable time. For many, that is not just inconvenient; it can be isolating and can affect confidence, independence and wellbeing. Families and carers also feel the strain as they try to navigate appointments and periods without support. We will ensure that that changes. Like my hon. Friend, this Government will not stop until everyone has timely access to essential services such as audiology, as part of our mission to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future.
I want to start with Doncaster. I was shocked to learn from my hon. Friend that constituents have faced long waits, repeat appointments, and periods without working hearing aids. It is also concerning that some people have been asked to return because the right assessment or adjustment was not available on the first occasion. That situation is a lose-lose: it is distressing for patients, and it is an inefficient use of clinical time. Let me be absolutely clear: it is not acceptable, and it must improve. I will now set out briefly what has happened, what actions have been taken, and what further progress we need to see.
Doncaster’s audiology services have faced significant challenges, and I acknowledge that there were delays for hearing tests and follow-up appointments. I understand that one underlying issue has been insufficient numbers of staff who are fully trained to carry out all the specialist assessments. That created a backlog, with neighbouring services and external specialists supporting the most urgent cases. The NHS region has prioritised cases that involve safeguarding or developmental concerns. The trust has recognised those problems and has put in place a recovery plan, including upgraded facilities and improved booking and tracking. I am told that most adult hearing services have recovered. As for children’s audiology, the backlog is also shrinking, and outside specialists are helping until the local team complete their training. The hospital is also using new digital tools and regular review meetings to keep track of performance and risks. Further development on the recovery plan will mean an improvement in audiology services and patients returning to be seen on time.
The pressures that we have seen in Doncaster also reflect wider challenges across diagnostic and community services. When we talk about diagnostic audiology, we mean assessments to diagnose hearing and balance conditions. Audiology services are not only about diagnostics; for many people, this means long-term support providing rehabilitation, ongoing monitoring, treatment and support for a number of lifelong conditions, such as hearing therapy and hearing aid fitting and maintenance. That is why cutting waiting lists, including those for diagnostic tests, is a key priority for the Government.
We are backing that priority with investment to help services to recover performance and improve the experience for patients, including their experience of audiology. We are improving and transforming NHS audiology services, for instance through a national improvement collaborative to test changes that improve access and patient experience. Four NHS trusts took part in 2024-25, and a further eight have joined in the last financial year, including Somerset, Leicester, Oxford and Gateshead. We have learnt that when local teams have been empowered to drive change, that has led to improvements in services. Improvement depends on having the right kit and environment as well, which is why the Government have invested £13 million in audiology equipment and facilities across 66 capital schemes. We are also expanding access by delivering more diagnostics and assessment in the community.
Let me now turn to children’s audiology more broadly. As my hon. Friend said, it vital that children and young people can access timely, safe audiology services. The paediatric hearing services improvement programme was established in 2023 to address the risks to paediatric diagnostic audiology across England, and as part of the programme progress has been made in improving the paediatric audiology service in Doncaster. I welcome the 2025 review of children’s hearing services, undertaken by Dr Camilla Kingdon and with a response under consideration. NHS England is committed to reviewing the future direction for high-quality, sustainable children’s hearing services, with clearer end-to-end pathways and shared priorities. The workforce requirements for hearing services are also being considered as part of the 10-year workforce plan.
We know that clearer commissioning expectations help to drive consistency and equity across the country. NHS England is developing new commissioning guidance for integrated care boards and providers on safe, high-quality and equitable paediatric audiology, covering service configuration, workforce, estates, equipment, data and safeguarding. By taking action on multiple fronts, we will restore performance and ensure that improvement continues.
Finally, I turn to community audiology services, which are delivered in community settings and commissioned by integrated care boards, based on the needs of their local population. We know that community health services have the power to better align care with people’s day-to-day lives, but when it comes to community audiology, people are waiting far too long and there is local variation in services. That is why, for the first time, we have set a clear target to reduce long waits for community health services, including community audiology services. By 2028-29, at least 80% of activity across community health services should take place within 18 weeks. To support the shift to neighbourhood health, we have asked systems to increase the capacity of community health services and to work to standardise the provision of core community services.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central for bringing forward this debate and for speaking up for her constituents. She mentioned the Doncaster school for deaf children and the Carr Fenton Foundation, and just how imperative it is that we deliver in areas like hers, which have such needs. We are committed to improving access through local recovery, national improvement support and more provision through community services.
To return to Doncaster, I have heard the concerns about long waits for repeat appointments and the problems with hearing aid provision. The trust has made progress, particularly for adult services. The paediatric service is improving and the waiting list is reducing, with external support in place while workforce training is completed. We will continue to work with local leaders to deliver timely appointments and reliable support, and we will go further still by reforming community audiology to shift more care from hospitals to communities, ensuring that our NHS is fit for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Aylesbury United Football Club
Written Correction
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for this and previous answers on the CMS. I hear the Government saying “when time allows”, but this really is important for the families who have suffered for too many years. My constituent, for example, has successfully appealed at tribunal, with both the judge and the Child Maintenance Service agreeing that the parent’s declared income did not reflect their true earnings, and arrears were awarded. Yet after receiving a substantial redundancy payment and despite holding significant assets, including property and substantial pension investments, no maintenance is being paid, and enforcement has not taken place. Does the Minister accept that this exposes a gap in how redundancy payments are treated by the CMS and the wider enforcement framework, and will he urgently review both to ensure that children are not left without support and no longer suffer?
Andrew Western
Part of the challenge here is that the legislation currently requires us to use earnings information and figures provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and, because redundancy payments of up to £80,000 are exempted from tax, they do not show up in that way…
[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 562.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western):
Andrew Western
Part of the challenge here is that the legislation currently requires us to use earnings information and figures provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and, because redundancy payments of up to £30,000 are exempted from tax, they do not show up in that way…
Written Statements
Companies House: Public Targets 2026-27
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2026-27.
Companies House will continue to score above average for the public sector, in the UK customer satisfaction index.
Digital services are available for a minimum of 99.5% of the time.
All incoming calls to our contact centre wait for no longer than five minutes in the call queue, on average.
Using the registrar’s powers, Companies House will take at least 225,000 actions to tackle abuse and improve the integrity of the register.
By the end of the financial year, all companies will have met identity verification requirements linked to their confirmation statement or be on an appropriate pathway to compliance or enforcement action.
Deliver 4% efficiency, in comparison to 2025-26 controllable spend.
[HCWS24]
Consumer Credit Act 1974: Reform
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)
2024 marked the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The world, the way people interact with their finances, and the consumer credit market are dramatically different today and the transformation in 50 years has been vast—79% of the public now hold at least one regulated credit product, new products such as “buy now, pay later” have come to the market, and digital technology has transformed how people use and take out credit.
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/financial-lives/fls-2024-credit-loans.pdf
It is perhaps not surprising that the legislation has not kept up. While it was well designed for its time, the CCA is increasingly under strain to deliver for the way consumers and firms now use and provide credit. The existing legislation and supporting regulations are poorly adapted to technology that was not envisaged 50 years ago. Successive updates over time have created a complex and prescriptive regime. In 2014 work was commenced to modernise the regime, with many CCA provisions being repealed and recast into Financial Conduct Authority rules in the consumer credit sourcebook, and the Government are continuing this work.
The Government have identified opportunities to deliver a modernised consumer credit regime that aims to ensure that consumers receive clearer information at the right time, utilising technological developments, enabling them to make informed financial decisions throughout the consumer journey, as well as simplified rights and protections that achieve proportionate regulation while achieving robust consumer protection.
Modernising the CCA aims to achieve a more agile, flexible and proportionate regulatory regime that better supports innovation and economic growth alongside robust protection for consumers. This will enable firms to better tailor products and consumer journeys to achieve good consumer outcomes, in line with the broader FCA consumer duty principle. It also brings consumer credit in line with the modern UK model of financial services regulation, whereby the scope of regulation is determined by Parliament, with the detailed conduct rules set by the regulator.
The policy statement published today outlines the Government’s approach to reform of the CCA, which will be delivered via the forthcoming financial services and markets Bill. The FCA is also publishing a statement on its direction regarding CCA reform measures announced today.
The policy statement is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-consumer-credit-act-1974-cca-reform
[HCWS28]
Review of the Ringfencing Regime
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)
At Mansion House 2025, as part of the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed her intention to uphold the ringfencing regime to safeguard financial stability and depositors while taking forward meaningful reform to update the regime and support the Government’s growth agenda. In response, His Majesty’s Treasury has, in close collaboration with the Bank of England, undertaken a review of the regime.
The review has now concluded, and its findings can be found in the review report “Safeguarding Stability, Enabling Growth”, published on gov.uk. The Government will take forward reforms to the regime to enable the ringfenced banks to provide more productive funding to UK business and the real economy, supporting the Government mission to deliver sustainable economic growth.
The ringfencing regime will continue to uphold the financial independence of ringfenced banks and protect retail depositors from volatility in global financial markets.
The Government will take forward reforms in five key areas:
Creating a more agile and proportionate ringfencing framework
As part of the upcoming financial services and markets Bill announced in the King’s Speech, the Government will take forward primary legislation to:
Address unnecessary duplication, by enabling the Prudential Regulation Authority to remove ringfencing rules where the objectives of ringfencing are already met by other prudential requirements or the resolution regime.
Enhance regulatory flexibility, through removing elements of primary legislation that are overly prescriptive.
Deliver better regulatory alignment by ensuring the PRA’s approach to making ringfencing rules reflects developments in the resolution regime for banks.
Enable HM Treasury to move aspects of the regime out of legislation and into PRA rules, so they can be updated in a more agile and proportionate way, and creating greater scope for the PRA to use modifications and waivers.
Allowing ringfenced banks to provide more products and services to support the UK economy
Subject to consultation on the detail this summer, the Government will:
Introduce a new growth allowance, supporting the financing needs of the real economy by permitting ringfenced banks to undertake activities otherwise prohibited by the regime. The Government will consult on an allowance worth up to 10% of their pillar 1 risk-weighted assets for credit risk, which could be used to unlock up to £80 billion of financing for UK businesses.
Allow ringfenced bodies to offer a more comprehensive range of hedging products to businesses, supporting investment by ensuring they can more effectively manage their risks as they grow.
Ensure RFBs can fully support Government priorities through the British Business Bank and National Wealth Fund by enabling participation in funding schemes that are guaranteed or offered by UK public financial institutions.
Permit exposures to a wider range of financial institutions where those firms undertake activities that the ringfencing regime would permit the RFB to undertake directly.
Addressing inefficiencies in how ringfencing is applied to banking groups
The PRA and Financial Policy Committee will review how ringfencing interacts with certain capital requirements, including how the Basel 3.1 output floor and the leverage ratio is applied to banks in the regime.
The Bank of England will review its calibration of the internal minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities scalar to ensure the appropriate amount of loss-absorbing capacity is pre-positioned at the RFB.
Sharing resources and services more flexibly across the ringfence to reduce or remove operational burdens
The PRA has today announced that it will consult on allowing firms more flexibility as to how they share operational resources across the ringfence.
The Government will consult on legislation to enable surpluses in closed RFB pension schemes to be shared with other schemes in a wider banking group, subject to certain conditions, enabling flexibility in how surplus funds are used.
Maintaining proportionality
The £35 billion primary threshold will be subject to review every three years, with a view to uprating it in line with changes to the market and deposit base.
The PRA will review ringfencing-specific reporting requirements as part of its regular review of its ringfencing rules, reporting in 2028, to ensure they are proportionate once the revised regime is in place.
The review is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-stability-enabling-growth-the-ring-fencing-review
[HCWS27]
Notification of Contingent Liability
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the asset purchase facility by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and commenced sales of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022, and sales of gilts acquired for monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022. The sales of corporate bonds ceased on 6 June 2023, with a small number of outstanding corporate bonds reaching maturity on 5 April 2024. Therefore, the APF is now comprised solely of gilts.
The Chancellor at the time agreed a joint approach with the Governor of the Bank of England in an exchange of letters on 3 February 2022 to reduce the maximum authorised size of the APF for asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces.
Since 11 November 2025, when the maximum authorised size of the APF was last reduced, the total stock of assets held by the APF for monetary policy purposes has fallen further, from £555 billion to £524.9 billion. In line with the approach agreed with the Governor, the authorised maximum total size of the APF has therefore been reduced to £524.9 billion, comprising entirely of gilts.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. Provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons, providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS26]
Sporting Events Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
On 14 May 2026 the Government introduced the Sporting Events Bill, which can be found at:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4127
The Government are proud of the UK’s record of hosting world-class major sporting events over recent years, including the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, the 2014 and 2022 Commonwealth games, and last summer’s remarkable women’s rugby world cup. These events bring the nation together like nothing else can and have profound social and economic benefits.
The Sporting Events Bill will better equip the UK and devolved Governments to attract and deliver such events into the future. It will ensure that these events, including the UEFA European championships 2028 and the FIFA women’s world cup 2035—should the UK’s bid be successful—can be delivered as efficiently as possible, and enhance our competitive advantage when bidding for future global tournaments, showing to international event owners that we are event ready.
For an event to qualify, it must meet three conditions. First, it must be taking place at least in part in the UK. Secondly, it must not usually be held in the UK. Thirdly, it must be either of significant international interest, with the potential to deliver social or economic benefits, or of strategic importance in helping to secure such events in the UK in the future.
The framework provisions include measures to:
Put fans first by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets for qualifying sporting events, ensuring that more tickets go directly to fans. More broadly, the Government consulted on measures last year to introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events. That consultation made it clear that for too long fans have been ripped off by touts, who buy large volumes of tickets online and resell them for vastly inflated prices. We are fully committed to these measures and will publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in this parliamentary Session to ensure that the legislation is effective, enforceable and future-proof.
Prohibit unauthorised advertising and trading around event locations through time-limited criminal offences. These provisions will enable us to create a restricted advertising and trading zone where unauthorised businesses—those not authorised, for example, by the event organiser—will be prevented from trading in places such as competition venues, official fan zones and transport hubs and their surrounding areas, balancing the need for commercial protection for event organisers and their sponsors with the rights of individuals and businesses. This would allow for a safe flow of spectators and help to create a consistent and positive experience for event goers.
Prohibit unauthorised association with a sporting event by creating a general prohibition enforceable through the civil courts. This prevents businesses from benefiting financially by associating with an event without contributing to delivery costs of the event.
Manage transport and traffic in relation to a sporting event in England.
UK Ministers and devolved Governments will be able to determine which framework provisions apply to qualifying events, and to tailor them to the event by adding essential event-specific details such as dates and places. This will be done via secondary legislation.
The Bill also includes a funding provision, which ensures that the Secretary of State and devolved Governments have legal powers to fund sporting events.
The provisions in this Bill as a whole will ensure that the UK continues to be an attractive host country for major events, bolstering our world-leading reputation. We are sending a clear message: the UK is not just a home for sport, but a prepared, professional and fan-focused host.
[HCWS23]
LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The LGBT financial recognition scheme includes two types of payments, the “LGBT FRS Dismissed or Discharged Payment” and the “LGBT FRS Impact Payment”. The impact payment is available to all those who experienced pain and suffering directly related to the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces, including harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. There are three tariff bands: level one £1,000-£5,000; level two £5,000-£10,000; and level three £10,000-£20,000. This is determined by an independent panel.
To enhance decision-making capacity, the independent panel has been extended with the appointment of a second panel chair and additional panel members. The additional panel members will be Joanne Briggs (Chair), Barbara Johnson, Fiona Gardner, Gillian McGill, Kevin Hood, Max Johnstone and Oliver Brown. The independent panel will continue to sit as a chair plus four members, except for in exceptional circumstances.
Both independent panel chair and independent panel members are appointed for a period of 10 months as direct ministerial appointments.
The Government acknowledge the hurt caused by the historic policy banning LGBT personnel in the armed forces between 1967 and 2000, which was wholly unacceptable and is not representative of defence today. The Government are committed to righting these historic wrongs, supporting LGBT veterans, and improving the experience of LGBTQ+ personnel in the armed forces.
[HCWS29]
Lifelong Learning Entitlement Regulations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I am today laying before Parliament the Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026, the first in a package of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement, ahead of its launch in September 2026 for courses and modules starting from January 2027.
The LLE will transform the post-18 student finance system in England by creating a single funding system for levels 4 to 6 that supports people to learn, upskill and retrain across their working lives. It will broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training, support learner mobility, and help ensure that our colleges, universities and other providers can meet the skills needs of learners, employers and the wider economy. This supports the Prime Minister’s target for two thirds of young people to access higher-level learning by age 25, alongside increasing participation in high-quality technical education. The Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and driving economic growth, and the LLE is a central part of that mission.
The package comprises three sets of regulations:
The Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026,
The Lifelong Learning (Student Support) (Amendment of Fees and Awards etc.) Regulations 2026, and
The Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) (Amendments for Lifelong Learning) Regulations 2026.
Pending Parliament’s approval of the fee limit regulations, I will then make and lay the second two sets of regulations. In the meantime, to allow Parliament sight of the full LLE policy while scrutinising the fee limit regulations, draft copies will be made available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lifelong-learning-entitlement-lle-overview/lifelong-learning-entitlement-overview
Together, these regulations establish the fee limits, student support and repayment framework required for the LLE. They will create a credit-based fee limit system, allow funding to be used more flexibly for modules as well as full courses, and put in place the student support and repayment arrangements needed to operate the new system from launch.
Under the LLE, new learners will be able to access a lifetime entitlement equal to four years of full-time tuition, which can be used more flexibly than the current system allows. Eligible learners undertaking designated in-person study will also be able to access maintenance support for living costs, representing an important expansion of support for part-time and technical learners. The LLE also removes the equivalent or lower qualification restriction, helping adults with prior study to retrain and reskill.
The LLE marks a significant step forward in modernising the student finance system so that it works better for young people and adults in a changing economy. It will give learners greater flexibility in how and when they study, support providers to offer more responsive provision, and help ensure that people across the country can access the education and training they need to unlock opportunity and succeed.
[HCWS25]
Favipiravir: Contingent Liability
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
The UK Health Security Agency is receiving a supply of doses of the antiviral medicine favipiravir from the Government of Japan to support the United Kingdom’s preparedness and response to hantavirus.
Favipiravir is not currently licensed for use in the United Kingdom. In line with standard international practice for the provision of medical countermeasures of this nature, the Government of Japan and the supplier have requested that the United Kingdom provides an indemnity in respect of liabilities that may arise from the use of the product.
This indemnity constitutes a contingent liability. The Government have concluded that it represents an appropriate and proportionate arrangement to secure access to a clinically recommended countermeasure, supporting the Government’s ability to respond to the current outbreak and protect the public’s health.
The liability is unquantifiable at this time and is expected to be called upon only in highly unlikely circumstances.
In the normal course of events, a departmental minute would be laid before Parliament for 14 sitting days prior to the indemnity being entered into, in accordance with “Managing Public Money”. Due to the urgent need to secure supply and support the UK’s response to the current hantavirus outbreak, this has not been possible. The departmental minute has been laid before Parliament today. The Department has written to the Public Accounts Committee and Health and Social Care Select Committee to notify them that Parliament could not be informed in advance of making this commitment. Further correspondence will be provided to the Committees.
[HCWS30]
Youth Justice Reform and Delivery Plan
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Today I am publishing the Government youth justice White Paper, “Cutting Youth Crime. Changing Young Lives”, which sets out our plan to reform the youth justice system in England and Wales so that it intervenes earlier, responds more consistently, and does more to protect the public.
Over the past two decades, sustained efforts across the system have led to very significant reductions in the number of children entering the formal youth justice system and the number of children in custody. As a result, the system is now working with a much smaller but far more complex cohort, including many children who face multiple and overlapping vulnerabilities including substance misuse, children who are victims of exploitation, and in some cases children who present a serious risk of harm to others. However, the systems and structures designed for an earlier era have not kept pace. This limits our ability to prevent escalation, reduce reoffending, and keep victims and communities safe.
This Government are clear about the balance we must strike. Children are still developing and have a strong capacity to change, and the system must respond accordingly. But avoiding unnecessary criminalisation must never come at the expense of public protection. Where children’s behaviour causes harm, or where risks escalate, the system must act decisively. Firm, timely and proportionate intervention is essential both to protect the public and to support children to change course.
We will strengthen early intervention to prevent risky behaviour or offending from escalating. This includes continuing to invest in the turnaround programme, improving alignment with wider services that support children at risk, and taking action against the adults who exploit children and draw them into crime. We will also publish a strengthened national protocol to reduce the unnecessary criminalisation of children in care and care leavers, while ensuring that risks are identified and managed effectively.
Where offending does occur, children must receive the right response at the right time. We will reform the youth out-of-court-resolution framework to improve public confidence and ensure interventions address the drivers of offending. We will take a fundamental look at the function and purpose of criminal courts for children, pilot new problem-solving youth intervention courts, and develop specialist training requirements for lawyers representing children. We will ensure custodial remand is used appropriately and fairly, and modernise the sentencing framework to support public protection and rehabilitation. Alongside this, we will deliver proportionate reform of the childhood criminal records regime, so that people who have turned away from offending do not face lifelong consequences for childhood mistakes.
We will strengthen local youth justice services so they are equipped to manage risk and deliver effective interventions for today’s cohort. We will reform youth justice service oversight and funding arrangements, and we are reforming the role of the youth justice board to sharpen its focus on continuous improvement, so that children receive consistently high-quality support wherever they live. We will back innovation and modernisation through a new youth justice innovation fund, new devolution arrangements and better use of technology.
This Government are clear that, in some cases, custody is a necessary and appropriate response to protect the public. But we must ensure that children come out better than they went in. We are taking action to improve safety, safeguarding and education across the youth custodial estate, while setting a clear long-term direction away from large, outdated institutions, towards smaller, more rehabilitative settings that better support children to turn their lives around. We will set out further detail in a youth custody transformation plan in the autumn.
Taken together, these reforms represent a decisive shift for youth justice. A system that intervenes early to prevent escalation, provides firm and decisive community responses, and uses custody where necessary, is a system that will cut youth crime and change young lives.
The White Paper is being laid before Parliament today.
[HCWS31]
Grand Committee
Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 9 March.
I draw the Committee’s attention to a minor typographical correction: at Regulation 4(3)(c)(i), the words “the right” should have a space between them. This was identified after the SI was laid and has been rectified through a correction slip. The correction is only typographical and has no effect on the meaning or operation of the regulations.
It has long been the case that a developer or land promoter can secure effective control over a piece of land—through an option, a conditional contract, a pre-emption right or a promotion agreement—without anyone outside the deal knowing about it. The land stays in the same name on the title register but, in practice, another party is determining its future. There is no legal obligation to disclose these arrangements and no reliable way of finding out about them.
The result is a land market that operates, in significant part, in the dark. Planning authorities draw up housing strategies without knowing who actually holds the cards on development sites. Smaller builders spend time and resources chasing land that turns out to be already committed, and local people find out about the development intentions for the land around them only when a planning application is submitted.
The Competition and Markets Authority examined these issues as part of its 2023 housebuilding market study and found that the largest firms alone hold contractual control over some 658,000 strategic plots through arrangements that are not on the public record. That is an extraordinary volume of land to be controlled without any transparency. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was passed under the previous Government, gave the Secretary of State the powers to address this, and the draft regulations before the Committee today give effect to those powers.
In essence, these regulations require anyone who holds one of the four specified types of contractual control right over registered land to notify HM Land Registry. HM Land Registry will then publish that information without charge—openly, digitally and in geospatial form—in a new database from April 2028. The regulations have been designed to support our objective of increasing transparency without introducing undue burdens on the sector.
HMLR will collect the names of the parties, the types of right, the land in question and the duration of the arrangement. Details about financial terms are not required. Conveyancers will provide this information. The information must be provided within 60 days of the right being created, assigned or varied through a regulated conveyancer, and HMLR must also be told when a right comes to an end. Conveyancers will also be expected to indicate the extent of the contractual control right to provide sufficient details to identify the land affected, to enable transparency rather than to represent definitive legal boundaries.
The regulations are focused on rights related to future development and include a proportionate set of exemptions for national security, loan security, short-term arrangements of less than 18 months and obligations under Section 106 planning agreements. They do not apply to agreements entered into before the regulations are made, unless those agreements are amended. The previous Government consulted on a five-year retrospective window, but we have decided not to pursue that, in order to minimise the administrative burden on businesses.
Where someone does not comply, HMLR may refuse to register a notice or restriction protecting that interest, and providing false or misleading information is a criminal offence under Section 225 of the 2023 Act.
I will say a word about why this measure matters beyond the legal mechanics. In the 1980s, smaller firms were responsible for a substantial share of housing delivery. That share has fallen dramatically and one reason for that, although it is not the sole cause, is the lack of transparency in the land market around them. They do not have the networks, the legal teams or the intelligence that larger operators have built up over decades.
A public database of who holds what rights and over which land changes that. It gives planning authorities the tools to more effectively understand the landscape of control over development land in their area, and to plan accordingly. Local communities will now be able both to understand who holds rights over development land nearby and to engage with them earlier in the process.
These regulations are a practical and measured step towards a land market that works more fairly. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As she will know, the origins of this policy lie with the previous Conservative Government and the work undertaken through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to improve transparency around contractual control agreements over land. We support greater transparency.
The Government argue that greater visibility of contractual control agreements may assist local authorities, communities and smaller developers in understanding how land is being assembled and brought forward for development. Although the principle is sensible, we also need to look at the practical implications of these regulations. Their success will depend ultimately on how they operate in practice and whether the Government properly monitor their wider effects on an already fragile housebuilding sector.
The context today is very different from when this policy was first developed. Developers, land promoters, conveyancers and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises are facing increasingly difficult market conditions. Inflationary pressures remain significant, input costs remain elevated, financing conditions are tighter and the costs of construction materials, labour and fuel continue to place pressure on viability across the sector—not to mention the increasing regulatory burden. At the same time, the Government continue to set ambitious housing targets while housebuilding output remains under strain. We have also seen growing financial pressures across parts of the industry, including on major housebuilders, as we read in the weekend’s business papers.
Against that backdrop, we must be cautious. Even relatively modest additional compliance burdens can have wider consequences than Ministers may anticipate. The challenge in many parts of the country is no longer simply identifying land, particularly brownfield land, but ensuring that development remains financially viable once construction, financing and regulatory costs are taken into account.
The Government estimate that the regulations will impose a cost on business of approximately £4.2 million per annum. In isolation, Ministers may regard that as manageable, but business does not experience regulation in isolation. These costs sit alongside increasing taxation, staffing pressures, financing costs and wider regulatory obligations. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of regulatory and economic pressures on SMEs operating within the development sector?
I will also press the Minister on the risk of unintended consequences, which several stakeholders raised during consultation. There is a legitimate concern that the regulations could alter market behaviour in ways that are not intended. These are, after all, private contractual arrangements, and we should be cautious about imposing disclosure requirements unless the benefits clearly outweigh the additional burdens and commercial sensitivities involved. For example, encouraging a shift away from flexible contractual arrangements and towards outright land acquisition in order to avoid additional reporting requirements could have the effect of tying up larger amounts of capital and potentially reducing the stock of land being actively brought forward for development.
Similarly, there is a risk that some landowners may become more reluctant to enter into option or promotion agreements if the public disclosure of those arrangements creates commercial sensitivities or local controversies at an earlier stage. Can the Minister therefore commit to conducting a regular review of the market impact of these regulations? I would be grateful if she could also clarify how the Government intend to ensure that the new dataset is genuinely usable and accessible in practice, and at what de minimis level this applies. Will it apply to all land ownership and the structures around that, or is there a size of plot or de minimis at which it does not apply?
The Government’s objective of increasing visibility within the land market is understandable. At a time when housing remains challenging and viability pressures across the sector are growing, the Government must ensure that these regulations support development rather than inadvertently discourage it. The test of this policy will not be simply whether more information is collected but whether it helps get Britain building more homes without placing further strain on a sector already facing considerable economic pressure. I hope the Minister can provide reassurances on these points and look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution to this short debate. He is quite right that this provision was brought forward in a Bill from the previous Government.
As I set out in my introductory speech, the purpose of this is to try to help support the SME sector and others, including local communities, alongside our other package of work, as we go forward to make sure that they have transparency and access to the information they need to make the business and local decisions that are so important to them. Transparency is not a substitute for other interventions to boost delivery, but it is a complementary and necessary precondition for a properly functioning and competitive land market.
The noble Lord is right that SME housebuilders have seen their market share significantly shrink since the 1980s, when SME builders delivered about 40% of the nation’s homes. A structural barrier to their return, as I am sure he will be aware, is the difficulty of identifying genuinely available sites. This new database will directly reduce that barrier for SMEs by allowing smaller developers to identify from the outset which sites are already under contractual control. More SMEs competing for genuinely available sites means more homes can be built by a more diverse market, which is central to our Government’s ambition to deliver more homes. We know that these regulations are not a silver bullet to the challenges SME builders face, but they do form part of a wider package of measures.
The noble Lord asked about exemption agreements. We have included targeted exemptions to make sure that the regulations are proportionate and require information to be provided only where it progresses the transparency aims. We have included the exemptions that I set out earlier, on national security arrangements such as loan security, non-development rights, short-term rights under 18 months and Section 106 agreements. Overage and clawback agreements are primarily financial mechanisms, which do not give a party the power to control how land is used or disposed, so a clear majority of the consultation respondents did not support their inclusion. Information about easements and restricted covenants is typically already available through the register of title.
I think the burdens and costs on the sector were the main issue that the noble Lord was raising. We have been deliberate throughout about ensuring that requirements are proportionate. The Government’s assessment is that the overall impact on business will be de minimis. No significant impact on the public sector is foreseen, and local authorities will benefit from access to the data at no cost. The information required is typically information that parties already hold. Exemptions exist for short-term and non-development rights. Our consultation, which was extensive, confirmed that the vast majority of parties already engage lawyers when drawing up these agreements. It was estimated that the process would add between 21 and 60 minutes per agreement.
As the noble Lord said, the impact on businesses is estimated at approximately £4.2 million per annum. That consists of ongoing compliance costs and one-off familiarisation costs to developers, land promoters and conveyancers. But, as always with these things, the important thing is to balance this with the improved transparency for communities and the industry to understand how land is available. Hopefully, that will off-set some of the costs because it will enable SMEs and others to access information that will tell them what land is available and save them wasting money looking at land that already has agreements over it.
In conclusion, these regulations will for the first time give government, planning authorities, small builders and local communities a clear and reliable picture of who controls development land in England and Wales. That is a straightforward but significant change and one that is long overdue. I trust the Committee welcomes the regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I asked a question, which I appreciate the Minister may not be able to answer, about whether there is a de minimis level in those exemptions—for half an acre, quarter of an acre or whatever. Secondly, she rightly raised the various exemptions, and I am pleased that they are there; for clarification, will they be under the judgment of the legal bodies handling the transaction or will they have to refer to somebody for those exemptions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will respond to the noble Lord about the de minimis level in writing, if that is all right. In terms of determining what the exemptions are, the conveyancers will put this forward, so it will be up to them. As with all things in regulations, they will have to be honest in the way they approach this and exercise their professional judgment.
Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid on 16 March 2026. When referring to the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority hereafter, I will use the term “strategic authority” unless there is a particular reason to be specific.
This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England and the English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of the White Paper has now been delivered through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders best placed to take the decisions that benefit their communities.
The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following the expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Hampshire and the Solent. This statutory instrument will establish the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best. The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils within Hampshire and the Solent on the instrument. The constituent councils are Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and Isle of Wight Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.
The instrument will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The amendments made to those provisions by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 do not apply for the purposes of this instrument due to transitional and saving provisions made in a separate instrument, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (Transitional and Saving Provisions) (England) Regulations 2026. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which this instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028 and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 on a four-year term.
The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint one of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with Hampshire County Council appointing a further member. The mayor will also be a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote. Before the mayor takes office, by the unanimous request of all constituent authorities, there will be specific interim governance arrangements for decisions on certain matters, as set out in the instrument. Once the mayor takes office, the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting; that majority must include the mayor or the deputy mayor acting in place of the mayor.
The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. On establishment, the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are reserved specifically for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it does confer, focused on local transport and economic development, are designed both to support the work of the strategic authority before all of the provisions of the Act are in force and to enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.
MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post.
Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary of all the responses has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and, on 17 July 2025, confirmed to Parliament that the statutory test to establish a strategic authority had been met. Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.
This instrument represents clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England. It will make this a reality in Hampshire and the Solent. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing these regulations and outlining their effect. I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although that does not extend quite as far as Hampshire.
We on these Benches recognise the Government’s broader ambitions to pursue devolution and to simplify local government structures. In principle, we are in favour of real devolution in which decisions are taken closer to the communities they affect. However, devolution cannot become simply a process of restructuring for restructuring’s sake; nor can it come at the expense of democratic consent, local accountability or financial clarity.
The first concern is the apparent lack of public support for these proposals. The Government’s own consultation process showed that a clear majority of respondents did not agree that the creation of this combined authority would deliver the benefits claimed for it. During the passage of the then English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we made it clear that the Government’s approach should be informed by local public consent. This raises an important constitutional point: if the Government are creating a new strategic authority with a directly elected mayor, new spending powers and significant transport responsibilities, what justification is there for proceeding where there is such evident public scepticism? Can the Minister explain what threshold of public support the Government believe is necessary for reforms of this scale to command democratic legitimacy?
Secondly, there is the question of the mayoral elections that were postponed from the original date of May 2026 to May 2028. Can the Minister explain why the Government concluded that this postponement was necessary? What assessment was made of the impact that this decision would have on public confidence in the devolution process? The postponement of mayoral elections raises important questions regarding funding, investment and delivery. These devolution arrangements were presented to local areas on the basis that mayoral structures would help unlock funding, strategic transport investment and economic development opportunities. Can the Minister clarify, therefore, what impact the delay to the elections will have on the timing and quantum of these funding allocations and devolved investment programmes, as well as on the implementation of the Government’s wider devolution agenda in Hampshire and the Solent?
Thirdly, there are important questions around accountability and cost. Part 6 of the regulations provides that the constituent councils must ensure that the costs of the authority are met alongside expenditure incurred by the mayor in relation to their mayoral functions. At a time when councils are already under significant financial strain, local taxpayers will understandably ask what tangible benefit they are receiving in return for the creation of another governance layer. Can the Minister set out what estimate has been made of the ongoing administrative and operational costs of the authority? Do the Government expect these costs ultimately to be offset by efficiencies elsewhere in local government?
There are also wider concerns regarding the transfer of powers. These regulations confer transport-planning responsibilities and related functions on the authority, including powers relating to local transport plans and grants. Yet responsibility for day-to-day local services will remain with constituent councils, creating a risk of blurred accountability between the local council, the combined authority and the future mayor. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure clear lines of responsibility, in particular where transport policy decisions affect local service delivery and local budgets?
Finally, these regulations cannot be viewed in isolation from the Government’s wider programme of local government reorganisation. Many residents across Hampshire and the Solent will understandably feel uncertain about what these changes will mean in practice, how power will be exercised and whether local voices will genuinely be strengthened or absorbed into larger regional structures. We have seen proposals for the wholesale reorganisation of the county and district councils into five unitary councils, involving the break-up of several district councils. This is causing significant concern in the local area, particularly in what I would describe as the greater Southampton and greater Portsmouth areas but are, I believe, classified as South West Hampshire and South East Hampshire, where there has been a significant enlargement of those two cities to incorporate significant parts of their rural hinterland.
In particular, in the case of Southampton, there is a splitting up of the New Forest district council and the Test Valley district council, so there will be a double whammy in terms of reorganisation. There is particular concern around breaking up existing communities and the efficiencies of doing all those changes, as well as a concern about scale for some of the traditional county council functions, such as adult social care and children’s services, including whether splitting them into five will deliver genuine efficiencies.
Devolution succeeds when it carries public confidence and when accountability is clear. It is less convincing when structures appear to be imposed from above, with elections delayed and costs transferred on to councils that are already facing acute pressures, and where key decisions on funding are still held by Whitehall. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on these points today; I look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments. I know that he has great experience of dealing with matters such as this. I will pick up each of his points in turn.
The first is the issue of restructuring for its own sake. That is just not where we are with this. We have had extensive negotiation with local government. The proposals that were put forward came to us from local government, and we are acting on those proposals. Anyone who has been involved in local government for as long as I and the noble Lord have been will know that carrying on as we were was not an option: it is not effective or efficient, and it does not deliver best for either the people we serve or the country, so we did need to change things.
The noble Lord mentioned consultation. It is an important point, and I will answer his question in two ways. First, the purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral strategic authority over the proposed geography. It was never intended to be a referendum. A range of views were provided by respondents, including evidence setting out the potential benefits as well as some concerns raised, and the Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State, but the relevant statutory tests set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act were met for Hampshire and the Solent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can she clarify two points?
First, the Minister mentioned the 30-year funding. The point is that, in effect, it has been delayed for two years by a delay to the mayoral elections: obviously, that is of concern locally.
Secondly, in looking at wider devolution, there is concern around the new authorities being a lot smaller than Hampshire county council. We need confidence that they will not end up having higher costs in the provision of the two critical regulatory services of adult social care and children’s services.
Related to that, looking at South East Hampshire in particular, the Southampton-based authority, in effect, two districts are being split up and two half-districts, a full district and a unitary council, are being amalgamated. My geography may not be perfect—it may not be quite half—but this is quite a complex thing. What confidence do the Government and the Minister have that that will be done successfully, without risking any of those key services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take the second point first because, as I hope I conveyed in my winding speech, the proposals we have considered have all come from authorities themselves. They set out very clearly the proposals that they sent forward and, in most areas, there were a number of different proposals. Each one of those proposals had to set out clearly how public services were going to be managed, both through the transition and going forward; if they did not do so, they did not get put in front of Ministers for the decision-making process. So all the proposals that came before Ministers met those criteria. It was for the local authorities to set out how they would do that, and they have done so in the case of Hampshire and the Solent.
On the point about funding, I did say that there will be the 30-year mayoral investment fund, but, in the two years prior to the mayor being elected, the authority will receive a portion of this funding to support early delivery of the growth priorities, and it will also receive other devolved funding for things such as transport and adult skills. I hope that will enable the authority to establish itself as a strategic authority with a strong foundation, which we want, before we have the election for mayor.
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Lemos
That the Grand Committee do consider the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant documents: Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, the UK has engaged with and supported the new Syrian Government to help to build a secure, prosperous future for all Syrians. The UK has long stood by the people of Syria and will continue to do so as they rebuild their country. The pace of change over the past year has been encouraging and the next phase of the political transition is crucial. A stable Syria is firmly in the interests of the region and the UK. This is why the Prime Minister welcomed Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa on his first visit to the UK on 31 March 2026.
On 21 April, this Government laid a statutory instrument to amend the Syria sanctions regulations. The instruments revoked specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, namely, on gold, diamonds, precious metals and luxury goods, including automobiles. This action allows British companies to trade with and invest in these sectors in Syria. Sustained investment in these and other sectors supports both British industry and Syria’s economic recovery. This is the latest step in a series of actions designed to support Syria’s economy and allow UK business to contribute to and benefit from the country’s economic recovery.
In February 2025, shortly after the fall of the Assad regime, HM Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing payments to support humanitarian delivery. This provided essential sanctions relief to Syria at a time when the country faced staggering humanitarian need and a broken economy. Then, in April 2025, this Government revoked a number of sanctions on energy, transport, financial transactions and trade. We also delisted Syrian organisations that had been used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people. This included the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Air and several energy and media companies. The UK was at the forefront of Western countries to lift sanctions on Syria, recognising that enabling the flow of investment into Syria was essential for the country’s recovery and reconstruction.
In parallel, the UK is actively engaged with British companies to understand the barriers to market entry and to support their re-entrance into the Syrian market. During his visit to London in March, Syrian President al-Sharaa joined the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa at a UK-Syria business reception, where he heard investment proposals from a range of UK firms as well as the government support for British companies wanting to invest in Syria.
The amendments made to our sanctions regime last year have allowed us to continue to use sanctions as a tool to promote peace, stability and security in Syria while encouraging respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights. That is why sanctions remain in place on those who committed gross human rights violations by or on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
The amendments that this Government have made to the Syria sanctions regime, both this year and last year, reflect the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. They support the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy and make sure that our regime is up to date. We keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses.
Noble Lords may rightly raise concerns about violence that has taken place in Syria since the fall of Assad, whether in the coastal areas, Sweida or the north-east. I reassure noble Lords that the UK remains committed to holding those responsible for violence against civilians in Syria to account. In December 2025, the UK sanctioned individuals and organisations involved in the coastal violence and Assad-era atrocities to hold to account perpetrators of human rights abuses. Additionally, two individuals who financially supported the Assad regime were sanctioned.
In our engagements with the Syrian Government, we consistently emphasise the importance of protecting the rights of all Syrians and of a genuinely inclusive political transition. Meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities is critical to strengthening Syria’s social fabric and underpinning a better future for the country.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, this SI amends the sanctions on Syria to allow access to UK luxury goods exports. It follows previous steps to lift sanctions on Syria following the fall of the hated Assad regime, which was responsible for appalling atrocities. Its decision to crush the peaceful pro-democracy protests in 2011 plunged Syria into a decade-long civil war that left 400,000 people dead. Half of Syria’s pre-war population was displaced as a result of the war.
In our view, the Syrian people deserve a brighter future, and we all sincerely hope that the next chapter in Syria’s story is more peaceful and prosperous than the previous one. Sadly, the road to peace and prosperity is long and hard fought. We know that Syria under the new transitional Government still faces serious challenges, including some deplorable examples of sectarian violence. I note that lifting the sanctions mentioned in this SI will mean that the UK will move forward in line with our American and European partners. We should continue to work closely with our allies to support Syria’s recovery.
On the situation in Syria today, will the Minister update the Committee on the progress being made by the transitional Government towards a democratic future for Syria? Will he also set out any assessment his department has made of the impact of the conflict in Iran and the Gulf on progress towards what we hope will be a better future for Syria?
We have discussed the very concerning examples of sectarian violence in Syria in recent months. Will the Minister say what engagement the UK has had with the Syrian transitional Government about this appalling violence? In June last year, a church in Damascus was targeted by suicide bombers thought to have been part of the IS-linked Sunni group Saraya Ansar al-Sunnah. The attack killed 25 people and injured 63 others. Will the Minister say what steps the transitional Government are taking to protect Christian communities, in particular, in Syria?
Finally, what support can the international community provide to assist the transitional Government in trying to stamp out these appalling attacks? With those few questions, in general we support the proposed SI.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his support and those questions. I shall deal them, and if there are any outstanding matters I will deal with them by letter, if necessary.
In relation to progress in Syria, the next phase of Syria’s political transition is critical. We want to be sure that the Syrian Government ensure fair representation of diverse communities in positions of authority and consult widely on their planned next steps. This is fundamental to rebuilding and supporting Syria’s longer term transition. We are committed to that, and we were pleased to see indirect elections as a start in that direction.
With regard to the conflict in Iran, as the noble Lord will know, the President of Syria has stayed out of the conflict and kept Syria out of the conflict in Iran, and we welcome that.
On sectarian violence, which he raised, we are concerned about this, and we continue to advocate for the right to freedom of religion or belief for all in Syria. No one should live in fear because of what they do or do not believe. There have been positive steps taken by the Syrian Government in response to the violence in Suwayda in the summer, including President al-Sharaa’s establishment of a committee to investigate the violence fully. We also noted the start of public trials of suspects linked to the violence on the Syrian coast in March. We will follow the judicial process when it resumes in December. We welcome the Syrian Government’s committee being established to investigate, and we particularly welcome the UN independent commission of inquiry being granted access to the area to monitor what is going on.
On the question of protection for the Christian communities, we have been very clear and assertive in the meetings that the Attorney-General and Minister Falconer had with the Syrian President about the crucial role of freedom of religion and belief. We recognise the importance of an inclusive future in Syria for all communities, including the Christian community. Syria is a freedom of religion and belief priority country for the UK, and we continue to use our leadership in multilateral fora to draw international attention to human rights concerns in Syria. However, we do not underestimate the challenges that we face in the transition. We particularly take account of the importance of recognising Syria’s diversity not just in relation to religion, but in relation to the Kurdish community in the north-east of Syria, which the UK Government have played an important role in supporting.
I hope I have answered the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me, but if not, I am sure he will let me know. I thank noble Lords for their frank and open questions in this debate. His Majesty’s Government are committed to keeping our sanctions regulations up to date and to supporting Syria as it takes steps towards a more peaceful, prosperous and hopeful future. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is the future the Syrian people deserve. I hope and trust, therefore, that the Committee will support the regulations.
Motion agreed.
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024-26
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I beg to move that the Committee considers this package of changes to the money laundering regulations. They are aimed at improving the effectiveness of the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime.
The money laundering regulations sit at the heart of the UK’s preventive, risk-based approach to tackling illicit finance. They ensure that the UK’s modern and open economy cannot be exploited by criminals seeking to hide the proceeds of their crimes. By requiring banks and other regulated businesses to take reasonable, proportionate steps to detect and prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, the regulations protect the integrity of the UK’s financial system.
However, as new technologies emerge and criminals find new ways in which to launder illicit funds, the regulations must evolve with them. The changes before the Committee represent a significant update to the regime. They ensure that the regulations are focused on the highest-risk activities and threats to the UK system, while closing loopholes and making the regime clearer and easier to use.
This SI reflects the Government’s determination to ensure that regulations strike the right balance between managing risk and enabling growth, as set out in the modern industrial strategy and the regulation action plan published last year. These changes are part of a broader push under the economic crime plan 2023 to 2026 to build a more effective system that turns the tide on dirty money, including major changes that the Government are making to improve our anti-money laundering supervision regime.
Progress is already being made. In the year ending December 2025, there were 8,486 prosecutions for money laundering as a principal or non-principal offence, a 19% increase compared with the previous year. In the year ending March 2025, £285 million of criminal assets were recovered, a 15% rise compared with the previous year, with £47 million in compensation paid to victims out of confiscation order receipts—a six-year high.
I am aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about the timeliness of this legislation in its 57th report. I am grateful to the committee for its input. However, it is important to recognise the complex nature of some of the measures in the SI. Following the public consultation, further technical discussions with industry and anti-money laundering supervisors were necessary on a number of measures, including in relation to bank insolvency, pooled client accounts and crypto assets. I know the Committee will appreciate the importance of getting the drafting right first time to avoid unintended consequences.
This SI consists of measures on four core themes: making customer due diligence more proportionate and effective; strengthening system co-ordination; closing gaps in coverage; and reforming registration requirements for the trust registration service. There are also additional minor and technical changes that serve to improve consistency and ensure the UK complies with the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard setter on anti-money laundering.
I turn first to the measures on customer due diligence. These aim to ensure the checks required on customers are proportionate to the risks. This includes the removal of the requirement for regulated businesses to apply enhanced due diligence checks on countries listed by the Financial Action Task Force as jurisdictions under increased monitoring. These are countries found by the FATF to have strategic deficiencies in their regimes. The FATF does not require these checks, and permitting more flexibility here recognises that being linked to a listed jurisdiction does not automatically make a customer high risk. The Government estimate that this change alone will generate savings of £178 million per year for regulated firms, which can then be reinvested in higher-value compliance activity that identifies genuinely suspicious activity. Other changes on customer due diligence include important measures to increase the availability of pooled client accounts for businesses with a legitimate need, and to facilitate continued access to banking services for customers in the event of a banking insolvency.
I turn to the system co-ordination. The SI makes changes to strengthen co-operation and information-sharing between anti-money laundering supervisors and other public bodies such as Companies House, which plays an increasingly integral role in the UK’s defences against illicit finance. To close gaps in coverage, the SI brings the activity of selling off-the-shelf firms within the scope of regulated activities. The SI also makes changes to ensure owners of crypto asset firms do not escape fit and proper checks by the Financial Conduct Authority.
I turn finally to the trust registration service. The SI makes a number of changes to close loopholes that could be leveraged to obscure asset ownership, improve transparency of beneficial ownership of trusts with significant UK connections and refine registration requirements for other types of trust.
The implementation of these measures will be swift, with the majority of measures coming into force 21 days after the SI is made. There are limited exceptions to this, such as for the measures on crypto assets, where a longer implementation period is necessary to give regulated businesses sufficient time both to adjust their systems and processes and to align with the introduction of the new financial services regulatory regime for crypto assets, which will come into force in October 2027. Safeguards have been built into the SI to mitigate risks in the interim period.
In conclusion, these regulations strengthen the UK’s defences against illicit finance by better targeting high-risk activity and closing loopholes in the regime. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his expansive introduction to this SI. I wish to express concern about two elements of it: the change in the transactions and the change in the rules on trusts.
This all comes at a moment when the OECD and the Financial Action Task Force are pushing every major jurisdiction in the direction of having more transparency, more openness and more recording. It weakens the UK’s stance when we ask other countries to tighten their own procedures. Both the OECD and the FATF have been pushing countries to make registers of beneficial ownership more complete and more accessible. The message that is being sent is, “We need to widen the net”.
Of course, historically, the UK has held itself up as a leader in this area, however hard it might have been to justify that claim. One of my questions for the Minister is: how does this measure align with the Government’s 2025 anti-corruption strategy, which is supposedly aimed at driving dirty money out of the UK and strengthening national security?
I note that, in December, the City of London Police was awarded an extra £15 million to expand its anti-corruption efforts. The Justice Secretary then said that the UK
“will no longer be a haven for dirty money and dictators’ laundered assets”
and promised action to tackle “professional enablers”— the lawyers, bankers and estate agents who we know have been at the heart of some very murky, shall we say, transactions. As the Justice Secretary said at the time, all too often, the trail of dirty money “leads back” to London; he also noted that that is
“exploited by those Kremlin-linked elites who enable Putin’s aggression”.
I come to my two specific points. The greatest area of concern that I can identify—the Minister alluded to this—is the jurisdictions under enhanced monitoring. The SI replaces high-risk third countries with FATF “call for action” countries in the enhanced due diligence trigger. Therefore, we are picking up only countries that are blacklisted now: North Korea, Iran and Myanmar. Previously, the regulations that applied to so-called grey list countries, which called for increased monitoring, included the UAE, South Africa, Turkey, Nigeria and the Philippines.
UK firms transacting with counterparts in those jurisdictions will no longer be automatically required to imply the enhanced due diligence. This seems to place a great deal of trust in UK companies that do not have a great record; I cross-reference back to what the Justice Secretary said in December about dirty money flowing into London. So, in effect, this SI represents a substantial retreat at exactly the moment when we are supposed to be cracking down on illicit finance.
My second area of detailed concern is the register provisions. New paragraph 23A of Schedule 3A to the 2017 regulations will create the first-ever general sized-based exemption from the trust register. If a trust holds no UK land, has under £2,000 in current assets, has never held more than £10,000 over its lifetime and earns under £5,000 a year, it never has to register.
This anti-abuse rule stops only a single settler, but does not allow for the situation where a wealthy family spreads a pot across a spouse, parents, adult children and who knows who else with each acting as a settler. Regulation 25(3) removes stamp duty reserve tax as a registration trigger, quietly pulling share-owning trusts that would otherwise have appeared on the register out of the scope of the register.
For those who might be listening, stamp duty reserve tax is a 0.5% tax when you buy UK shares electronically, so if a trust buys £100,000 worth of UK shares, it pays £500 in SDRT. It is a tiny tax and a tiny tax liability, but at the moment that triggers the registration. There are express trusts that have to register because of what they are, but there are also a large number of trusts that have to register only because of this provision. Trusts that own UK-listed shares are exactly the kind of structure where transparency matters to cleaning up the dirty money and I think to the general public as well. They are how anonymous foreign money often holds stocks in UK companies. The current position means that any trust active in the UK equity market at any scale has been caught, regardless of where it is based or who set it up, so removing it punches a hole in the net specifically to oversee shareholding trusts. I would like to hear some more from the Minister on how the Government see this deregulation as being any kind of positive when we are trying to crack down on the flows of dirty money that the Government acknowledge are flooding into London.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, these regulations introduce a number of changes following the Government’s 2022 review and the 2024 consultation. I thank the Minister for his clear introduction and for emphasising the important principle of getting things right first time, which partly explains why these reforms have taken time to come in. Some of the changes appear to be sensible. Refining due diligence requirements so that enhanced due diligence applies to unusually complex transactions rather than all complex transactions seems a proportionate step. Likewise, reforming the trust registration service to close identified gaps, while creating an exemption for low-value, low-risk trusts, appears to strike a reasonable balance between maintaining safeguards and reducing unnecessary burdens. To that extent, His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the direction of travel.
However, these regulations also raise a wider and very important question about whether the current anti-money laundering regime is operating as effectively, proportionately and fairly as it should. It is right—indeed, it is essential—that we are robust in tackling money laundering, terrorist finance and financial crime, but it is also essential that the system does not impose excessive costs, drive firms into defensive behaviour or leave innocent customers and legitimate businesses without access to banking services.
The purpose of anti-money laundering regulation is, of course, to prevent crime, but there is growing evidence that the regime can also have a serious unintended consequence, and customers who have done nothing wrong are nevertheless finding themselves excluded from banking services because they are deemed too costly, too complex or too risky to serve. The IEA’s 2024 report, Debanked, argues that under the current regime certain categories of customer may present a higher initial risk profile, but that the cost of establishing whether they are, in fact, engaged in criminal activity can exceed the value of their business to the bank. The result is that some accounts are closed pre-emptively.
The same report also estimates that compliance with anti-money laundering regulations costs UK banks £34 billion a year. That is a very significant burden and one that is ultimately borne by consumers and businesses. That is a huge multiple of the £178 million of savings in compliance costs which I think the Minister mentioned. To put it into context, the sums spent on some of the enforcement agencies are also relatively small. Nearly £100 million is spent on the Serious Fraud Office and £195 million on the Insolvency Service. Police funding, because police are very important in money laundering, costs nearly £20 billion, but that includes the excellent efforts of the City of London Police in this area, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the current AML regime on access to banking services? Are the considerable costs—the £34 billion I mentioned—imposed by this regime being matched by clear evidence of a proportionate reduction in financial crime, drawing on the resources I have described? Will the Government consider a broader review not merely of whether the system is functioning according to its own internal processes but whether it is delivering the right outcomes in the real world and whether the enforcement regime is fit for purpose? The Minister has mentioned the economic crime plan.
I turn to the issue of complexity. An anti-money laundering and sanctions regime must be clear if it is to be effective. I know this from my experience of trying to enforce the law in the business area. Professional advisers and regulated entities struggle to understand their obligations. If this happens, the result will naturally be worse enforcement. I was slightly concerned to hear that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has described the UK sanctions regime as “complex and challenging”. That should give us pause for thought. If professionals whose work depends on understanding and applying the law find the regime difficult to navigate, we should not be surprised when banks and firms respond by taking the safest possible course—even when that means withdrawing services from customers who may pose no real risk.
Can the Minister confirm whether organisations such as the SRA were consulted before these regulations were laid? Can he explain whether the regulations will materially reduce the complexity in the system? Do the Government intend to bring forward wider reforms to make the regime easier to understand, easier to apply and therefore more effective in achieving its core purpose and preventing financial crime?
Finally, I turn to redress. The consequences of debanking can be severe. A person or business whose account is closed may be left unable to receive payments, pay staff, meet obligations or even operate normally. Yet the process for challenging these decisions can be slow, opaque and deeply frustrating. In 2024, the APPG on Fair Business Banking published a report which found that thousands of customers were being debanked each month, often as a result of financial, regulatory and reputational pressures on banks. Shortly afterwards, the Treasury Committee published data showing that debanking-related complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service had risen by 44% from 2023. These figures should concern us as they suggest a more systemic problem.
There are also particular groups that appear to be disproportionately affected: individuals with links to higher-risk jurisdictions, politically exposed persons such as ourselves, small businesses, charities and organisations with international connections—at a time when we are trying to encourage overseas investment. A further group the Government should examine closely is defence companies. A survey by ADS, the trade body representing 1,500 small defence companies, found that nearly three-quarters had struggled to access basic banking services, with respondents citing reputational concerns as a key factor behind that trend. I think I will return to this subject when we come to debate the financial services Bill.
These groups are not necessarily illegitimate customers yet, in practice, they seem to be treated, with the way in which the current regime operates, as though they are inherently suspect. Given the Government’s stated priorities of driving economic growth and increasing defence spending, this is surely an issue to which the Minister should be paying close attention. What consideration have the Government given to the impact of the AML regime on these groups? What steps are being taken to ensure that banks do not respond to regulatory pressure by simply excluding legitimate customers? Does the Minister accept that, if increasing numbers of affected customers are turning to the Financial Ombudsman Service, there is a strong case for looking at not just individual complaints but the structure of the regime itself? I asked that question at the beginning of my remarks.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions. They were many in number so we will scour Hansard and, if there are any that I do not answer, we will of course respond with letters.
I turn first to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; I hope to cover them all, though not necessarily in the order in which she made them. She mentioned enhanced due diligence as far as high-risk jurisdictions, especially the likes of Russia and China, are concerned. The money laundering regulations contain specific provisions requiring enhanced due diligence in relation to geographic risk, which are unchanged by this SI. Firms must still assess and manage geographic risk as part of their overall risk-based approach and apply EDD wherever high risk is identified, in line with the requirements set out in the regulations. Firms will be expected to consult government guidance, such as the National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing 2025, which provides a more UK-focused, nuanced and sector-specific view of the risks. Jurisdictions that present a risk in the UK but are not currently listed by the Financial Action Task Force, such as Russia, China and the UAE, are referred to in the national risk assessment for the UK.
On the changes to the due diligence requirements, some countries on the FATF’s increased monitoring list are recognised as presenting more of a regional risk than an international one, perhaps due to the lack of specialised and international-facing financial sector or strict currency controls. The Financial Action Task Force recommends enhanced due diligence to be mandatory only for countries on the separate “call for action” list, which will continue to be the case following this change.
The noble Baroness asked a question on asset recovery. The 2026-29 ECP will set out the Government’s next whole-system approach to tackling economic crime. It will consolidate key strategies, including the fraud and anti-corruption strategies and the forthcoming anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy, into a single coherent framework for delivery. The plan will focus on strengthening cross-system prioritisation and deliver grip and the long-term funding and capabilities needed to respond to evolving economic crime threats.
On reforms to the trust registration service, the Government are making targeted changes to particular categories of trusts to ensure that requirements to register remain proportionate to the risk. Recognising that registration must be proportionate to risk, certain types of trusts are excluded from the requirement to register on the grounds that they either pose an inherently low risk of money laundering or are already regulated elsewhere.
On the database for trust registration, trusts are frequently established for legitimate and highly personal reasons, such as to hold assets for children or vulnerable adults. The Government believe that placing the information held on the trust register into the public domain would infringe the privacy rights of individual beneficial owners, the vast majority of whom are not involved in any money laundering activities. The information held on the register is available on request to law enforcement agencies and other relevant parties to assist with anti-money laundering investigations. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance between the conflicting demands of transparency and privacy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a point about stamp duty reserve tax. In taking a risk-based approach, the Government consider that the role of stamp duty reserve tax in enabling and detecting money laundering or terrorist financing is not proportionate to the administration placed on trusts by this requirement. The current regulatory framework focuses on those entities with significant links to the UK. The Government consider that a liability to stamp duty reserve tax is not, in isolation, indicative of a significant link to the UK. Entities with significant links to the UK are more likely to be those with significant property assets or liabilities for income, capital gains and inheritance tax. The collection of stamp duty reserve tax is already administered by the Government, and the sale of shares already sits within a broader regulatory environment.
I welcome the approval of the general thrust of the SI from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She raised several issues that I hope I can answer. The money laundering regulations form a core part of the UK’s defence against economic crime. They aim to ensure that attempts to launder money through banks and other regulatory businesses are prevented or detected and flagged to law enforcement. The SI is part of a wider suite of government action on money laundering and economic crime in general. This includes the publication of the National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing 2025 in July 2025, the delivery of two economic crime plans—2019-22 and 2023-26—with a further economic crime plan in the pipeline, the new anti-corruption strategy in December 2025, the new fraud strategy in March 2026 and anti-money laundering supervision reform.
At Budget 2025, the economic crime levy, which is paid by businesses regulated under the money laundering regulations, was raised to generate an additional £110 million for initiatives to tackle economic crime. In my opening speech, I mentioned some of the benefits from what we have achieved and are going on to achieve. The Government have committed to recruit 475 new roles by September 2026 to help clamp down on money laundering; £284.5 million of criminal assets were recovered in the year to March 2025; and there have been nearly 8,500 prosecutions and 3,892 convictions for money laundering as a principal and non-principal offence. This is a big increase, of nearly 20%, from before.
On refusal to open bank accounts, the FCA requires banks to treat customers and prospective customers fairly, to take proportionate and non-discriminatory account opening decisions and to apply the consumer duty across the full onboarding journey. Where someone is dissatisfied with how a decision has been handled, they can complain to the firm and escalate the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which can assess whether the firm has acted fairly. In addition, where an individual is denied access to a standard current account, the UK’s nine largest personal current account providers are legally required to offer basic bank accounts.
I turn to derisking and bank account closure. Economic crime, including money laundering, poses a rapidly growing and increasingly complex threat to the UK’s national security and prosperity. It fuels the serious organised crime that damages the fabric of society. In the face of this threat, the Government believe that due diligence checks, applied proportionately, are an essential tool to protect firms and their customers from fraud and other financial crime, as well as assisting law enforcement in investigating criminal activity.
On the SRA and sanctions, the original consultation received hundreds of responses. The legal sector, as the noble Baroness pointed out, expressed some concerns, but changes made following the technical consultation are expected to address most of those. Financial services and most other sectors have welcomed the shift away from tick-box compliance, particularly the reforms to increase flexibility around enhanced due diligence. Civil society and anti-corruption organisations supported the measures to close loopholes and improve system co-ordination, while expressing measured concern about EDD changes. A recent blog by Spotlight on Corruption stated that most of the measures in the SI were “unambiguously positive”.
On debanking, banking services fulfil a vital role for millions of people. The Government have legislated to ensure customer protection in cases where their bank account is terminated by the provider. Payment service providers are required to give customers at least 90 days’ notice before closing their account under new rules which came into force in April 2026. Providers will also need to provide a clear explanation to customers in writing so that they are able to challenge decisions, such as through the Financial Ombudsman Service.
I turn to the difficulties facing SMEs in accessing a bank account. Access to banking services is obviously vital and the Government have introduced new rules to require banks to give customers 90 days’ notice. These new rules will ensure more transparent and predictable access to banking, and the Government will continue to monitor wider access to bank account provision.
On the difficulties facing charities in accessing a bank account, charities and community groups make a valuable contribution to society. UK Finance, banks and charity representative groups have worked together to provide the voluntary organisation banking guide, aimed at supporting charities and community groups to access banking services. We will continue to monitor wider access to bank account provision while recognising that it is largely a commercial matter.
The noble Baroness mentioned defence companies and their access to bank accounts. Access to finance is a significant issue for defence firms, particularly SMEs. No company should ever be denied access to financial services solely on the basis of its work in the defence sector. The banking sector should never take a blanket approach to any one sector. The Government are actively engaging with banks to ensure that they understand the importance of the defence sector. The FCA has worked to understand why banks might close or reject accounts. Where it has found areas where firms need to improve customer outcomes, the Government expect firms to consider its findings.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I have just been musing on something that the noble Lord said that I think I wrote down correctly: namely, that stamp duty reserve tax liability does not indicate a significant link to the UK. We need to consider that statement in the context of how much UK infrastructure and its essential services have been privatised. I am thinking of water companies and infrastructure construction: indeed, large-scale defence companies in foreign ownership. I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me. I am not necessarily asking for a direct answer now, but what provisions do the Government have to make sure that this weakening of the regulation does not open up the ownership of some of those things that in the current geopolitical climate are of grave concern from a security aspect?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
First, this is not a weakening of the regulation but a balanced approach that we take in this whole area. I will set out the arguments in greater form for the noble Baroness and write to her with the specifics.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I come back to the issue of debanking. The Minister said some very useful things. This is debanking. We talked about defence companies and I look forward to hearing the results of that active engagement. I have talked in the APPG to individual defence companies that have had difficulties in this respect and we need to be supporting our defence companies, especially the innovative ones, given the change in the nature of weapons and so on at this difficult time.
The banks are required to offer basic banking and give 90 days’ notice if they want to close an account. When you are given notice of the closing of an account, you then have to go to another bank and go through the whole system of being approved by it. I have tried to set up a new bank account at Metro to complement my account with one of the major four banks. Frankly, I gave up. Once you are in the system, it is absolutely fine. My bank knows about me: I have been banking there for years. But, if you try to go to a new bank, it is quite complicated: a lot of questions are asked and you give up.
This all links to what the Minister is trying to do, which is to make it easier for citizens who do not necessarily have a good credit record to have a bank account, because it is important for them to be able to operate an account, save, have a card and so on. I wanted to emphasise that point and say that the Government’s work is important. If more progress is made in that area, I should be very interested to hear about it.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
In response to the noble Baroness, there is the 90 days’ notice and the access to basic bank accounts, et cetera. There is ongoing work in this area. I can write to her and let her know exactly where we are up to in all of this, so she will have some awareness of where the Government intend to go.
House of Lords
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from Friday 15 May, of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and, with effect from today, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start Oral Questions today, I thought it would be a good opportunity to remind the House that supplementary questions are to be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. As I have said before, it is called Question Time for a reason. There is no greater favour that a noble Lord can do for a Minister than make a speech rather than ask a question. Equally, the House expects Ministers, when replying to questions, to be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. If we do this, we will have greater scrutiny at Question Time of Ministers and the Government, and more Members will get an opportunity to ask a question.
When supplementary questions are asked, we will move around the House, enabling Members from different Benches to get in. It is unlikely that, if a Member from a particular Bench asked a Question, we would get back to that Bench before other supplementary questions have come from around the House. For example, today, the first Question is from my noble friend Lady Nargund. After my noble friend has asked her supplementary question and it has been answered, we will move to other Benches. I would not normally expect another Labour Member to ask a question until we have heard from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Cross Benches and maybe the Bishops. I hope that is clear and of assistance to the House.
My only intention in standing at this Dispatch Box and making these contributions on a regular basis is for Question Time to be more effective, allowing it to provide greater scrutiny and for more Members of the House to participate in this most important part of our business. I hope all noble Lords will bear in mind these remarks when participating today and in the days ahead.
I draw the attention of the House to the letter sent round by the usual channels on the day of the King’s Speech. The letter makes it clear that this is a self-regulating House. We all individually need to show self-restraint and apply some self-regulation to our own conduct in this House. As I have said before, if we follow the advice and guidance as set out in the Companion, we will not go far wrong. The Companion is the agreed will of the House, which enables us to conduct our business efficiently, effectively, and with courtesy and respect, and, at Question Time, to ask questions and have them answered.
Healthy Life Expectancy: England
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Nargund
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the fall in healthy life expectancy over the last decade in England; and what plans they have to address this.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare an interest as founder and trustee of the charity Health Equality Foundation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the fall in healthy life expectancy over the last decade is unacceptable and underlines the scale and complexity of the challenges we face. Through the 10-year health plan, we are taking action to tackle the drivers of ill health and inequality, including reviewing the Carr-Hill funding formula, to better match resources to need, and creating a smoke-free UK.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. The Health Foundation’s report, Healthy Life Expectancy Trends in the UK: A Watershed Moment, published in April this year, makes it clear that healthy life expectancy is a key measure of our population’s health. The gap between the most deprived and the most affluent areas has grown, with those in the wealthiest areas now living up to 20 years longer. Social determinants of health affect healthy life expectancy—
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
I am coming to that. What plans do the Government have to address the social determinants of health across all government departments, because a single department cannot handle this? How can we close this gap?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend’s assessment of the situation is right. That is why we are working across government on the wider determinants of health, including matters such as the Warm Homes Plan and the homelessness strategy. Alongside that, the 10-year health plan focuses on prevention and narrowing inequalities. The aim is to improve all conditions that will support longer, healthier lives across the whole country.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that one of the key determinants of healthy life expectancy is diet. In the 10-year health plan, the Government have a welcome section on improving the dietary health of the nation. It was therefore disturbing to note in the Telegraph a few days ago a report that said the Government are going to pull back on these commitments. Can the Minister please confirm to the House that the Government have no intention of pulling back on the commitments to improve dietary health?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is an important area of government activity and I certainly do not recognise the comments that were in the Telegraph. I can confirm to noble Lords that we have a whole package of measures to tackle obesity, including restricting junk food advertising on TV and online aimed at children and giving local councils stronger powers to block new fast food outlets. That is still the case.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are scientists who are propagating nonsense that nothing can be done about the obesity epidemic because it is all genetic? These people are saying that the individual cannot be relied upon to take action and that it must be the Government who do it. It is complete nonsense, because the individual can take responsibility—and, indeed, millions are taking injections to do that very thing.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I recognise the noble Lord’s point. We are certainly seeking to give individuals the ability to grasp the opportunity to live well for longer and to support them in their choices. For example, in addition to the points I made to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, we are working on restricting volume price promotions such as “buy three for the price of two” offers on less healthy food and drink.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given that the UK is an outlier compared to similar countries, what work are the Government doing to introduce proactive, preventive health measures, such as routine health MOTs for people, to try to reverse this trend?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I welcome the noble Baroness to her Front Bench on the important matter of health and social care. I am most grateful for her question. We have to be ambitious, which is what the 10-year health plan is doing, in transforming how we tackle the biggest causes of ill health. We are going to take a whole-society approach and a whole-person approach, rather than dealing just with conditions. To the points made earlier, we will be working with individuals—as in the public—and in partnership with business and civil society.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, ever since the Marmot report, we have known that poor-quality employment is a key driver of lower healthy life expectancy. The Employment Rights Act is a big step forward, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that we need action on asbestos removal from workplaces and public places, more boots on the ground in the shape of health and safety inspectors, and a boost to occupational health services in the UK?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right. I very much welcome the provisions in the Employment Rights Act and in other areas; it is a good example of cross-government working. We are pursuing this through Keep Britain Working, which will reduce economic inactivity and focus on workplace health provision, as my noble friend says. I believe that will help address poverty and support healthy working. All those measures will help healthy life expectancy.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, my succinct question is this. Given that healthy life expectancy has fallen despite record levels of NHS spending, with obesity, diabetes and poor mental health continuing to rise, can the Minister explain what specifically will be different in the Government’s approach, beyond simply increasing treatment capacity to prevent more people spending longer periods of their lives in ill health?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I mentioned in an earlier answer, this is a long-term and complex matter which has developed over a number of years. It is totally unacceptable that a woman in Hartlepool, for example, will enter ill health some 19 years earlier than a woman in Richmond-upon-Thames. It is about embedding action on health in policies across government. However, as I mentioned, it is also about redesigning the system around the three shifts: emphasis on prevention rather than on sickness, in particular, but also a move to community-based health services, so that people can access healthcare where and when they need it, and, of course, digital access, too.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, healthy life expectancy is a mix of two data: a more precise life expectancy and a much cruder self-reporting of the stages of health. This leads to a confusing interpretation and therefore is not helpful in policy-making decisions. We have to find and seek better information about healthy life expectancy and the parameters that affect it, to be more effective in policy decisions. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I definitely agree. That is why data, particularly that which drives us to make funding decisions to get funding to where it is needed most, is absolutely crucial. I find the term “healthy life expectancy” more useful than what used to be called “life expectancy”. That, to me, was always only one side of the coin. However, I take on board the point that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, people with a learning disability enter periods of multimorbidity and chronic illness 20 to 30 years earlier than those without a learning disability. What are the Government going to do to stop this national scandal?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I accept that this is completely unacceptable. There are groups, including those the noble Lord rightly raises, which have an even worse healthy life expectancy. As I mentioned, we will be redesigning the system and making the shifts in the 10-year plan, in order that we target the areas and the groups that need it most. I can certainly tell the noble Lord that the most recent prevalence review on mental health will include those who have ADHD, those with autism and those with learning disability. That will take us forward, too.
Lord Babudu (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say how the Government will achieve their shift from treating sickness to maximising prevention, as outlined in their 10-year plan, and particularly how they will shift resources, reporting and other necessary things?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right to ask about maximising prevention, as that will be a key shift in our National Health Service. In addition to the points I have already made, we are working within the NHS to do more to support our approach to prevention. In addition to what I have already mentioned and the system changes, we will, for example, strengthen our vaccination and screening programmes, including by improving the uptake of child immunisation. We are working to improve the detection, treatment and management of the behavioural and clinical risk factors that drive this burden of disease and affect healthy life expectancy.
Local Government Pension Fund
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what changes there will be in the new local government pension fund guidance in relation to (1) boycott or divestment activity, and (2) interaction with funds’ fiduciary duties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s position on these matters remains unchanged from the 2016 guidance, which was amended in 2017. Decisions on boycotts and divestment are matters of UK foreign policy and are for central government, not local authorities. It is not appropriate for local authorities to adopt investment policies that differ from UK government sanctions or foreign policy. Funds’ fiduciary duties are unchanged: they remain responsible for setting high-level investment strategies, the key driver of investment returns.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. In that case, will the Government consider changing the potentially contradictory wording in the draft guidance sent to Local Government Pension Scheme administering authorities for a closed consultation on taking non-financial factors into account in their responsible investment, in case it could be exploited to drive divestment? Will she meet me and other people interested in this matter?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the last point, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness’s contributions on the pensions Bill. If she came to meet me, I would treat it as a teach-in on pensions, so I have no problems with having a meeting. The Government are finalising the investment strategy statement guidance in the light of comments received on the draft circulated for comment, as she said, in December 2025. We are carefully considering all feedback received before publishing the final guidance. We absolutely do not want this to be contradictory. We want to make sure that the guidance is crystal-clear because our position remains unchanged: it is not appropriate for local authorities to adopt investment policies that go beyond, or differ from, UK government sanctions or foreign policy positions. We want to make that clear and we will endeavour to do so in the guidance.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is about local government pension funds and we are discussing guidance; the Minister has just talked about an instruction. Does she recognise that the autonomy of local government ought to be an important principle that we all hold to and that we need to be very careful about how much we limit it? In this respect, including in foreign policy, we are limiting local government autonomy more than happens in most comparable democracies, including the United States.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Fit for the Future reforms do not seek to undermine the fiduciary duty of local pension funds in any way. The responsibility to set investment strategies—the key driver of investment returns—remains with the funds, making sure that they retain local accountability. New LGPS regulations will continue to require administering authorities to include preferences on environmental, social and governance factors in their investment strategies.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on planning to reintroduce the pension scheme for local councillors, which was abolished in 2015 by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, when he was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the other place. Thousands of councillors lost their pensions. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that the noble Lord should apologise to all those councillors, of all political parties, for the loss of their pensions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We took a different view from the previous policy, and I think that was the right thing to do. Many local councillors will potentially give up many hours of their working life to undertake their duties. It is absolutely right that they should be eligible for the Local Government Pension Scheme.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, made valiant attempts to provide clarity on the issue of fiduciary duty and systemic risk during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. She was defeated by the combined opposition, for reasons I still do not understand, but the Government are now saying, I understand, that they are going to take action in the coming months or years. Will the Minister do her best to make sure that it is months rather than years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am always trying to make sure that things happen in months rather than years. It is not as easy as I might have thought it was, but we do endeavour to do that. Regulations on governance, pooling and investment will be laid at the end of this month. They are expected to enter into force at the end of June. These will be made using powers under the Pension Schemes Act 2026, which, as we all know, received Royal Assent on 29 April this year. Guidance on governance, investment strategy statements and pooling will be published in advance of the regulations entering into force.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of so-called lifestyling pension strategies, also known as target date or pathway funds, where savers are automatically moved out of growth assets and into gilts and bonds as they approach retirement, often without actively choosing to do so or fully understanding the impact of the switch?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is very important, and the new system is partly to make sure that the fiduciary duty is undertaken by scheme managers and by the democratic oversight that these schemes have. I hope that all those involved in the Local Government Pension Scheme will take that responsibility as seriously as they always have. I was on a pensions committee for many years. We always took that very seriously because the whole purpose of the scheme is to make sure that people get what they are entitled to once they retire.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that any new guidance in this context will approve the principles stated by the Law Commission in 2014 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2020? Those principles assert that local government investment decisions
“must not involve a risk of significant financial detriment to the fund”.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot comment specifically on the Law Commission principles, but I will write to the noble Lord on that. However, the LGPS, as a public sector scheme, is subject to particularly high expectations on responsible investment—as the noble Lord indicated—and must maintain the highest standards in managing financial risk while retaining local control and displaying transparency in accountability and investment decisions. Therefore, I think the guardrails are in place, but I will come back to him on the specific issue of the Law Commission recommendations.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, the draft guidance includes a paragraph 5.6, which allows schemes, in effect, to accept a lower rate of return for “ESG-related goals”. Does the Minister agree with me that there is a real danger that this could be used for political purposes, as has been mentioned before, as a mechanism to boycott and divest to the detriment of pensioners, despite the Government’s best intentions in this regard?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I made it very clear in my earlier Answer that the Government’s position is crystal-clear on this: that the issues around sanctions are for the UK Government to determine, and pension funds should not deviate from that. However, it is important that, outside of that, we give as wide a remit as possible to local authorities to work with their pension funds to make the decisions that are right for their local areas.
EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to maintain regulatory flexibilities and innovation in fields such as novel foods and precision fermentation in the proposed EU-UK sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to harmonise food-related standards.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as chair of a biotech company.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the SPS agreement, the EU has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. The details of those are subject to negotiation, but we have been clear about the importance of being able to support the use of new and innovative technologies such as novel foods.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, and I am very encouraged by her response, because in this area I have seen first-hand how we have used our innovation and flexibility to create inward investment and a world-leading industry. Can I take from the noble Baroness’s Answer that we are adopting a similar approach to what Switzerland did, which achieved integration while getting carve-outs in key areas—the so-called Swiss cheese approach—and we plan to do that here as well?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Of course, while the negotiations are ongoing—there are regular meetings, and it is reaching an intensive phase—I am afraid I cannot give any detail at all. However, as I said before, as a sovereign country we need to choose to align where it is in our national interest, but at the same time we need to ensure that where we have areas where we believe we need to be able to do our own thing, if you like, we are in a position to do so. But, as I say, those negotiations are still ongoing.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, how will the Minister ensure that farmers, consumer groups and innovators are not only consulted but that their concerns get to directly shape the final SPS agreement? Although I understand that the negotiations are ongoing, is she able to give any kind of guarantee here today that there will be explicit safeguards for novel foods and precision fermentation so that regulatory alignment does not stifle British innovation?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, while negotiations are ongoing, I am unable to give guarantees, but I will say that we are working extremely closely with all those who would be impacted by the outcomes of any SPS agreement, particularly on agri-foods. We meet very regularly with farmers, producers, hauliers and supermarkets—I spent last week in Northern Ireland doing a big business round table with Northern Ireland producers particularly on this—so we are very keen to ensure that we hear from everyone who is likely to be impacted.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to improve food production within the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are working very closely to encourage farmers to work with us, such as by applying for grants such as the SFI. The noble Baroness, Lady Batters, has done a report on food productivity, which is incredibly important if we are to increase our food security, and we are busy looking at the best way to implement many of her recommendations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness and the Government well in these crucial SPS negotiations. The farmers have made a perfectly reasonable request that there should be a transitional period before the new arrangements come into place sometime in 2027. Will the Government look favourably on that request?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I say, we talk regularly to farmers and other food producers. We are very aware that there will be impacts in some areas of realignment, and we are certainly looking at discussing transition periods.
Lord Trees (CB)
Can the Minister reassure the House that the scientific progress and eminence established in the UK on precision breeding, particularly of crops and animals, and in particular with regard to resistance to disease and environmental stressors, will be safeguarded in the current negotiations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we are discussing this area with the EU. One of the approaches that we have around the new technologies, whether you are talking about gene editing or novel foods, is that it is important that we are able to strengthen the UK’s credibility as an innovative regulator, bringing in these new technologies. We are very proud of our scientific community and of the work being done in these areas, and we will continue to support them to the best of our ability.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Under dynamic alignment, will we be able to block a measure which we think is anti-innovation but which the EU asserts is not?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord will be wanting to take part in the debates on the European partnership Bill when it arrives, and I imagine that that is the time for those discussions.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that what the Government are negotiating on SPS could bring quite substantial benefits to the bureaucratic problems met by trade between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. An important component of the negotiations and one of the reasons why we are looking to agree a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, particularly on agri-foods, is making it easier, cheaper and quicker for British businesses to trade with the EU. In the business meeting that I had in Northern Ireland last week, there was a very positive response from businesses regarding the potential opportunities that will arise from this.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the freedom to break out of the ridiculous EU ban on gene editing was one of the greatest successes of Brexit. We passed the law fully supported by the Labour Party, and the Food Standards Agency has developed all the necessary guidelines. Our industry is geared up and raring to go, with products that will benefit people, animals and the environment. Can the Minister assure us that, whatever else the Prime Minister—whoever that may be—sells out in reintegrating the United Kingdom back into the straitjacket of EU bureaucracy, gene editing will not be sacrificed?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said, I am not able to give detailed information around the negotiations because they are ongoing and we do not have outcomes. However, I assure the noble Lord that issues such as gene editing are being discussed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for visiting Northern Ireland, particularly the Balmoral show and fishermen at Ardglass, County Down, last Friday, at my request. She would have heard quite clearly the importance of fishing, whether in the catching or the processing sector. What steps are the Government taking to improve the supply chain sector in order to underpin our reliance on agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the reasons why I go to Northern Ireland regularly and meet with businesses, farmers and people involved in the fishing industry is to understand exactly what the Government can do to support those industries, and that includes the supply chain. It was a good discussion, and I am aware that my colleague, the Farming Minister, is meeting with fishers, fish producers and processers today. I intend to feed back the information that I got to support strengthening that supply chain as well as those who are at the front end of fishing.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I would like to follow up on the point about precision breeding raised by other noble Lords. I seek clarification from the Minister about precision-bred products that are about to enter the approvals process with the Food Standards Agency. I am thinking, for example, of the vitamin D-enriched tomato developed by Professor Cathie Martin at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, whereby one tomato contains the same amount of vitamin D as two eggs; we know that one in five children in this country suffer from vitamin D deficiency, so that could have significant health benefits. I understand from Professor Martin that this product is being submitted for approval in the near future. Can the Minister confirm that approvals will not be held up because of the SPS negotiations and that the Food Standards Agency will be free to approve the product if it deems it appropriate?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My understanding is that it is business as usual and that will continue while the negotiations are going on. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I declare an interest, as my wife’s company in Brussels works on the new genomic techniques that have been filed with the European Commission. The Minister might like, in the negotiations, to treat the question of alignment between our precision-breeding regulations and new genomic techniques from the European Commission as an opportunity for the European Commission to align with the United Kingdom or, in this case, with England. Perhaps we should also bring Scotland and Wales on board to our PBO regulations too.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would be very happy to make the suggestion.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, when answering the question asked by my noble friend Lord Redwood, the Minister mentioned sovereignty and Britain being a sovereign nation. Parliament is also sovereign, so can she confirm that, if major changes are brought in, they will not be through SIs, which cannot be properly debated and amended?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, the European partnership Bill will be coming to this House. That will allow plenty of time for debate on these issues.
Miscarriage Care
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve miscarriage care and support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, miscarriage can have a devastating impact on women and their families, and we are determined that they receive the support they need. We committed in the women’s health strategy to improve care for women, including carefully considering the graded model of care for repeated miscarriage. The National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce will develop the national action plan to improve maternity and neonatal safety and experiences, and it will follow the pending recommendations of the independent investigation by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
There are around 250,000 miscarriages in the UK every year. Following the recent Tommy’s Graded Model of Miscarriage Care report, will the Government now review the specific requirement for women to experience three miscarriages before being able to access the support that could help prevent another loss?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is an extremely important area, and I acknowledge very much that the current situation is not working for women or their families. To emphasise, we very much welcome the report from Tommy’s miscarriage centre at Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, which is about the effectiveness of its piloted model of sporadic or recurrent miscarriage care. I visited them when I first took office and was very taken by their work. I am glad they have reported, and, as confirmed in the women’s health strategy, we shall be looking very closely at this. It will deal with and refer to the point the noble Baroness makes.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, one of the issues that is going to come out this week, through a welcome report on Wednesday, is the effect of heat on pregnancies—on miscarriage and on very small babies being born. It used to be thought that this affected only women in very hot countries, but it now is realised that it affects women subjected to heat they are not accustomed to. In other words, it is just as important here as it could be in the tropics. Given that a lot of science now says that we are entering an El Niño period, which could mean tremendous heat towards the end of this year, what are the Government doing to address this and give women advice about hydration, shade, et cetera?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
There are a number of causes of miscarriage, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, and it is helpful that she brings this point to our attention. In all areas it is very important that we give advice to women about how to manage their pregnancy to—I can only put it this way—minimise the possibility of miscarriage. There is another factor regarding pre-conception healthcare. Of course, many pregnancies are not planned, and our challenge is to ensure good health for women more broadly, in the ways I have described a number of times. But we will be looking at the point the noble Baroness raises.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, given continued reports from women that they are discharged from services following miscarriage with little psychological support or follow-up care, what assessment have the Government made of whether current NHS pathways are meeting the commitments set out in the women’s health strategy? How will the improvements that these women are really looking forward to be measured in the future?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In terms of the renewed women’s health strategy, we are going further than just mental health, important though it is, and taking a new and better whole-life course approach, right from the availability of contraception all the way through to and including menopause, because this is all part of life’s reproduction journey. That will greatly assist. On miscarriage and mental health, we have established mental health services in all areas of the country, which are available for those with pre-existing mental health needs. Bereavement counselling is also widely available for those who experience baby loss. We have also set up maternal mental health services to provide care for those who have moderate, severe or complex mental health difficulties arising from loss or birth trauma.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, baby loss can be one of the most difficult experiences for any person, but especially for NHS staff who work in or around maternity and neonatal care settings. Can the Minister outline for us what specific support is in place in the NHS for staff who experience baby loss that recognises this additional need?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The most reverend Primate makes a very sensitive point, which is of course correct. That is why NHS England has published a new policy to support NHS employees who are affected by baby loss, including paid leave. Our development through the Employment Rights Act will apply to NHS workers, including giving leave from work. We are currently consulting on the detail of this. It is about acknowledging the extreme effect on individuals of losing a baby, no matter at what stage.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to review the graded models of care so that women can be helped, regardless of the number of miscarriages. How will the Government make sure that the needed services, particularly for support as well as investigations, are equitable throughout the country and not subject to a postcode lottery?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The 10-year women’s health strategy is absolutely focused on ensuring that services and support are available equally, no matter where people live. They are variable, and that is not where we want them to be. I have just spoken about the bereavement services, for example. As of January this year, all ICB areas are expected to provide a seven-day-a-week bereavement service across maternity settings. That was not in place earlier, and it gives a sense of the trajectory.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, in an era of more personalised medicine, it is important to note that the care of women who have miscarried is dependent on several factors: the gestation age when miscarriage occurs, the age of the mother, and any existing diseases. It is not just about the number of miscarriages the mother has had when the investigation starts. There should be more personalised aftercare for every mother who loses a baby.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I hesitate to say “of course”, but the noble Lord is of course right. As I mentioned earlier, there is a range of reasons why miscarriage may be taking place. It therefore requires that whole-system approach, but also the life-course approach that I spoke of. I am also glad that through our research arm, the NIHR, we are funding research through Tommy’s, which we have spoken about already, on the beneficial effects of progesterone, to give one example. It is important that we continue, as we are doing, to invest in this research.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I am sure the Minister is aware that Northern Ireland now provides up to two weeks of statutory leave for those who endure miscarriage before 24 weeks. Are she and her colleagues in government looking at that across the UK?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is exactly why there is provision in the Employment Rights Act. We are consulting on the detail of how we can most effectively make it work, but it is quite right to do that, and I am glad we are following this example.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it is widely reported that maternity services are in crisis—in fact, an inquiry is ongoing. Could it be that women suffering from miscarriage get less priority when maternity services are overstretched and as busy as they could possibly be, as we have read? Would it not be better if maternity services were improved once we get the result of the inquiry? Then there would be time and more patience to deal with the women suffering miscarriages, who are probably in the same area of the hospital as the maternity wards.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will report next month, and we are grateful to her for conducting an independent investigation. The National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce and all its expert reference groups—a number of noble Lords are kindly taking part in that, alongside those with lived experience and clinicians—are getting on with the work of how we improve maternity and neonatal services. We will not have to wait long for the noble Baroness’s report. We will look not just at her recommendations but at where there are gaps and, should reference to miscarriage be one, we will of course seek to fill that gap.
Retirement and Participation Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Retirement and Participation Committee
1. That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on the following proposals:
(a) a retirement age for members of the House of Lords; and
(b) a participation requirement for members of the House of Lords.
2. That in relation to these issues the Committee shall consider and report to the House on:
(a) The impact of a retirement age on the House and, in particular, its size and functioning,
(b) The impact of a participation requirement on the House and, in particular, its membership and functioning, and
(c) Options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement including without primary legislation. These options should include transitional measures, where appropriate.
And that the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Anelay of St Johns, B, Blunkett, L, Chandos, V, Hayman, B, Manningham-Buller, B, Mattinson, B, Parminter, B, Sherbourne of Didsbury, L, Smith of Hindhead, L, Suttie, B, Taylor of Bolton, B (Chair).
That the Committee do report by 31 July 2026;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes; and
That the Report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
Conduct Committee
That Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
King’s Speech
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Crawley
Moved on Wednesday 13 May by
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate on the Government’s plans for home affairs, the justice system and the union. I express my gratitude to His Majesty for delivering the most gracious Speech.
I want to say at the outset that, in the 15 months since I came into your Lordships’ House, I have been awed by the amount of expertise, experience and wisdom to be found here. On that subject, I am sure that many noble Lords will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is to make his valedictory speech today after 16 years in your Lordships’ House. We shall miss him. His contributions, like his books, have always been learned, penetrative and eloquent, and he has never been afraid to tell us straight what he thinks. To have leading political historians in this House has added knowledge and quality to our debates. Because the noble Lord has already said this publicly, I am sure he will not mind me referring to the fact that he suffers from Parkinson’s disease. In fact, so does my own father, who was 90 last weekend and is going strong. I am sure your Lordships will all join me in wishing the noble Lord good health, long life and continued happiness.
I also look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Case, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
In opening this debate, I have two themes: the protection of the public and rebuilding trust in our public institutions. We will do this at the national level but we will also work with the newly formed devolved Governments because people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and here in England, expect to see their Governments working together to deliver for them.
We all long for the sunlit uplands where the economy is so strong that there is money to pay for everything that we want and deserve. While I, as a proud member of this Labour Government, firmly believe that we are on the right path to greater economic strength, we all have to accept that at the moment we cannot afford everything that we want to do, so hard choices have to be made. But the lodestar for this Government is these two principles: fairness and opportunity for all people across the United Kingdom.
I start with the protection of the public, because keeping our citizens safe is the most fundamental duty of all. This Government have two objectives: to ensure that law enforcement bodies have the tools to tackle emerging dangers while maintaining the trust and confidence of the communities they serve. This Government are introducing the biggest reform to policing in two centuries, designed to do three things: to respond to rapidly changing threats, to give confidence at a local level that communities’ priorities are listened to and acted on, and to increase democratic accountability.
Crime is evolving fast. Sophisticated criminal gangs are working both here and internationally, smuggling drugs and trafficking people into this country. The online world is making it easier than ever for sexual abusers and online fraudsters to operate—90% of crime today has a digital element, and fraud now makes up nearly half of all crime. We no longer live in the world of “Dixon of Dock Green”. I knew I could make that reference safely in your Lordships’ House, but when I said it to my children I got rather a blank stare. That rather makes the point for me that policing must evolve to tackle modern realities.
The police reform Bill will restore trust in policing. It will strengthen local policing by driving down waste, cutting bureaucracy, empowering officers in their communities and equipping forces with the technology and skills they need to keep pace with crime as it evolves. We are creating the national police service, which will provide a unified response to the most serious crimes, set stronger national policing standards and ensure that there is more consistency in how the police go about their work. While operational independence remains a crucial cornerstone of modern policing, this Bill will ensure that there is greater accountability to the public through their elected representatives. To achieve this, the Home Secretary will set national priorities, improving police performance and ensuring that standards are met across the country.
In addition, as part of protecting the public we must keep up with modern dangers. That is why the most gracious Speech also included proposals to tackle two of the greatest emerging threats: those posed by hostile states as well as by individuals. The tackling state threats Bill creates a powerful new tool to disrupt and deter the activities of state-linked entities and those acting in concert with them. This follows a recommendation made by the independent reviewer. Hostile states sponsor terrorism and create insecurity, so with this Bill we will create a new power for the Secretary of State directly to address organisations engaged in state-linked threats with new criminal sanctions.
But it is not just other countries that represent an evolving threat. We also need stronger protections against individuals who become fixated on violence and can and do cause serious real-world harm. The Southport attack in July 2024 was a stark reminder of why this is needed. We must protect the public from those who plan to commit a mass casualty attack, even if they do not have an ideological motive, so we will introduce a national security Bill with measures to tackle online extreme violence. We all know that exposure to the most graphic and extreme violent material can escalate to planning and conducting an attack. This Bill will criminalise the creation and sharing of extreme violence content, give law enforcement updated powers to take down cyber criminals, including introducing a cyber crime risk order, and criminalise the planning of a mass casualty attack such as the Southport attack.
I turn to my second subject: confidence in our public institutions. This Government are bringing forward several measures to rebuild that trust, to make sure that systems work as they should and to restore fairness and predictability. I start with a subject close to my own heart: our criminal justice system. Whether your Lordships belong to a particular political grouping or to none, I think we can all agree that our criminal justice system is struggling. We might disagree about who is to blame, but we all know that things are not how they should be in a mature democracy. There are grotesque delays in cases being tried, victims who feel that the system is weighted against them, guilty defendants gaming the system and innocent defendants whose lives are ruined by the many months, if not years, waiting to be cleared, by which time they may well have lost their jobs, homes and families.
All these things are closely intertwined: the delays make it worth while for the guilty to string things out, which in turn makes victims feel that the system is broken. Today, the backlog of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is over 80,000. Without action, that backlog will continue to rise beyond the point of recovery, so we must act.
We are implementing a package of reforms. The first element is a record financial investment in the criminal justice system. We are funding unlimited sitting days in the Crown Court this financial year; as many courts as the Lady Chief Justice can give us, we will fund. That is part of a record £2.78 billion settlement for the courts and tribunals this year, which includes significant increases to legal aid to attract and retain the excellent lawyers upon whom the system depends. The second element is improving efficiency. We are working hard to give our response to the second part of the Leveson report but, by way of example, there will be more blitz courts, and we are making greater use of technology and artificial intelligence.
The third element of our package is to introduce modernising reforms. We will do this through the return of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. For reasons that, I must confess, I have been a bit mystified by, this has attracted huge controversy. The reason I am mystified by it is that this Government are doing only what pretty much every other Government have done in the past, including Conservative Governments. Let me explain what I mean. It has always been the case that only 10% of criminal cases are dealt with in the Crown Court. There are obvious reasons for this: jury trial is much slower and more expensive than in the magistrates’ court, which is why every Government reserve jury trial for the most serious cases—and what is meant by “the most serious cases” changes over time. Let me give a little illustration.
Picture the scene: on a sunny morning in 1971, a 23 year-old barrister set off to the Birkenhead Quarter Sessions to conduct his first jury trial. The name of that young man was Alex Carlile, known to this House as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and, as some of your Lordships know, my noble kinsman. In case your Lordships are wondering why I have embarked on this recounting of ancient history, the reason is this: the offence for which his client was being tried was driving with excess alcohol. It was a breathalyser case. I think your Lordships will now have the point. We do not try breathalyser cases in the Crown Court any more; they go only before the magistrates. As for the reason for that, I can do no better than to use the words of the late, great Gareth Williams QC, Lord Williams of Mostyn. In 1999, speaking in your Lordships’ House when he was Minister of State in the Home Office, he said:
“Things are not set in stone. Your Lordships will remember the introduction of the breathalyser provisions and the right to trial by jury. I remember that with perfect satisfaction and happiness because it kept many of us going in south and west Wales for many years running completely bogus defences—I can say this now—about whether the policeman was wearing his cap and, if not, whether it constituted full uniform. Eventually, the right to elect trial in breathalyser cases was wholly removed and transferred to the magistracy. One cannot set these matters in stone; one must take a sensible balance and build in judicial safeguards”.—[Official Report, 19/5/1999; col. 366.]
The party that had removed the right of jury trial for these cases was, of course, the party opposite. I do not say that to criticise them, but merely to make the point that this is what Governments do to keep up with modern life. They just move the line as to which cases are tried in the magistrates’ court and which require the greater time and resources of judge and jury in the Crown Court. We are a Labour Government. We did not come into office, and I did not come into your Lordships’ House, to remove jury trial. This is a sensible and proportionate response to the changing nature of criminal offences and the way in which they are prosecuted in the public interest, because the modelling is clear: investment and modernisation alone are not enough. We also need to reform.
I turn to the better and fairer immigration and asylum system that we promised the British people. We will not hesitate to remove those with no right to be here and ensure that our immigration rules are enforced. But I also say that this Labour Government will never shirk the responsibility of providing refugee status to those fleeing war and persecution. We will continue to meet our international obligations, while encouraging those who want to build a life in the UK to do so via safe and legal routes. What we see on our television screens unfolding in the English Channel is grotesque—vulnerable adults and children being exploited and put in danger—and it must stop.
We have made a good start: we have cut £1 billion from the asylum Bill, and we have increased the return of illegal immigrants by 31% since coming into office. However, it is absolutely clear that we cannot solve this by incremental measures alone; the task is too urgent and too big. The immigration and asylum Bill will introduce the most significant changes to the immigration system in a generation. It will restore order and control by tightening the application of Article 8, ensuring that “family life” means only the core family unit and addressing the misuse of the modern slavery framework. It will speed up the removal and deportation of illegal migrants and foreign criminals, as well as reducing the pull factors driving illegal migration.
We will create a new independent appeals body and a system that is fair and fast and commands public confidence, which will ensure the immediate forced removal of those who have exhausted all their appeals. We will ensure that refugees who do integrate, contribute and play a full part in our society will be able to come off basic protection and settle more quickly. These proposals will make our immigration system fair and fit for purpose and allow us to focus on those who genuinely need support.
A failure in accountability of those who serve or should serve the public has worn down public trust. His Majesty confirmed the carryover of two Bills designed to right past wrongs. The first will fulfil our manifesto commitment to get the public accountability law on the statute book. We are determined to deliver for the Hillsborough families after 37 long years, as well as the victims of other tragedies where the state was at fault, including infected blood, Horizon and Grenfell.
The Bill will introduce a duty of candour and individual accountability, and it will require honesty and frankness when things go wrong. It will put powerful new obligations on public bodies and officials to help investigations to get to the truth, and it will make sure that there is parity of arms at inquests, representing the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a decade. Taken together, the measures in this Bill will give individual citizens real and meaningful ability to challenge the state.
His Majesty confirmed the return of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. This Bill is also designed to rebuild public trust, as well as ensuring dignity for the families of victims. Many of those families have suffered so much down the years and simply want answers about what happened to their family members killed in the Troubles. We will therefore reform the current system of addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. This includes measures to enhance next-of-kin participation, safeguard witnesses, including our veterans, and bolster confidence in the reformed legacy commission. This is a proportionate and workable approach to addressing this dark period in our history.
I know that, in the best traditions of your Lordships’ House, the debate to follow will allow for a full and interesting discussion of this Government’s agenda. I would welcome discussion with any of your Lordships, from whichever party or group, about any or all of these plans. This Government are keen to draw upon the experience and wisdom in this House, about which I spoke at the beginning of this speech. Where we can achieve consensus, we will do so. The most gracious Speech set out this Government’s approach to keeping the public safe and restoring trust. We are determined that, by doing so, we can build a better future for us all.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her speech outlining the Government’s legislative programme for the new Session in the area of justice and home affairs. I was particularly impressed, if I may say respectfully, that her speech managed both to defend her husband and to revive “Dixon of Dock Green”, a combination not often encountered in modern criminal justice policy. Like her, I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, whose route to high office in the Church was assured when she was ordained in Liverpool.
I also look forward, of course, to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Case, whose route to becoming Cabinet Secretary was assured when he had as his doctoral supervisor, I understand, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield. Like the Minister, I also pay tribute to the noble Lord in what I understand is to be his valedictory speech. He is one of the House’s greatest historians and constitutionalists. His wisdom and scholarship have enriched our political life for many years. According to Wikipedia, which might be accurate on this point at least, when created a life Peer he said:
“I hope I can help the House of Lords a bit on constitutional matters. I’ll certainly give it my best shot”.
I think I speak for the whole House when I say that there are few, if any, better shots.
I am going to focus on the justice and constitutional aspects of the programme, and my noble friend Lord Davis of Gower will have more to say about the Home Office and immigration matters. Before turning to the substance, I cannot help observing that the gracious Speech is admirably confident in declaring what His Majesty’s Government “will” do; in current political circumstances, a little more conditional drafting might have been prudent. One is tempted to suggest that “may” rather than “will” is currently the operative auxiliary verb, because so much of the programme before us bears the unmistakable imprint of the current Prime Minister’s constitutional philosophy, although I doubt those words have ever crossed his own lips.
It is an approach to policy and political life in which the instinctive answer to almost every social problem is not stronger institutions, stronger families, stronger civic culture or greater democratic resilience but instead another statutory duty, another regulator, another criminal offence or another extension of state authority. This Government and their programme speak the language of moderation and pragmatism, but beneath it lies an unmistakably lawyerly belief that society can be reordered from Whitehall by legislative design and managed compliance. It is a vision in which politics becomes litigation by other means, and in which the state readily, steadily and constantly expands, while responsibility is transferred upwards from citizens and communities to officials, regulators and courts.
Before turning to the matters that divide us, I want to turn to a matter which ought to unite us. His Majesty chose to address antisemitism in, I think, the second or third paragraph of the gracious Speech, and with respect, he was right to do so, because the fight against antisemitism goes directly to the themes of justice, public order and national cohesion which underpin this debate. I am sure the whole House joins me in recording our gratitude to His Majesty for his visit to Golders Green last Thursday. It demonstrated moral leadership, solidarity and an understanding that the rise in antisemitism is not some marginal or community-based concern but a direct challenge to the values and cohesion of this country, and that challenge is increasingly visible on our streets.
On Saturday afternoon, London witnessed two very different marches. One march was under the banner of Palestinian activism and the other was addressed by Tommy Robinson, but there was one deeply disturbing point of convergence between them. At the first march, a banner declared, “End Zionist control of the UK government”. At the second march, a banner demanded, “End Zionist occupation of Britain”. They were different crowds and different political tribes, but it was the same ancient poison, the same conspiracy theory, the same obsessive belief that Jews—or Zionists, used as a euphemism—secretly control Governments, societies and nations. The far left and the far right now increasingly resemble two mirrors facing one another, reflecting the same hatred back and forth in slightly different language. One wraps it in the rhetoric of anti-imperialism, the other in the rhetoric of nationalism and racial grievance, but beneath both lies precisely the same antisemitic conspiracy theory.
The overnight news is no better. Police are investigating another violent physical attack in Golders Green in the early hours of this morning. The Metropolitan Police has asked the organisers of the Nova festival exhibition to take down the main sign and keep the location a secret—not as censorship but as a protective measure. The fact that an exhibition commemorating young people murdered at a music festival should require covert policing and counterterrorism precautions before it can safely open in London in 2026 is a disturbing reflection of the climate we face in Britain today.
His Majesty the King has, as I said, shown leadership and moral clarity. We now look to the Government to show leadership and legislative clarity. That means moving urgently to proscribe the IRGC in full. Last Thursday, in the other place, the Security Minister said that the Government would bring forward fast-track legislation “in the coming weeks”. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify later tonight precisely when the Government intend to bring this legislation before Parliament and whether it is intended to commence the Bill here or in the other place.
At the centre of the Government’s programme for justice reform is the courts modernisation Bill. We have been consistently told that these measures are necessary to tackle court backlog and restore confidence in the criminal justice system. We on these Benches do not dispute the seriousness of the backlog. Victims are waiting years for justice and defendants are left in limbo. There is a real risk that cases collapse under the weight of delay. But the fact that a problem is serious is no justification for some of the alarming solutions proposed.
A jury trial should not be viewed as an administrative inconvenience. It is a central safeguard of liberty in our constitutional order. The right to be judged by one’s peers has endured precisely because it protects the individual from the unchecked power of the state. It commands public confidence in a way that no technocratic reform or efficiency drive ever can or will. Indeed, the strongest arguments in favour of jury trial have come from the Government. The Prime Minister, in his previous incarnation as the Director of Public Prosecutions, said:
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance”.
Likewise, the current Lord Chancellor was described as finding juries in his 2017 review into racial bias in the criminal justice system to be
“the only stage … without racial bias”.—[Official Report, 2/12/25; col. 1750.]
He recognised that juries are not obstacles to justice but defenders of fairness and equality under the law.
One point that the Minister did not deal with but that I would ask the Government to think about is this: we have a judiciary in this country of the highest quality, but it is not reflective of the society in which we live. At the moment, we, so to speak, get away with it in our criminal justice system because juries are representative. If we do away with juries, and defendants walk in and see a judge and perhaps two magistrates who do not look like them, nor come from where they come from, speak like them or share the same life experiences, that will to lead to demands for different ways of appointing our judges and, perhaps, for radical reform of our judiciary. I gently ask the Government to think about this very carefully. We might not get what we wish for.
These same figures, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, who in the past were so confident in the strength of the jury system, now ask us to accept that juries have become barriers to efficiency. Under this Government, therefore, the proposal reflects not only a change of policy but a collapse in principle.
Let me take on the Minister’s point about the change of offences that go to magistrates and juries. Of course there have been changes over the years, but we are talking about serious cases. Under these reforms, offences that attract sentences of up to three years’ imprisonment may be heard without a jury. Many sexual assault cases will fall within scope, and fraud and theft cases may be heard by a judge alone. Those, if I may pick up the Minister’s phrase, are among the most serious cases. For the Government to suggest that these offences no longer warrant the constitutional safeguard of a jury trial is a profound shift in the balance between citizen and state; it reflects a stripping away of individual citizens’ rights.
That is particularly the case because one of the most alarming elements of the Bill is its retrospective effect: its impact on those already awaiting jury trials. Defendants who have already exercised their lawful right to elect a Crown Court trial now find that right about to be removed, according to the Government’s Bill, after the fact. Parliament is being asked to change the rules midway through the process for individuals who made their decisions based on the law as it stood at the time. That is unfair, and it will be seen throughout the country as profoundly unfair.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this debate is that the evidence, which the Minister did not really touch on, increasingly points against the Government’s case. Last week the chief executive of His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service confirmed that cases are being resolved at a faster rate than forecast because sitting days have increased and courts are operating more effectively. Lifting the cap on judicial sitting days—which the Government should have done when they came into office and not only after the Lady Chief Justice asked for it—has begun to reduce backlogs in key regions across England and Wales.
Of course we need more judges and more IT, but we also need more courts actually capable of sitting. Last week 10% of courts capable of sitting did not sit because there are such problems with the court service and the way courts have been maintained. These are long-running problems, but the answer is not to abolish juries; the answer is to deal with the criminal justice system.
There is a fundamental lack of legislative coherence at the heart of the Government’s policy. When justifying these reforms, the Lord Chancellor claimed that defendants are “gaming the system” by electing Crown Court trials for relatively minor offences. The Minister for Courts in the other place asked:
“Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury?”
Well, I can answer her question: yes, her own Government think that. The Government’s Crime and Policing Act, which received Royal Assent a matter of weeks ago, restored low-value shoplifting offences to the ordinary either way regime, thereby preserving the defendant’s right to a trial by jury in the Crown Court for low-level shoplifting offences. Why were these low-level shoplifting offences sufficiently serious to justify a jury on an either way offence, whereas now we are told that they are so minor that jury trial should be removed?
What makes all this especially troubling is that the basis for this policy has fundamentally changed. When it was introduced, we were told that it was necessary to reduce the backlog; it was all about efficiency. The Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society and the Bar Council said, “Where is the modelling?”, but the modelling was not there. Now we are told something completely different: that it is a matter of principle. Sarah Sackman told the House of Commons that even if there is no backlog, this is what the Government are going to do. It is no longer being advanced as an emergency administrative response to pressure on the courts; it is being advanced as a matter of constitutional principle.
If this really was a principled constitutional change to the relationship between citizen and state, between accused and jury, and between the Executive and the administration of justice, why was there not a word about it in the Government’s manifesto? Indeed, even if the reason for it was to reduce the backlog, I have to tell the Minister that, when we sat on different sides, we were constantly being berated about the backlog by what was then the Opposition—the backlog was not a state secret. So, even if this is an answer to the backlog, it still should have been in the Labour Party’s manifesto. This is an emergency response. I do not know whether it has come from No. 10 or from the Attorney-General. I doubt, however, it will survive under any future Prime Minister.
This matters. The electorate were given no indication whatever that a Labour Government intended to dilute or curtail long-standing rights to trial by jury. Constitutional change in this country derives its legitimacy not merely from parliamentary arithmetic but from democratic consent. It is precisely in circumstances such as these that your Lordships’ House has, I suggest, a particular constitutional duty: not to frustrate government for the sake of opposition but to require Ministers to justify profound constitutional change openly, candidly and before the electorate, rather than presenting it after the event as an inevitable technocratic necessity.
The right to jury trial has endured for centuries because it protects the liberty of the citizen against the power of the state. Once diminished, it will not easily be restored. This House should therefore approach this element of the Government’s programme with the utmost caution. That is assuming, of course, that the next Prime Minister—who might be with us in a matter of weeks, and surely within months—does not conclude that Mr Lammy’s earlier instincts on these matters were rather sounder than his later ones and quietly leave these proposals where they belong, in what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has taught us is the long catalogue of constitutional mistakes wisely abandoned before they could do lasting harm.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I will restrict my remarks to the Government’s proposals for policing. At the start of the last Session, many of us hoped for a serious reforming agenda after too many years in which our public services stagnated and, in too many respects, went backwards. Nowhere is this truer than in policing. We therefore await details of the police reform Bill with great interest.
These Benches agree with much of the direction set out in the recent White Paper, particularly the ambition to strengthen neighbourhood policing and address the workforce, skills and training issues that are central to a successful, modern police service. This Bill provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity for long-overdue structural change, but will this ambition be matched by the necessary political will? I sincerely hope so.
We are on our sixth Home Secretary in six years. Reshaping policing requires sustained commitment, not a revolving door of leadership. Do the Government have the focus to carry through bold reform when the Home Office is consumed by so many other priorities?
The real test of the Bill is whether it will improve investigations, deter lawbreaking, and give witnesses and victims a better response when they turn to the police for help. It must also remain faithful to the core principles that have underpinned British policing for generations: policing by consent, local accountability, impartiality, and restraint. That is the standard against which it will be measured.
Much attention is focused on plans to merge forces and create a national police service, but structural reorganisation will mean little if we ignore the reality that front-line policing demand routinely exceeds capacity, and policing is permanently struggling to cope. For too long, politicians have colluded in the fiction that all demand can be met, when everyone on the front line knows that it cannot. The burden is pushed downwards, to be absorbed by officers and staff who must find their own ways to ration resources, while Ministers avoid confronting those trade-offs openly.
This has to stop. We need an honest, public conversation about what we are asking the police to do and what we are prepared to fund. Innumerable chief constables have told me that their key ask is greater clarity about the role and mission of the police. New responsibilities must come with the funding to match, and when difficult choices are made, they must be owned collectively, not pushed down, as now, on to local forces.
The Government want a more active Home Office setting national priorities. But the question remains: who will decide what is to be deprioritised? What politician will admit that without significant extra investment, some tasks can no longer be done to the same standard? If everything is prioritised, nothing will be. Can the Minister tell us how much of the investment for these new national structures is expected to come from savings within policing itself?
The Liberal Democrats’ priority is to protect local policing. We want every community to have guaranteed access to a police counter, not in buildings resembling Fort Knox that alienate the public. We want hubs in familiar places, such as supermarkets and post offices, so that people can report a crime, get advice, or pass on their concerns as they go about their daily lives. In too many areas, policing is verging on irrelevance, called upon only in the direst of emergencies. We must restore the Peelite principle of the police as part of the community, not a distant ancillary service.
We welcome the end of the failed police and crime commissioner experiment, but its replacement must be better, not just different. Shifting powers from one underscrutinised politician to another is no answer. Policing must be accountable to the communities it serves, and day-to-day operations must be protected from political interference. We must not drift towards a model where the police answer more to Whitehall than to local residents, even as we sensibly reduce duplication and improve the sharing of data and intelligence.
In relation to police use of AI, the belated promise of a worldleading regulatory framework is very welcome, but in one of the most heavily surveilled democracies, it is surely the minimum the public should expect. Regulation is still lagging far behind the technology, even as the Home Secretary urges forces to adopt AI at pace and scale. Public anxiety about a drift towards a surveillance society is real, and international experience shows how easily such tools can be misused. Troubling early signs of misuse here at home only reinforce that risk. We will therefore press hard to ensure that any new legislation is genuinely robust and enforceable.
Finally, I share the concern about the increasing amount of ping-pong—but when the only way to have sensible ideas properly considered is to press them repeatedly, those of us who want to contribute constructively are left with little choice. In the debates on the last policing Bill, we repeatedly argued for proper safeguards on facial recognition, only to be told, time and again, that it was premature. Weeks later, the Home Office proposed those very safeguards. I am delighted the case was finally accepted, but I hope it does not become the pattern. The public want us to work across party lines to improve public services, especially in the fight against crime. They do not want point-scoring; they want visible improvements in policing and public safety. If the Government are serious about reform, they must show it not only in what they say and how they legislate but, crucially, in how they listen.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, before the full debate begins—I know your Lordships are looking forward to a full and fascinating debate—I note that we have 77 speakers today, and therefore the advisory speaking time has been set at four minutes. I therefore encourage your Lordships to stick to that, to give the later speakers a fair crack of the whip and so that we can achieve a reasonable rising time. I know that being a Whip is not a path to popularity, but I hope your Lordships will forgive the Whips if we feel the need to intervene if people exceed the advisory time beyond what the House thinks is reasonable.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Case and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
I am not looking forward to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, not because I do not think it will lighten our spirits and we will enjoy his wisdom, but because it is his final speech. I for one will miss him very much from this Chamber. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, of the King’s visit to Golders Green, which was endorsed by the House. I will pick up another thing that the King has recently done, for those who missed it: he endowed on Peter—the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—the Order of the Garter. His qualities have been noticed not just in this House but beyond.
In the gracious Speech, I noticed 17 references to “security”. As the former head of the Security Service, more regularly known as MI5, I thought that was quite a lot and I welcomed it. I will just say a few things about the current national security threat, derived largely from the current head of the service in a speech he made in October.
Russia is attacking us on all fronts through cyber, influence operations, exploring our underwater cables, drone attacks, sabotage and murders, as well as conventional espionage. China is engaging in cyber, in influence operations and politically; it is seeking to exercise influence over the diaspora and is stealing our technology. Iran is sponsoring violence and terrorism and exacerbating antisemitism at a substantial level. Additionally, al-Qaeda and ISIS are still there. While we had hopes that Northern Ireland was peaceful, we had a car bomb there last month. Since I retired, we have also had extreme right-wing terrorism.
The most frightening thing—again deriving from the October speech—is that last year, 235 people were arrested for terrorism in this country, one in five of whom was under the age of 17. I touch on my sadness that the gracious Speech did not refer to under-16s on social media.
I will also say a little word in defence of Prevent at this stage. It is often pilloried; obviously, there was the most recent and notorious case of Southport. However, without it, the efforts to stop young people getting on to violent tracks, whether terrorism or extremism, are likely to be less successful.
I turn to tackling antisemitism and growing threats from states, protecting people from extreme violence and improving cyber defences. I think the whole House would applaud those aims of the Government and we look forward to the legislative frameworks for doing that. I have just one word of caution. The solutions to these problems will come not from law but from people—from the men and women from my organisation and the police, and more broadly—seeking to stop it.
This brings me on to Hillsborough. Who can dispute that the public deserve trust from their public servants? Of course they do. Who can dispute that the families concerned in this and other cases have suffered enormous anguish, from not just the event but the aftermath and the treatment of it? Therefore, the concern I am going to raise is difficult to raise because it sounds unsympathetic. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, as I am going to go slightly over four minutes; I know this is a bad precedent, but I need to say these things. Nor is it the case that I think my former service should not expect accountability and oversight—that is why we sought a parliamentary committee long before we got it. However, there are three problems here and the House will need to work hard to ensure that this Bill does not compromise national security.
The three problems, briefly, are these. The first problem is that this will take people off current work, plus lawyers, to deal with the requests. How much and how extensive is hard to judge, but it will remove people from front-line work. The second problem is that we get a great deal of intelligence from foreign services. They may be cautious about sharing that with us if it cannot be protected. Thirdly, human sources who work for us at risk of torture and death may be—it all depends on the detail—reluctant to offer their services if they think that their identity will be compromised. That said, I know this House will consider this important legislation very carefully and scrutinise it closely.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to His Majesty’s gracious Speech today. I too look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Case, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
We face serious challenges at home and abroad, and I continue to pray for those who carry responsibilities of office as we seek to meet these challenges together. At my installation at Canterbury Cathedral, I spoke about the presence and importance of hope. As a Christian, I believe that we have hope because we have a God who walks with us, even when circumstances feel overwhelming.
The work of integration has never been more urgent. We have witnessed a deeply concerning deterioration in intercommunity relations. I therefore welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to do more to protect the Jewish community following the recent appalling attacks. In doing so, I wish to assure both Jewish and Muslim communities of my support as they face the unacceptable rise in hate crime, intimidation and hostility. The Church of England has long held that the right of all people to practise their faith without fear must be protected. We have also seen religious identity misused to intimidate and divide. Let us be clear: to follow Jesus Christ is to love your neighbour as yourself, to love without exception and to seek the flourishing of all.
We must address the pressures facing people and communities today, while ensuring that systems for new arrivals are fair. We must undertake the harder task of bringing communities together, of making strangers neighbours, and of ensuring that all who reside here have both the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute to our shared life. This becomes far more difficult if those refugees for whom we hold responsibility lack clarity about whether or when they may be required to return to their country of origin. We embed insecurity rather than stability when those seeking British citizenship are put through a decade-long game of immigration snakes and ladders.
As human beings, we are naturally drawn to those who resemble us or reinforce our views, particularly in times of adversity and scarcity, yet such instincts do not lead to a flourishing society. Our debate on immigration can, however, be a source of hope: that attitudes can change, that fairer societies are less divided, and that daily life alongside people of different backgrounds reduces fear and suspicion. Through its presence in every parish across England, the Church of England helps build communities where people know and care for one another. In doing so, it builds bridges and fosters relationships across lines of race, faith, class and more. In these acts of mutual care, the seeds of belonging are sown. It is this patient work of integration and community building that policy-making must support. My prayer is that we will see a renewal of hope in our country, a rejection of hatred and division, and a turning towards one another. This is where true pride in our nation is found.
There is much more in the gracious Speech that I cannot address today. However, I note the announcement of a draft conversion practices Bill and remind the House that, in 2017, the General Synod of the Church of England voted in favour of such a ban. I urge the Government to consult widely and wisely on this draft legislation, so that meaningful progress can be made.
Finally, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for his service to this House and nation. He has been a source of wisdom, particularly on Church-state relations and our constitutional settlement. I thank him for placing his expertise at the service of this Chamber and I wish him a happy, peaceful and well-earned retirement.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, after a week of fixation on personalities and personal ambitions, we can now return—I almost said “to sanity”—to the process of policies and the political direction of the Government. I am sure that they will want to make sure that their policies do not hinder but promote growth, and that the rewards of that growth go in a fair fashion to those who create the wealth—that is, the workers and the legitimate workless—not to those who choose not to work.
Having said that, I have two points to make about today’s debate. First, I very much welcome the immigration and asylum Bill. I am reassured by the present Home Secretary—I think she is probably the best for, say, 20 years. She recognises the problems that have been caused by uncontrolled immigration, not least under Prime Minister Boris Johnson. For two decades, it has caused considerable alienation among the public, not because they are all racists but because of endlessly increasing demand on public services at a time when the provision of public services, particularly during austerity, has been reduced continually. The problem has not been created by Nigel Farage and Reform. They have stepped into a vacuum which successive Governments have allowed to exist. They have used it, but they did not create it. I think our present Home Secretary recognises that, and I therefore fully support her efforts to finally tackle some of the worst excesses of the problem.
Secondly, I welcome the national security Bill. I remind the House that we are approaching the 20th anniversary of the biggest terrorist attack in our history: the liquid bomb plot to murder several thousand people in aeroplanes across the Atlantic. That plot was foiled by the vigilance of our security services, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and here I must mention the noble Lord, Lord Evans.
It was a great thing that plot was foiled, but there were unintended consequences. The terrorists have not gone away. As one famous terrorist once said, they adapted: they shaped new, simpler and less vulnerable methods of murder—less vulnerable to detection—by individual acts of terrorism, using low technology such as knives, guns, cars, arson and opportunistic attacks on innocent civilians. They also targeted, in particular, the primary source of their hatred: the Jews—not just Israel. Anybody who can should look at the suicide videos which, fortunately, were ultimately of no use 20 years ago; they targeted the Jews. It is not just the state of Britain or the United Kingdom or Israel but individual Jews here and throughout the world. That is driven, of course, by extreme Islamism but it is now being succoured by the extreme right and, increasingly, the extreme left of politics. That should not surprise us. The extreme left; nationalism; the extreme right; extreme socialism; those were the intrinsic elements of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party of Deutschland.
When it is embedded like that—this is my final point—within civil society, it cannot be countered by the security services alone; that can be done only by civil society. It was defeated 80 years ago by the united resolution of the whole of the British people, including their united civil resistance to the poison of antisemitism at home. We need that again and urgently.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I realise that everyone has a great deal to say in this debate. Unfortunately, the advisory time is four minutes. There are a significant number of speakers. If everyone goes even half a minute or up to a minute over, it will really knock on the time. Can I please ask all noble Lords to stay within the four minutes allocated?
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wolfson has done the House a service, not only through what he said and the way that he said it but by saving me from saying it all over again. I agree with every word that he said.
I could also spend the entirety of the time allotted to me in this debate, and a lot more, speaking about the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—whose valedictory speech we will hear very shortly—thanking him for his contribution to public understanding of our constitution through his books, his broadcasts, his journalism, his lectures and his participation among us here in your Lordships’ House. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, I congratulate him on becoming a Knight of the Garter, a fitting recognition by His Majesty of his achievements and his service to the country over many years. I should perhaps also add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has written to the effect that:
“Whereas every other Western democracy has codified its system of government, Britain’s constitution is a mish-mash of laws and conventions, customs and courtesies. Britain sees no need for the legalistic … writing down its constitution in one place. Instead it relies on the notion that its politicians know where the unwritten lines of the constitution lie, and do not cross them. ‘The British constitution’”,
he said,
“‘is a state of mind’”.
He famously described this as the “good chaps” theory of government, which requires a sense of restraint all round to make it work. He said:
“We have long assumed that those who rise to high office will be ‘good chaps’ … who understand the rules and choose to observe them. That has left us vulnerable to those who are not ‘good chaps’ but are willing to smash those rules for their own advantage”.
I will not divert myself down my anecdotage to refer to the Prorogation case, in which I appeared for Sir John Major to intervene on behalf of one former Prime Minister and leader of my party against the then current leader of my party and Prime Minister, but suffice it to say that the case described very neatly what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, was writing about. Many years ago, Professor Dicey wrote that if you break a convention, you will end up breaking the law. In 2019, that prediction was made good.
Whether one uses the expression “good chaps” or something else, there never was a golden age of politics in our history. It is a history of disagreement and occasionally of violent conflict. However, for most of the last few centuries, we have all understood each other. That attachment to commonly accepted rules, to passionate but well-argued debate and behaviour in the governance of our country’s affairs, is now, as this weekend has demonstrated, under strain.
I have spoken of the fellowship that existed between parliamentarians, the legal profession and the judiciary, which has become attenuated. We used to speak the same constitutional language and understood where we could go and where we should not go. The courts did not invade Parliament, and Parliament and the Executive did not abuse the judiciary. Barristers were not attacked for representing unpopular clients or vicious criminals. We were all part of a shared endeavour to do the very best for our country and its people, even if we came from different backgrounds and wanted different outcomes.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is on the Front Bench. He has worked his guts out trying to improve the prison system, but, sadly, he has been prevented from doing the one thing that he and I want to do, which is to reform the IPP system finally and for good. I am sorry that there was nothing in the gracious Speech that allowed him to bring forward a package of reform.
I will say no more about the jury system. There is plenty of time to say something about that when we come to deal with the now, I understand, newly named courts modernisation Bill—it is the same rubbish but a different name. I think the Government ought to drop it.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the gracious Speech. It sets out some of the new measures announced by the Government. To some extent, following the municipal elections, these claims are overshadowed by the recent goings-on in the Labour Party, and we cannot be certain that we will be able to see the final outcome of much of the legislation. This will depend on who finally leads the Labour Government. What we are seeing is a new brand of politics emerging from different political opinions in the country.
The main point which caught my eye was the improving of and continuing to invest in the renewal of public services. The Government will push forward with significant reforms to the police service. It is important to bear in mind that we should stop playing the snakes and ladders game with our police services. We had the most golden opportunity to introduce a royal commission on the criminal justice system. This was in the Labour Party manifesto but was put into the long grass in the last Session of Parliament—what a golden opportunity missed.
We have a crisis not just in policing issues but within the overall criminal justice system. Simply looking at policing reform is not going to resolve our problems. Why have we so many children in our care homes? Why have so many family structures broken down? How much has poverty and deprivation added to this problem? Do we need to criminalise our children at the age of 10 years or more? Look at the overrepresentation of Black and minority people in our penal institutions. Compared with the general population, they are not overrepresented in crime as against their numbers in the community. We should be investing more in their welfare within their family structures.
Are we sure that supervision is available for at least the first year when inmates leave prison? It is important to provide through-the-gate services so that young people can have a place to live as well as continuity of training and treatment between prison and the community. We should not lose sight of the fact that, when the state incarcerates prisoners, it takes full responsibility for each individual. We would do well, in very difficult times, to say to ourselves that if we lose that responsibility, we will lose control of our criminal justice system.
Let me come to some matters quite specific to the gracious Speech. The Government are to introduce legislation to restructure the police in England and Wales. This includes creating one big national force to tackle organised crime by merging the National Crime Agency with counterterrorism, currently led by the Metropolitan Police, and other elements of national policing.
We welcome the abolition of PCCs: we have called for this and claim some success in achieving this aim. A properly constituted structure, including local councillors and local representatives, will bring more effectiveness to our policing and save funds that have been wasted so far.
The last few months have seen a lot of focus on the role of technology in policing, including the involvement of companies such as Palantir. Amnesty International points out that three-quarters of police forces in the United Kingdom use a predictive policing system, a form of technology that is notoriously unregulated. Research has found that these systems lead to the targeting of already overpoliced communities such as Black people, ethnic minorities and working-class people. What steps are the Government taking through legislation to introduce rigorous oversight of these systems? Will they commit to a publicly available and accessible register on which police forces must register the predictive system they are developing or using? If we fail here, we will face incidents of conflict for generations and years to come.
Lord Case (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to be speaking in your Lordships’ House for the first time, especially in the context of His Majesty’s most gracious Speech and as a warm-up act for the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. The State Opening is a reminder of how well our nation does pageantry and ceremony. Therefore, I pay tribute to all the public servants who supported the occasion. I am, of course, individually grateful to so many of those same members of the House staff who have made me welcome here in this place.
Our sovereign’s appearance last week was also a reminder of the balance struck within our modern constitutional settlement, which mingles so intricately the majesty of monarchy with the somewhat gnarlier necessities of modern governance—the sparkling jewels of the dignified crown with the rather more thrusting battleground of 21st-century politics. As we have all been taught over the ages, both constitutional pillars have their essential parts to play, and both require due care and attention.
I was fortunate enough to learn my constitutional history at the feet of some of our finest teachers in the arts and crafts of the British constitution. In particular, the debt I owe to my greatest of noble friends, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, is one which can never be repaid. His instruction and guidance have sustained, challenged and encouraged so many students over decades, and we are all much the better for it. “The Prof”, as we affectionately know him, has so often celebrated the mysteries of our largely unwritten constitution. As already noted, more recently he has invited us to observe with sadness the smashed pieces of our so-called “good chap” principles strewn across the floor of royal palaces.
If we are to sustain our tradition of a largely unwritten and therefore dynamic constitution, we must be for ever mindful of its inherent fragility. The flexibility we celebrate can so easily become the catastrophe we regret. Herein lies the essential teaching. As each of us takes our place in line between those who came before and those who will come after, we must recognise our greatest duty of all: that of stewardship. Individually and collectively we are required to make sure that, as our precious union continues its steady stroll through time, decisions, especially those that affect our constitutional foundations, are taken deliberately and thoughtfully, not blithely nor under anaesthesia, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, once put it to one of the classes of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey. A deliberate constitution can serve the nation; a careless constitution leaves us unmoored and at risk.
To be clear, I do not argue that the job is the preservation of the status quo. When one looks around this country and talks to people in some of our communities most in need—in places like Barrow-in-Furness, where I chair a regeneration partnership, as recorded in my register of interests—we can see that in too many eyes, power is not being wielded in the interests of those who seek to build or strengthen communities. Power has to be aligned so that it enables those who have the passion, creativity and knowledge to improve lives and efficiently and effectively give people up and down this country the opportunities to thrive that they so deserve.
His Majesty informed us that his Government are committed to the strength and integrity of the union of the United Kingdom. That task, I humbly suggest, needs to be one shared far and wide. The preservation of our union is too often reduced to an immediate scrum between specific political parties in any given political moment, yet I argue that it is a far more serious and enduring task than that. It is one rooted in the humble and thoughtful development of our institutions, in the deliberate adjustment of our constitutional arrangements to support those who would do good in our communities, and in taking seriously our duty to take what we have learned from those who came before us and to hand on an improved lot to those who come after. It is perhaps the most important task of all.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Case, is of course a special moment for an old teacher like me. I thank him and other noble Lords, including the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, for their very moving words.
There is another factor in play. Old PhD supervisors never die; they fade away in libraries and archives, waiting and hoping that their former students do well, and, when they do, the pride is very real. There is another one of my former PhD students to come in this debate; I leave that to be a pleasant surprise for you all. These old teachers keep their metaphorical red pen poised and mark in their minds what their former pupils say and write. The noble Lord, Lord Case, will say wise and important things aplenty in this Chamber and its committees, and I shall be waiting, watching and applauding. It was a great day when my friend Dr Peter Martland got on the phone from Cambridge and told me he had just the research student for me. I urged the future Lord Case to get down the Mile End Road to Queen Mary straight away. He did. He came, he saw and he flourished, just as he will in your Lordships’ House.
Before I get to the subject of the constitution, I want to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I was not planning a valedictory. “Plan it,” she said, so I did. The noble Baroness was one of our bridesmaids, and you do not argue with bridesmaids. I said, “I will do it if you come and sit beside me, lest it all becomes too much”. So, here we are.
I offer a few parting thoughts about the British constitution. To put it as pithily as I can, I am more anxious about it than I have ever been. Our constitution has been seriously stress-tested in the years since I joined your Lordships’ House in 2010. Since then, there have been some scarring moments—for example, when the highest in the political land ignored or disdained it when the constitutional decencies and proprieties etched into the Ministerial Code got in his way.
It may well be the case that the current course and condition of British politics decays still further into rancour and recrimination, so I leave behind just one suggestion: that this House and its Constitution Committee carry out an inquiry into where the vulnerabilities of the British constitution might lie if, heaven forbid, a future Government sought to overthrow the conventions that have served us so well in the past. This is not the moment to recite a litany of the peculiar bundle of statutes, codes, practices, customs and precedents that together comprise this elusive phenomenon that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, observed, is not contained in a single document yet somehow lives and breathes every day for the benefit and stability of our country. Instead, I shall concentrate on the human side: the states of mind, the sense of where the boundaries both visible and invisible are drawn, on the part of all those engaged in public and political life, for in the observance of these decencies our safety lies.
The human side of the British constitution in the past has relied on three feeder streams for it to bring it sustenance and refreshment, generation upon generation: the civility stream, the way we conduct our political arguments; the tolerance stream, the attitude we take to the losing side in said arguments; and the duty of care stream, which carries our sense of where the boundaries lie into the everyday conduct of political and public life. It is the confluence of these sustaining streams on which the buoyancy of our entire system of government depends. Happy is the country, fortunate are its people, when the steady flow of this life-enhancing cataract is the norm.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, noted, it was a Cabinet Office friend, the late Clive Priestley, who first called this human approach
“the good chaps theory of government”.
We would not, perhaps, use that precise vocabulary today, but Clive Priestley was right. In the end, the vitality and strength of the British constitution do depend on the sense of duty, public service and restraint of those set in authority above us.
We have been mired for too long in the politics of pessimism as a result of living in what many people regard as a “nothing works” society. Should this sour still further into a politics of despair, we would be in deep trouble. Crucial to avoiding this will be a replenishment of those feeder streams. This is why, in the end, I am optimistic, for those decencies run deep in our certain idea of Britain—to adapt the opening sentence of General Charles de Gaulle’s memoirs. I think especially of the brave, stoical generation who fought for us in the huge war of national survival in the 1940s, who planned and implemented a better peace for the generation into which I was born. They showed just how potent the mobilisation of decency can be. We owe it to their memory, and to the generations to come, to once more in our time mobilise that cardinal virtue.
For it is the politics of decency that is our greatest protection against a slide into the politics of despair, out of whose dark crevices authoritarianism can slink. To so mobilise would require no new statute from Parliament and not a penny from the Treasury, for it is a matter of spirit, a question of faith. We have done it before, and we can do it again. That is why, in the end, I am sure we can break out of the cycle of pessimism and hold the line against those who would curb our liberties and make a bonfire of the decencies in whose defence we must take our stand—and quickly. As my special friend, the noble Lord, Lord Case, expressed it just now, in a sentence that deserves to ring out from this Chamber: “The flexibility we celebrate can so easily become the catastrophe we regret”.
It has been a delight to sit with your Lordships these past 15 and a half years. I shall miss you all and for ever cherish the memory of our time together.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, how to follow that? It is not often that a Member of this House is heard in such silence and with such reverence. It is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and we are all delighted to see him back in his place. We regret that he is leaving. We congratulate him on his appointment to the Order of the Garter. It is rather daunting to try to pay tribute to the work he has done. He is held in such high esteem, as we have already heard in this House this afternoon. He is a distinguished historian, a distinguished academic and a distinguished journalist and has been a very significant contributor to this House.
That might make the noble Lord sound rather a dry individual. But, as we have heard this afternoon, that is far from the case. When he speaks about contemporary issues, it is almost as if he is writing the readable history for the future of what is happening at the moment. I recall hearing that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, was once an altar boy. I think maybe that explains the innocent look he sometimes gives us—which is very disarming—when he is making a particular point in a very significant way. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, looked up the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, as did I, and he did say that he hoped he could help the House of Lords on constitutional matters, which is exactly what he has done.
As a former chair of the Constitution Committee, I recall some of our meetings during Covid. These were often held remotely, sometimes with the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, joining us from Orkney, although only with the essential technological help of his wife, Enid, because I do not think he would ever quite have managed to master that particular task. I can certainly vouch for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, fulfilled his hope to help the House. He just said that he will miss this House and cherish the memories of our time together. May I say, on behalf of us all, that we are grateful for his many insights and for the hope that he gave us today, at what he described as a very challenging time? Like him, we will cherish the memory of our time together and we wish him and his family well.
Turning to the King’s Speech, and picking up on what has just been said about the strength of the British constitution depending on a sense of duty and public service, I note that in it the Government say that they will
“defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference”.
Alas, defence of these values is needed even more than usual. Anyone who knocked on doors in the recent local elections would probably confirm this. The experience was described by many as toxic, and we have to assert that greater respect for everyone has to be worked for. It is a great shame that many good and decent councillors, not just in my own party, were treated very badly, because we need people with a sense of public service at all levels of government. If we are to break out of what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, described as the politics of pessimism, we have to do more.
The King’s Speech is very heavy, which is good in one sense, because there is much that needs to be done, but in terms of the best functioning of Parliament, I worry about the weight of legislation and its complexity. I also worry about the knee-jerk reaction to many issues that we see today, as if there is only ever a binary choice. I would like to see more Bills presented in draft, or after a Green Paper, a White Paper and a system of consultation. Of course, some Bills—or some parts of Bills—will always be controversial. The Opposition made that clear today when mentioning the courts modernisation Bill but, as I think the Minister pointed out, everyone agrees that the current system is not ideal. I therefore wish that we could work more together to work out what practical improvements could actually be made. I hope that we can have constructive discussions on this. Specifically, I ask Ministers to intensify their efforts to recruit more magistrates and a more diverse band of magistrates. I know they are trying, but it really is urgent.
This debate is very wide, so I cannot resist mentioning one or two other measures in the King’s Speech. As a proud northerner, I have to welcome the proposed Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill, which is long overdue, long neglected and nothing to do with other events taking place at the moment. I also welcome the attention being given to the late payments problem for small businesses, because I think many of us have heard about many problems of that kind. Of course, I must mention and welcome the Sporting Events Bill. Finally, I mention the draft Bill to ban abusive conversion practices, an abhorrent activity. I hope that having that Bill in draft will enable us to get the details appropriate and comprehensive, without causing undue delay.
We have just had a very busy parliamentary Session and it looks like another intense year. I hope that we can have a constructive approach on all sides and can all bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy: that we should try to embrace the politics of decency.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will get straight to the point and take on board the advice of the Government Whip on duty. I was hugely disappointed not to see SLAPPs legislation included in the gracious Speech. When a primary objective of government is restoring public confidence in democracy and our institutions, it is hard to understand why the Government are curtailing access to jury trials but not legislating to prevent the abuse of our legal system and protect access to justice. Let us be clear: SLAPPs are brought not to protect a claimant’s reputation or rights but to deter, burden or silence public interest speech.
In the UK, which is the destination of choice for this aggressive lawfare, such claims have been brought by sanctioned individuals, hostile state-linked actors, perpetrators of serious misconduct, multinational corporations and other well-resourced claimants. Anyone having to defend themselves against a SLAPP is too often forced into submission because they do not have access to the same kind of money or resource to spend the time and energy engaged in a costly and debilitating fight. This is a serious situation, and legislation is both necessary and urgent.
In the absence of its inclusion in the gracious Speech, I none the less bring some cheering news. I will bring forward a SLAPPs Private Member’s Bill, having been successful in the ballot on Friday. It is important that we learn from both the economic crime Act provisions with regard to SLAPPS and the debates over the previous Private Member’s Bill in how we move forward. I have worked with the Media Lawyers Association and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, and my Bill will cover three principles.
The first is an early dismissal mechanism that examines the characteristics of the claim, not the claimant’s motives, ensuring that a case concerning an act of public participation will not move forward if a claim is not likely to succeed and if the public interest expression outweighs the alleged harm to the claimant. This would allow judges to balance free expression with the claimant’s rights, and to apply well-understood legal principles rather than being bogged down in statutory definitions. The second is express case-management powers to allow for a determination to be made on the papers, with a short oral hearing only where necessary, ensuring that the dismissal mechanism cannot be weaponised by the claimant. The third is a mechanism to deter SLAPPs by awarding costs against claimants on an indemnity basis and protecting defendants from adverse cost orders if the case is a SLAPP.
This approach would protect access to justice, as a claimant with a strong or genuinely arguable case would proceed even if it may potentially suppress an act of public participation. To be clear, this mechanism would not prevent claims from being brought, but would prevent claims without realistic merit consuming disproportionate resources and doing so much harm.
Well over 100 Members on all sides of this House signed a letter to the Prime Minister last month calling for SLAPPs legislation. In 2024, the Conservative Government backed legislation, as did the then Labour Opposition Front Bench. We have the opportunity now to achieve what everyone wants: an end to the abuse of our legal system, which threatens fundamental principles and, at the same time, doing so by maintaining access to justice. The House of Lords is well placed to lead on this, and I want to work with all Members, especially legal colleagues who recognise the need for reform and are rightly concerned about overreach. Today, I simply ask the Minister winding up, and indeed my own and the Lib Dem Front Benches, to confirm that they will work with me in ensuring that, on this occasion, we succeed.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Yes, he was my PhD supervisor, though I heard on the way in that he thought that the PhD of the noble Lord, Lord Case, was the best he had ever seen. However, I am happy to follow his interest by talking about just two aspects of the urgent task of cleaning up politics.
The first is about lobbying. I value being lobbied; I think it helps us understand the implications of proposed—or indeed, as we have just heard, much-needed—legislation, whether that affects business, finance, poverty, consumers, workers, localities or the environment, but lobbying in this country is basically unregulated. The coalition Government introduced what they called a register of lobbyists but, alas, it covered only consultant lobbying firms, not the much larger industry of in-house lobbyists. Luckily, however, I topped last week’s ballot for Private Members’ Bills, so my Bill, which will have its First Reading on 1 June, would extend the register to include in-house lobbyists. I trust that the House will support that Bill, as our rather crazy current situation is that the so-called register includes only consultancies and not the most effective of lobbyists, namely those who work within big companies. Lobbyists, or public affairs as they tend to be called, who are directly employed by defence companies, the drinks industry, utilities, developers or the financial sector, all work under the radar. In contrast, small bodies, be they SMEs or charities, are unable to employ their own public affairs departments and therefore call in the help of consultants and see that work registered. Advisers to a small charity, such as Alcohol Concern that I used to run, must register, but not the public affairs teams of drinks companies.
Secondly, I turn to the idea of a cap on donations from expat voters. I am very pleased that, following the report, the Government have said they will introduce a cap on donations from overseas voters, many of whom will not have lived in the UK for decades and probably have no intention of ever returning here. They do not pay UK tax, they do not use our services or contribute to our economy, but they will still be permitted to donate £100,000 a year to a political party—that is £200,000 for a couple, or a million pounds within a Parliament. We on our side of the House, and I hope on the other side, may rail against Nigel Farage’s receipt of £5 million from an expat, but why are we all so relaxed about £1 million per Parliament being donated from a non-resident British couple, with no skin in the game, where the source of their money, or even whether they are in prison, working for another Government or anything else, cannot be easily verified? It is very different from the way they treat us, as PEPs. Let us reduce the permitted donation cap for overseas residents to one-tenth, say £10,000 a year, or allow such donations only from UK taxpayers.
My noble friend the Minister said in her introduction that she wanted to rebuild trust in our British constitution. These two measures would move towards that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I wish we had extra time today in order to hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. It is so fitting that it is he who speaks of civility, tolerance and duty of care. We will miss him.
Following the tradition of bemoaning what is not in the legislative programme, I would have mentioned SLAPPs but instead I can welcome the PMB of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—this is not to ignore the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. There is also a tradition of calling for more cross-government working and, declaring an association with the charity Missing People, I note the number of people dying while missing, mostly by suicide. It is up 30% in six years. The current response, led by the police, just is not working. Their role is vital, but they are not alone responsible. All the agencies that deal with safeguarding, exploitation and care need to be mandated to work together. The Home Office should lead on this.
Modern slavery and human trafficking have grown, while our response has been weakened by a series of regressive reforms. As the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner notes in her recent report:
“It appears in shocking cases that briefly make headlines but then fade quickly from collective consciousness … Without widespread public awareness, even the strongest laws will struggle to deliver real-world impact”—
and they are not the strongest laws or the best practice. She is emphatic that people with lived experience see risks and problems long before institutions do, yet we fail to learn from them.
At the same time, government claims of widespread misuse and abuse of the national referral mechanism are not supported by the available evidence base, as the University of Nottingham Rights Lab points out. In an increasingly diverse and complex exploitation landscape, the statutory guidance was changed last week to put a higher burden on survivors to explain what they have gone through. The Home Office should not be using the term “trauma-informed” when it is so clearly lacking, as is any evidence of understanding retraumatisation.
Slavery is still conflated with immigration and immigration enforcement. We know that legislation in that area will herald measures that these Benches will not be able to welcome. The new independent appeals body is to be staffed by adjudicators, not judges. On stricter age assessments, the priority should be ensuring that fewer children are incorrectly treated as adults. The Government are requiring refugees to repay the cost of Home Office support without removing barriers to employment so that they can more easily contribute. The lifeline of family reunion is still paused. I am sure that my noble friend Lord German will say more about that.
The writer Horatio Clare puts it well:
“The story … misrepresents everyone. Brave and resourceful people crossing the Channel in hope and belief have been disfigured into faceless threats. The volunteers … aid workers and very many members of the public who help and support refugees, migrants and asylum seekers are slandered, denigrated or ignored. The populace of Britain, who are as overwhelmingly kind, sympathetic and generous as the people in the small boats believe us to be, are made to feel fearful, mean and foolish. All the good we and our institutions have done has been redacted”.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, in January 2022 the Constitution Committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member together with my noble friend Lord Hennessy, published a report. The title, crafted by my noble friend himself, was Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century. The committee said that there was
“evidence of an increasing ambivalence about the Union among the populations of each nation”.
Opponents of the union said that “its demise is inevitable”. The committee said:
“It is not, but there is no room for complacency”.
That message has been driven home even more powerfully by the fact that, following the recent elections, explicitly anti-unionist parties are now in the majority in each of the three devolved Governments. That cannot be left unnoticed.
The position is most compelling in Scotland. That is not because there is evidence that independence is the settled will of the Scottish people; it is far from clear that this is so. But the fact that the two pro-independence parties—the SNP and the Greens—once again have a significant majority over the parties that favour the union does matter. It provides the First Minister, John Swinney, with a platform that he is determined to exploit to develop his nationalist agenda.
At first sight, all the cards are with the Government here at Westminster. Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 declares that
“the Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland”
is a reserved matter, so the referendum Bill that the First Minister is planning to introduce to the Scottish Parliament will get nowhere unless an order is made under Section 30 of that Act to modify that arrangement, which is not in prospect.
The Constitution Committee addressed this issue by stating that, while not a panacea, governance of the UK should be improved by greater respect and co-operation between the nations. Indeed, that was my noble friend Lord Hennessy’s message. This theme was repeated in the opening words of the gracious Speech, but, if the Minister will forgive me, this is no longer good enough; we must do more if the union is to be preserved. We must do more to ensure that the benefits of the union are recognised across all the nations. It needs to be clear what a vote for independence would involve, which is certainly not understood by most of those who favour independence.
I offer three suggestions. First, thought should be given to introducing a process for granting the Section 30 order by setting out in legislation the standard that needs to be achieved if a referendum on independence is to be authorised. Secondly, it should be made clear to the First Minister in any future discussions that a yes vote is only the starting point towards independence; we need to know what he plans to do next. Thirdly, and most importantly, thought should be given to introducing a provision similar to Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty on what would happen should any devolved Administration decide to withdraw from the union. It should be made clear that they will first need to negotiate and then conclude an agreement with the rest of the UK as to the arrangements to withdraw, taking account of the future relationship with the UK. That is what led to Brexit; the equivalent process for Scotland’s departure, should it ever happen, will be even more complicated. It cannot happen—and those who favour it should be reminded of this—unless and until a Bill that enables it to do so has been passed by the Parliament here at Westminster.
Baroness Mattinson (Lab)
My Lords, it is both an honour and a little intimidating to follow some of the brilliant speeches we have heard this afternoon, in particular the valedictory speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. He will be very much missed.
I will talk briefly about the proposed reforms to jury service, which is a subject very dear to my heart. As an undergraduate law student back in the day, I wrote my final-year dissertation on the value of jury service to the English legal system. Back then, I was passionate about how the principle of jury service, the right to be judged by our fellow citizens, was justifiably a cornerstone of British justice and a powerful protection against state overreach. I am still passionate about those things. More recently, working in politics, I have also argued that the principle of legal juries could usefully be extended to wider policy-making through the introduction of citizens’ juries where fellow citizens deliberate, debate and judge policy. I think that would also be very useful.
Frankly, you would go a long way to find somebody who was more of a champion of jury service—its principles and process—than I am, so it is strange to find myself here supporting proposals in this King’s Speech to reduce access to jury service. But support them I do, because our justice system today—unlike the justice system when I wrote my undergraduate thesis all those years ago—is in crisis. This Government have inherited a situation, after years of underfunding and neglect, in which some 80,000 cases are awaiting trial, bringing untold anguish to the victims of those crimes, who are often unable to move on with their lives. Many victims wait for years for justice, with 21,000 cases waiting more than a year.
My noble friend the Minister has eloquently set out a series of measures designed at last to tackle this head-on and to address the backlog. I strongly support these proposals and believe that they are, as my noble friend the Minister has said, proportionate and sensible. They are a price worth paying to end the agonising and unacceptable weight that victims and their families—and those seeking to clear their names—have been forced to endure in recent years. They know better than most that justice delayed is justice denied.
At a time when trust in politicians and politics is at an all-time low, we hear a lot about how Governments fail to tackle or take on the tough decisions, too often choosing instead the easy route, which is to kick the challenge into the long grass and, in doing so, prop up the failing status quo while the vulnerable live with the consequences of that broken system. I am proud and relieved that this Government are prepared to be bold—to grasp the nettle and put victims of crime first.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the well-argued speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson. I suspect we will have plenty more argument on that subject. However, today belongs to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, although we were privileged to hear a powerful maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Case.
Can this really be the troublesome young journalist for the Times with whom I used to have lunch in the early 1970s, in direct disobedience of the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Case, Sir Burke Trend, who had forbidden any contact with this dangerous figure? Can this ermined and gartered figure really be the same person? Yes, it is—my goodness, Burke would be surprised, but pleased.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, together with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, has put paid to a traditional part of the British constitution. Perhaps after some advice from the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, he put paid to Lord Melbourne’s dictum that “there is no damn merit about the garter”. This was an essential part of our constitution and laying it to rest, as it now finally has been, is to be welcomed.
I come not only to praise the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, but to say how much I valued our personal friendship over many years, plotting about more open government and many other things, and that we must listen to him. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was before, I am a member of the Constitution Committee. I will put before fellow members, of whom I am only one, of course, that we should now be looking to the very present dangers that exist for our constitution and try to identify the weaknesses, bolster the strengths and say that sometimes there should perhaps be more legal backing, although the introduction of lawyers into the process of government is not always to be welcomed. We should look to the weaknesses while we have time because, like the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, I predict that this is going to come under grave attack, or is liable to, in the years ahead. It is no news to any noble Lords that, at the moment, we have powerful forces about in the political world of the United Kingdom who are blaming the instruments of government, and not their own policies, for the problems we face.
I believe there is, in a prominent position in this country, the son of a tool-maker. He should surely know the phrase, which we were all brought up with, that a bad workman blames his tools. It is not the independent Civil Service, or some imaginary deep state, or any of that nonsense, which stops good policy being made; it is that we have lost, in the House of Commons, the capacity to debate new legislation in the way it ought to be debated. That is at the heart of quite a lot of the ills and problems that this House now faces. It is considered, consensual patriotism—consensus in its broadest sense, which linked Sir Winston Churchill to Mr Ernie Bevin, two people who could hardly have been more different in background and in every other way—which leads to good long-term policy.
I, for one, hope in a small way to respond to the appeal from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and that the House as a whole listens carefully to what he says.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and his sweeping look at history and the constitution.
The gracious Speech has a lot of legislation contained therein, but there are two omissions which I want to mention in passing. The first is a very welcome omission: the decision not to proceed with the Diego Garcia Bill, which, of course, was an affront to the rights of the BIOT community. The second omission is a missed opportunity, on welfare reform, and no doubt we will come back to that matter.
In the short time available to me, I want to highlight just two issues—the first is around extremism. The Minister will be pleased to hear that I met with Jonathan Hall KC just last week, who is carrying out a review of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act and its effectiveness in dealing with the glorification of terrorism. I look forward to continuing the dialogue with Mr Hall about his review and hope that he can make impactful recommendations to His Majesty’s Government.
For me, there is a gap in the legislation which allows the praising of terrorism. The impact of that goes beyond direct incitement—it is about the erosion of democratic resilience and social cohesion as well. I believe we need to send a clear message from Parliament to confront and reject extremism in all its forms, by making the glorification of terrorism something which is not normalised but rather seen as the radicalisation tool that it is.
Secondly, as this debate covers the union, I want briefly to reflect on the recent election results across the nation, with the sometimes inaccurate commentary that has followed. First, I certainly do not think the results should be ignored or glossed over by those of us who care deeply about the union, but they should also not be misrepresented. In Wales, Plaid Cymru has broken through in a remarkable way and become the largest party, with 35.4% of the vote. But with respect to Plaid’s victory, that figure is nowhere near a majority for breaking up the union in Wales, especially when one looks at the turnout, which was only 51.6%—meaning that nearly half the Welsh electorate stayed at home.
In Scotland, the SNP captured 38.2% of the vote in the constituency ballot, which is down 9.2% from 2021. When combined with the pro-independence Greens, the vote share for pro-independence parties totals only 41.15%, which is the second-lowest vote share for pro-independence parties since 2007.
There were more seats won, however, with fewer votes, because of the fragmentation of the pro-union vote. This, unfortunately, is something with which we are very familiar in Northern Ireland. In 2022, the Sinn Féin vote was just 29%, and when combined with the SDLP, it reached 38%. So, there is still clearly a pro-union majority, not just in Northern Ireland but in Scotland and Wales as well. I want to point out to noble Lords that the Sinn Féin First Minister of Northern Ireland is a joint First Minister with the unionist deputy First Minister. The First Minister cannot take any decision without the agreement of the deputy First Minister, and the hyperbole about the three devolved First Ministers being separatists is not correct. Northern Ireland is led jointly by two Ministers in the Executive Office, with equal powers and equal say. That is the price of power-sharing. Many have conveniently forgotten or chosen to ignore that fact, and it is very important that it be noted here today.
Finally, for the First Minister of Scotland to cosy up to Sinn Féin and tell us to move on, I say this: it is difficult to move on from Sinn Féin’s dark past when it refuses to move on from its dark past and continues to glorify the violence of the IRA. As Elie Wiesel said:
“To forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time”.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, a little while ago, I became aware of the case of a young man charged with multiple counts of rape. He was arrested late at night in front of his weeping parents and taken away in a police van. It was five years before he came to trial.
The trial itself lasted five days. When it finished, the jury—nine of whom were women—took less than five minutes to find him not guilty. The jury was so distressed that, afterwards, they waited for the young man out in the street. One by one, they embraced him on the pavement because of the terrible injustice that he had been put through—five years of a young life wiped out, reduced to cleaning portaloos. In their turn, every member of that jury wanted a hug from him, to help soften their own pain from being part of the process.
Our system is not only blind but, nowadays, deaf—and it is dying. Hyperbole? No. Hillsborough, bad blood, the Rotherham grooming gangs, Grenfell Tower, the Post Office—they were scandals in which thousands of people died, many by suicide, with tens of thousands of other lives ruined. That was because public servants ticked their little boxes and left it at that. No one took responsibility.
Rape is a terrible crime—and it is a terrible accusation. Yet neither the police nor the CPS reviewed the defence material. No witnesses were interviewed. The prosecuting lawyer had not even finished reading the file when the trial began and did not even know there was more than one charge to answer—that is justice today. This was a dereliction of duty by public servants on an inexcusable scale, and it happens every day.
Who is responsible? Ultimately, we are. We wake up in the morning, read terrible headlines and say, “Something must be done!” We wave our magic wands, write a manifesto and pull out dead rabbits from a hat. We make new laws and issue more orders that overwhelm the system—good intentions that have paved the way to hell. In every corner, instead of the sound of justice, we hear the echoes of files being shuffled, statistics being manipulated, lawyers gaming the system, boxes being ticked and hands being washed.
The only semblance of justice given to this young man came from the jury, yet, ironically, the Government are threatening our jury system. My noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar powerfully pointed all that out. The Government must think again. British justice was once regarded as the fairest and finest in the world, yet nowadays we find her lying face down in the mud. It is our fault and our duty to fix.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, like others, I note that the King’s Speech did not mention constitutional or political reform. The Representation of the People Bill addresses many of the external threats to our constitutional democracy but does nothing to address the domestic threats, both from the depth of public disillusion and from the frailty of our constitutional safeguards against abuse of the executive power.
Public mistrust in Westminster politics, even in democracy as such, continues to rise. Polls show the leader of my party as the least unpopular political leader at the moment, but I have to say that all leaders based in Westminster are currently in negative territory. Yet Labour’s promise in its 2024 manifesto to “deepen our democracy” through parliamentary reform has almost been forgotten. It did set up the Modernisation Committee in the Commons, but that has so far achieved mainly improved accessibility for disabled Members; it has done nothing to address the order of Commons business.
Lords reform shuffles another couple of paces forward. The manifesto promised to move towards a second Chamber that is
“more representative of our nations and regions”—
that has disappeared. When I raised with the Minister, during the debate on the then devolution Bill, the question of how the new Mayoral Council for England would relate to the current, much weaker Council of the Nations and Regions, she seemed unaware that there might be a problem with relations between the different Governments within our union.
The local elections have shown that two-party politics has disappeared, leaving our electoral system and the conventions of Parliament unfit for purpose. In several local authorities, Reform won a majority of seats on a third or less of the vote. In Richmond upon Thames, the Liberal Democrats won every seat on little more than half the vote, which is not itself an advertisement for proper democracy. Labour’s massive majority in the Commons was won on barely a third of votes cast, on a turnout of less than six in 10. It is possible that, at the next election, a party could win a majority of seats on under 30% of votes cast, on an even lower turnout. That would be a real democratic crisis.
The Conservatives promised in the 2015 election campaign that they would provide “strong and stable single-party government” instead of what they described as a “coalition of chaos”. Since then, we have suffered years of chaotic single-party government under the Conservatives, and sadly now also under Labour.
Three weeks ago, a consortium of NGOs published a manifesto entitled Defensive Constitutional Reform: Preventing the UK from Going the Way of the US. They noted the growth of populist and authoritarian movements in European democracies, and the ease with which President Trump has swept aside the stronger constitutional safeguards, legal constraints and democratic scrutiny in the American system. Our constitutional safeguards are weak. We have already seen one Prime Minister attempt to bypass Parliament and govern by executive power. As the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and others have said, we are no longer governed by “good chaps” alone.
All of us, in government and in democratic parties now in opposition, need to consider together what changes are needed in the way Parliament operates, in the balance between central, national and local government, and in the centre of government itself, to defend effective constitutional democracy from the threats we now face. All the King’s Speech offered us instead was a Bill to remove hereditary titles from the roll of Peers.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My noble friend Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield has been a fine mentor to the whole House. That was evident today. As we proceed without him, we must not let him down. Laws send social messages. Candour and individual accountability must improve in all sectors. Human nature and fear intimidate people from admitting when decisions—often taken in haste—have been wrong. For the bereaved fighting for years to reveal the truth, truth is essential in coping with their grief. Financial compensation does not stop the pain, but being misled and cover-ups make grieving much more painful, burning into people’s soul as they search for honour, facts and peace. Legislation is long overdue.
In court modernisation, magistrates’ non-custodial sentencing powers must widen. Let us take alcohol-fuelled crime and alcohol abstinence tags—I declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm. The initial pilot in Wales was impressive, with recent data suggesting that recidivism when tagged remains low. Will the Government now use probation’s longer-term data from the alcohol use disorders identification test—AUDIT—to gain further insights to guide magistrates’ sentencing? Drink-related harm costs the country around £21.5 billion a year, with alcohol playing a part in four in 10 serious crimes. Some 20% of offenders on probation misuse alcohol, so sobriety sentencing longer than four months could improve long-term outcomes. The increase in drink-drug crimes calls for urgent development of drug detection tags linked to treatment, not only alcohol detection tags.
The cycle of criminality is broken only through adequate prevention. The links between health and criminality are stark. Women make up 4% of the prison population. More than half are neurodiverse or have trauma-induced brain injury. Many had experienced domestic or sexual abuse and coercive relationships, needed mental health treatment, were drinking out of control, often with a drug problem, and some had overdosed—before sentencing. Around one in five had been in the care system. Each year, around 600 pregnant women are incarcerated, with missed antenatal care, pre-term or precipitate labour more common, and insufficient prison mother and baby units. Trials and sentencing must recognise that better prison health for one can alter an entire family’s trajectory, as prisoners’ children experience higher rates of emotional distress, disrupted attachment, poorer educational outcomes and future vulnerability.
Clean water legislation crosses England and Wales, as Welsh Water supplies into England, whilst the Severn impacts both England and Wales. Can the Minister confirm that, as intended, the Senedd is intricately involved in legislative control of water companies, stringent enough to ensure that water companies comply, rather than just meet a minimum standard? Planning regulation must be linked; we need food production, not concreted-over land and gardens that increase surface water run-off into drains and affect the water table. Our inadequate water treatment and sewerage plants require urgent investment, leveraged through regulation. Farmers need incentives to decrease ammonia and other fertiliser use, and to undertake muck spreading, as in Ireland, with nutrients absorbed into the soil rather than running off into waterways.
Comments on the Health Bill are for another day.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, extremism in democratic societies rarely presents itself fully formed. More often, it emerges through gradual shifts—in what is tolerated, expected, and left unchallenged. These shifts are now visible: declining trust in institutions, tolerance of political violence, and the spread of conspiracy narratives. The question is not how we respond but whether we recognise the conditions that allow them to take root—and to act while there is still time.
The programme set out in the King’s Speech recognises elements of this challenge, including tackling antisemitism and ensuring that communities feel safe. The question is whether our approach is keeping pace with how extremism now operates—or whether recognition is running ahead of response. Changes in the law are necessary but not in themselves sufficient. Extremism is not only a matter for statute; it develops in the spaces between law, culture and consent.
One indicator of extremism is the point where extraordinary measures become ordinary. Jewish communal life increasingly operates behind permanent security—not as a temporary response but as a condition of participation in public life. When this becomes unremarkable, it reflects a failure not only of safety but of equality.
That reflects a deeper shift in how belonging is understood. A defining feature of extremist thinking is the imposition of loyalty tests—the idea that participation depends on repudiating part of one’s identity. Jews are expected to disavow Israel or Jewish identity as a condition of inclusion. No other community is asked to renounce history or connection in this way. Conditional belonging is incompatible with a pluralist democracy.
When belonging becomes conditional, language becomes instrumental in exclusion. The term “Zionist” is often used in ways that enable the collective targeting of Jews while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy. When a political label becomes a proxy for people, individual responsibility is replaced by a collective blame. This is not robust debate; it is modern antisemitism. These patterns persist where response is fragmented. Extremism now operates beyond traditional frameworks—through online radicalisation, fluid ideologies, and co-ordinated intimidation. Where frameworks are incomplete, the effect is permissive.
Silence is rarely neutrality. Over time, when it is tolerated, it expands. When security becomes normal and belonging conditional, when language obscures exclusion and silence signals acceptance, democratic standards are lowered. The risk is not extremism itself; it is quiet accommodation within what is accepted.
The responsibility before us is clear: not simply to respond once harm is visible but to define and uphold the conditions in which equal participation is non-negotiable—explicit, consistent and protected. Because once equality must be argued for, rather than assumed, it is already in retreat.
Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am mindful of the irony of raising issues of democracy in what is now an entirely appointed Chamber. My expectation when I entered the House in 1999 was that there would soon be elections to this place, and I never thought that it would take 29 years just to complete the removal of the right to sit here of hereditary Peers.
That modest step has taken place only 115 years since it was promised in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. That legislation from Asquith’s Liberal Government made reforms to the powers of the House pending it becoming a body
“constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis”.
Democracy is not perfect. In 1947, Churchill said that
“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1947; col. 207.]
So I believe that letting people use ballot papers to choose at least most of us who sit in this place, as opposed to relying on the personal whims of Prime Ministers and party leaders, would strengthen our effectiveness. It would avoid the accusations of cronyism that sully the reputation of the House, reduce the number of scandals concerning party finances, and prevent the prospect of peerages being bestowed, or blocked, as a means of persuading potential appointees to toe a particular line, switch party support, or open a chequebook. Too many appointments have been made here to make people Ministers, who then shortly afterwards give up on that job, or of people who want the title but not the responsibility, and who also rapidly disappear.
It took 27 years to end the temporary gentlemen’s agreement allowing for the holding of by-elections to replace departing hereditary Peers because of determined filibusters by a handful of Members. It was clear that the will of the House on that issue was unfairly blocked. So it was with the assisted dying Bill, where it was made impossible to return the Bill to the Commons for it to be considered further. I am strongly opposed to introducing timetables in this place for government legislation, but I think the time has come for us to be able to agree timetables for Private Members’ Bills.
We also need in this Session to strengthen legislation to safeguard core democratic principles. The latest Representation of the People Bill fails to do that because it does not provide for a cap on the size of donations to a political party except for those from overseas. Extremely wealthy donors can potentially buy a political party, purchase a party leader, and change the outcome of a general election with, for example, the reported £1 million payments to two party leaders to make them agree on an electoral pact.
We need to put a cap on the size of any one donation in any one year. I suggest that the precise limit should be proposed by the Electoral Commission. Donations such as Frank Hester’s to the Conservative Party of £20 million in the previous Parliament, and those of Christopher Harborne, perhaps of up to £30 million, to the various iterations of the Reform Party and its leader, must be banned if our democracy is not for sale.
Baroness Martin of Brockley (Lab)
My Lords, I focus my remarks on youth crime. It is a timely subject, coinciding with the publication today of the Government’s excellent White Paper on youth justice.
The youth justice system, built on the foundations of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, has been one of the great, quiet success stories of modern public policy. Since that Act came into force, first-time entrants to the system have fallen by 93%, proven offences by children are down 88% and the number of children in custody has dropped by over 85%. That success does not belong to one party alone. Labour’s 1998 legislation created the architecture, with youth offending teams working locally to prevent and punish, alongside national leadership from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Subsequent Governments have maintained that architecture, sustaining those gains. We know what works: local, multidisciplinary teams, early identification and intervention before the justice system gets involved—not ideology, but evidence.
However, today’s White Paper is clear that challenges remain. Eight out of 10 prolific offenders committed their first crime as a child. Two-thirds of children released from custody reoffend within a year, compared with just one-third of those given community sentences. The case for early, community-based intervention could not be clearer. Most recently, the independent evaluation of the turnaround programme found that 93% of children who completed it did not go on to receive a caution or conviction. I therefore welcome the further funding announced for this programme today.
Ministry of Justice analysis shows that reoffending costs this country £18 billion a year. Of that, £1.5 billion is attributable to children and young people alone. Every single pound of that is a pound that we could have saved by acting earlier. However, the gains go far beyond the public finances. Reoffending is not simply a cost to the state but a drain on our national potential. When a young person enters the revolving door of the justice system, we risk losing them—the worker who may never reach their potential, the entrepreneur whose business may never be started and the skills and talent that our economy needs left untapped.
Today’s commitment to consult on reforming childhood criminal records, so that a mistake made at 15 does not track a person for life, speaks directly to this economic argument. A criminal record is one of the most powerful barriers to employment. It significantly reduces the chances of being called to interview, let alone of getting the job. If we are serious about unlocking the potential of every young person, we cannot ask employers to give young people a second chance while the system itself refuses to.
I came to this House with a conviction that the circumstances of your birth should not determine how far you go or what you contribute. Today’s White Paper is a serious, evidence-based response to that challenge. The evidence tells us what works; the economics tell us that it pays. I welcome this White Paper and look forward to working with Ministers on this and other issues to ensure that we deliver on our ambitions for a modern youth justice system that is fit for the future.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I will make just two points. First, I welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to process the Hillsborough Bill, creating a duty of candour for public servants. As His Majesty said,
“the highest standards of trust in public office are essential for the social contract and the United Kingdom’s collective security”.
I acknowledge the import of the risks to our national security that were identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. Massive risks continue to be managed. We must find a way to accommodate accountability and transparency while protecting our national security. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The Bill could allow the security and intelligence services to avoid even admitting that they hold information relevant to a criminal investigation or public inquiry, on grounds of national security. However, our security services rely on co-operation from many ordinary people and there is need to maintain that level of support and to work out what information needs to be protected and what is no longer in absolute need of protection and can be revealed either in full or through a protective process.
That brings me to my second point. His Majesty’s Government promised to repeal the widely rejected Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 which caused such great distress to victims, but they have now stepped back. They have proposed a reformed legacy commission, reconstituted from the ICRIR. The ICRIR has 275 staff, fewer than half of whom are investigators. It has some wonderful staff who know what they should be able to do, but the ICRIR does not have the investigatory powers that over 600 public authorities have, including the Care Quality Commission, the Food Standards Agency and all UK local authorities. They were removed from the Bill by the Conservative Government at the later stages of the Bill’s process through the House. The ICRIR has no powers to access telecommunications data, although the Gambling Commission and the Health and Safety Executive have them. It does not have power to access financial data. The Bill before the other place does not confer these powers on the proposed legacy commission.
A highly critical report on the ICRIR was published last week which identified significant problems. The commission is approaching the end of its second year. It has spent some £65 million and has not produced a single report. For the new legacy commission to gain the confidence of the people it must be a new, properly empowered investigative commission. There will be few prosecutions, but the investigators must have the powers to which I have referred. They are investigating heinous crimes, including the Guildford pub bombings, the M62 coach bombing in Yorkshire and the murders of civilians, RUC and Army officers and a judge. One person was told recently that, although the ICRIR might have some forensic evidence, it does not have a forensic scientist to examine it. That is truly shocking.
Consideration of any case must involve examining all available material, any secret reports, et cetera, then using modern investigative techniques. Only if that is done will the legacy commission gain the confidence and trust of the people who lost loved ones in the Troubles. As many veterans from the police and the Army who served so honourably have said, “We don’t want special treatment, we just want fairness”. That fairness will include acknowledgment by the state of the situations in which it got things wrong or failed to act to prevent crime. Such candour must be required of all organisations of the state.
Significant amendments will be required to the Bill currently before the other House if Northern Ireland is to have a legacy commission which is strong, truly independent, has the powers to carry out effective investigation, treats suspects in accordance with the law and respects their rights and those of the many victims of the Troubles. Can the Minister assure us that the new commission will have the powers that it needs?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I share the pleasure that “Chagos” did not appear in the gracious Speech, and hope that this is the end of the matter.
In the gracious Speech there was a great deal of talk about commitment to the strength and integrity of the union of the United Kingdom; yet, because of the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland is subject to the EU’s customs code, which declares Great Britain to be a third country. When I travel over each week from Belfast, I am in theory coming to a foreign country. We do not have a full democracy any more; we have a partial democracy, with 300 laws being imposed. This is unsustainable and the integrity is already being threatened.
Now the European partnership Bill seeks to fast-track EU rules into our law. The vote to leave the EU was a vote to take back control, not to give it away, so that we could make our own laws without being overruled by majority voting. That vote was for the exact opposite of what is now happening in Northern Ireland and what the Government now want for the rest of the United Kingdom without any mandate for doing so. The Bill will still leave the United Kingdom divided into two by an international customs union. We must leave the EU properly. I look forward to the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, drawn as number five, the European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill, which was introduced in the previous Session by the honourable Member for North Antrim.
I will say just a word or two on the reintroduced Troubles Bill. Sir Declan Morgan and the ICRIR must be given a fair chance to succeed. I think that, on this Bill, there is a widely held view that the Secretary of State is far too worried about what the Irish Government want rather than what our veterans want and what our victims need. Last week, we had a Statement from the Secretary of State on the Dillon judgment, which came out from the UK Supreme Court. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court is massively important for the future of the Troubles Bill. Due to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement, the Supreme Court also stated its view on amnesty or conditional immunity for the purpose of reconciliation, as in the 2023 legacy Act.
On the day, the UK Government proclaimed that
“the Court went out of its way to refute the main argument put forward”
for immunity. In the Statement, the Secretary of State said:
“Contrary to what has been claimed by some, the UK Supreme Court has not endorsed the immunity scheme ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/5/26; col. 141.]
Nobody said that it had, but the judgment summary did say:
“The Supreme Court finds that the Strasbourg court has not decided that there is a reconciliation exception (though it has not ruled out the possibility that such an exception may exist)”.
That is very significant, but was studiously omitted by the Secretary of State. He did admit that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, had withdrawn the human rights appeal in July 2024.
Is it not a nonsense that we have primary legislation in the form of the Troubles Bill amending the 2023 Act and, alongside it, an unamendable secondary legislation remedial order also amending the 2023 Act? The order should be scrapped and the Bill rewritten. The Supreme Court judgment was a huge blow to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland courts, which were of course found to have acted unlawfully. Sadly, the NIHRC and the ECNI are part of an industry of lawfare and activist organisations, and they can no longer operate in a way that commands confidence across the political spectrum. It is time to ask whether they serve any useful purpose for the huge amounts of money funded by taxpayers.
Finally, the truth is that Labour’s central belief system is no longer British-based but European-based. What is missing from the King’s Speech is our withdrawal from the ECHR. Until we do that, all talk of toughening our policies on immigration and protecting our veterans will fail.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will focus my brief time on antisemitism. Only around 0.5% of the UK’s population are Jewish. To our very great shame, they are probably the least safe group in our society. Jewish schools and children have to be guarded. Only last week, a group of Jewish children was seen on the London streets guarded by guards in stab vests. Jewish places of worship have extensive security measures but, as we saw with the murderous attack on the Heaton synagogue, even that is not enough. No other religious group in the UK has to go to these lengths to keep itself safe. Symbols such as the Star of David or the kippah carry a clear risk of unprovoked attack, as the vicious stabbings in Golders Green laid bare. Jewish students on campuses suffer routine antisemitism and university authorities have done little to protect them.
Antisemitism is of course not a new phenomenon, but it has been intensifying and threats to Jewish people have now reached truly dreadful proportions. It is ironic that they got much worse after the 7 October assault by Hamas terrorists on the people of Israel. The whole world should have rallied around Israel and the need to defend its people. Instead, many countries, including the UK, tolerated anti-Israel protests and lies about genocide, which have allowed antisemitism to flourish under the guise of anti-Zionist or anti-Israel sentiment. It is shocking that it took the recent attacks in north London to make the police and CPS wake up to the plain criminal intent of posters and chants such as “Globalise the intifada”, which can only reasonably be interpreted as a call to kill Jews everywhere.
The gracious Speech promised a Bill to tackle state threats, and so we might—at long last—see the evil IRGC proscribed, but that will not be enough. The Government must do more to counter extremism. Antisemitism hides among extremism of all kinds, including, as other noble Lords have said, the extreme right and the extreme left, as well as Islamic extremism. The Prevent programme is not up to this task; more must be done.
Policing and law enforcement must be clear, unbiased and speedy, in ways that it has not always been in the past. Antisemitism, like all forms of racism, must be stamped upon and all policy areas need to be viewed through the lens of eradicating the hatred of Jews. If the Government cannot make Jewish people be safer and feel safer, that will be a colossal failure.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, last week the Home Affairs Committee in the other place held a very important session on the scourge of antisemitism, which has just been described very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Among the experts they took evidence from were Dave Rich from the Community Security Trust and Danny Stone from the Antisemitism Policy Trust, both of whom I got to know, respect and was grateful to for their advice when I led the Labour Party’s work on tackling antisemitism in the Labour Party. Danny advised the committee that it is very important that politicians of all political parties and none should address antisemitism within their ranks, very much as the Labour Party did when Sir Keir Starmer became its leader in 2020. I am sure he is right about this, so I would like to use today’s Home Affairs debate to propose to noble Lords across this House that the time is right for a cross-party campaign to tackle antisemitism among politically active people wherever they are.
Two vital ingredients of the work that the Labour Party undertook were training and complaints handling. A comprehensive training programme for all Labour MPs, all my noble friends in this House, the Senedd, Scottish Parliament, and thousands of members across the country was set up, along with an independent complaints process, to ensure that antisemitism, and indeed any discrimination, was fully challenged. This required careful design to get right. The Equality and Human Rights Commission approved the action plan developed in 2021 and gave the party a clean bill of health on this in 2023. This combination of training and complaints handling made a huge difference to the Labour Party, and I commend it to the Green Party, Reform and other political parties too.
It would be helpful to understand what the EHRC is doing now and if it has plans to address the antisemitism seen from a number of candidates in the recent local elections. But why wait until people become politically active before teaching them about antisemitism? By that, I mean starting at school, particularly given the legislation that we will shortly debate on allowing 16 and 17 year-olds roles to vote. None of my nearly 18 year-old daughter’s friends and classmates watches television news or read newspapers. They access any news and current affairs that they may be interested in mainly on their phones, with Instagram, TikTok and YouTube helping them curate content through algorithms pushing content accordingly. Regrettably, an interest in, say, some candidates in the recent local elections, or what began as a perfectly healthy interest in, say, the Israeli-Palestine conflict, all too easily leads to antisemitic content taking over. This makes education an important part of the fight against antisemitism, its history, current context and the repulsive tropes that are rampant on social media—it is absolutely vital.
This would soon filter through to the students of tomorrow on university campuses, where, as we have all too often heard in this Chamber, antisemitic abuse and even attacks are rife. The importance of teaching school children about antisemitism was raised at last week’s Home Affairs Committee, this time by way of my noble friend Lord Mann, who gave evidence as the Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism. My noble friend was clear about the vital importance of training teachers. He said he has been calling on the Government to ensure that all secondary teachers are trained. The good news is that His Majesty’s Government have recently let a contract to train secondary school teachers; but it is a plan to train 650 of them. There are more than 4,000 secondary schools in England and more than 200,000 secondary teachers.
We need, as my noble friend Lord Reid spoke of earlier, civil society, as well as the criminal justice system, to be responding to the scourge of antisemitism, so let us put some rocket boosters under this programme and ensure that it matches the scale of the challenge. This, combined with political parties and their candidates putting their own houses in order, could really make a practical and sustainable difference in tackling the terrible scourge of antisemitism.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the rhetoric of the Chişinău Declaration and the wonderfully sensible words in the No. 10 briefing on the immigration Bill that bogus illegals will not be able to use every excuse under the sun to prevent them being sent back. Will it happen? I doubt it since we have two major problems. First, it is just a political declaration and not one word of the ECHR treaty will change. The same judges will continue expanding their powers, undermining democratic Governments. What most people do not realise is that the majority in the court are not real judges as we understand them or as we see in this House, but legal academics, many of whom would not get a lectureship in one of our low-grade polytechnics.
The second problem is the appalling decisions of many of our own immigration judges, who have refused to send back murderers, paedophiles and rapists, since the poor darlings would not get the same luxurious prison treatment they get here. So, unless we amend our own laws and get rid of some incompetent judges, none of the rhetoric will work. I serve on the Council of Europe and for the last few years colleagues, including left-wing and socialist MPs, from many other countries have been saying that massive Islamic immigration is destroying 500 years of Judaeo-Christian liberal democracy in Europe. “They bring a different attitude to our laws, culture and even democracy itself”, they say.
I have had a little flat near here for almost 30 years, and I have seen demographic changes—the influx of Somalis, Eritreans, Syrians, Iraqis and others from sub-Saharan Africa. I have seen an unfortunate increase in aggro and hostility to our way of life and, yes, liberal democracy. I have seen the increase in criminality from people just off the boat, then driving big illegal bikes on the pavement for Deliveroo and Uber Eats the next day at one end of the scale, and at the other, the machete culture we seem to have imported from Africa.
There is a little Tesco in Strutton Ground and a Sainsbury’s on Marsham Street, both sort of 7-11s. When I came back after Christmas they both had erected big steel frames with bullet-resistant glass in them. You poke your groceries through one slot, the staff ring them up, and they poke them back through another. You cannot get chocolates because they are locked behind plastic screens. What a disgusting way to have to shop for groceries today, but the staff now need that protection. That Sainsbury’s is 20 yards away, across the street, from the Home Office, and 200 yards away from the HQ of MI5. It is not local London cabbies, nor poor people, who are driving this crime wave. I regret it is immigrant-led. So who in the name of God are we letting into this country that we need armour-plated glass in a little grocery shop a quarter of a mile away from this building?
Then we have the vile attacks on Jews in this country. Not enough has been done to stop those despicable Palestinian marches. Let us not pretend that they are defending Gaza when they have signs showing Israel being pushed into the sea and chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—free of Jews, that is. They can lie all they like, but they are calling for a new Holocaust—8 million Jews to be removed from their homeland. The British Jewish community has a rich history of contributions to the UK, playing vital roles across all tiers of society. Its historic and ongoing impact is deeply woven into our country’s economic foundations, public health, and social welfare. From medicine and healthcare to banking and retail, charity and philanthropy, law and—look around us—politics, Jews have helped to make this country great. Perhaps in 200 years’ time we might be able to say the same thing about Palestinians. Jews have not knifed imams, driven cars into Christmas markets or set off terrorist bombs; nor do they have a belief in killing people who do not share their religion.
I welcome the language used in the Government’s briefing documents for the gracious Speech, but only the details of the legislation will let us see whether it is a real attempt to bring back control from the terror sweeping our streets in London and some other cities.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the Government are right to focus on economic growth. But in parts the plans are timid and in others they are, frankly, bizarre and wrong. They are timid about rebuilding our relationship with the European Union, given the inhibiting red lines. The recent first quarter 0.6% of GDP rise pales into insignificance against the latest estimate that Brexit hit GDP by as much as 8%. So, after the catastrophic mistake of Brexit, the Government should be much more ambitious, going much further towards reuniting with our European allies to rebuild our economy and our defences. When he responds, I hope the Minister will tell me whether he agrees with these Benches, Wes Streeting, and possibly, though we are not quite sure, Andy Burnham.
Elsewhere, though, the Government are getting it very badly wrong. They have said that, despite the harm and misery that it causes, they want to grow the gambling industry and believe it can be done while also reducing gambling harm. This is absolute nonsense. National and international public health experts believe that it will lead to more gambling harm and more misery for individuals, families and communities. It is also economic nonsense. Four recent reports all show that reducing gambling will put more discretionary spend into more productive parts of the economy, creating more jobs, higher tax receipts for the Treasury and reduced treatment costs. Labour has admitted it got it wrong with the Gambling Act 2005. Encouraging growth in gambling now would be an even bigger mistake.
On a different subject, live facial recognition—LFR—is increasingly being used around the country. But, as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I chair, has regularly pointed out, this is without proper legal basis, adequate independent scrutiny or consistent national training. The policing reform Bill promises to address this. Consultation has already been conducted. But, while the deadline has passed, the Government’s response still has not appeared. So will the Minister tell us when we can expect the response, and can he give us the timeline for the creation of a legal framework and a regulatory body to oversee the use of LFR?
Finally, on prisons, last year the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report on prisons highlighted the high reoffending rate of ex-prisoners. We argued for more measures to reduce reoffending, as well as for education, skills training, help with drugs, alcohol and gambling problems, and help with housing and jobs on leaving prison. We pointed out that in particular we need to reduce overcrowding and improve recruitment, retention and training of prison officers. The highly effective Prisons Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is doing as much as he can, but still prisoners, often let out of their cells for less than three hours a day, spend far too long with little to do.
The Minister is hindered by delays and cost overruns in the new building programme; a maintenance backlog of £1.8 billion; inadequate fire safety arrangements, with cell fires averaging eight per day; and the temporary closure of Dartmoor prison because of radon gas, with 16 other prisons possibly having the same problem. He has to deal with the uncertainty for foreign prison officers who have only a temporary reprieve from the impact of the new Immigration Rules, which means their salaries fall below the new minimum for skilled workers’ visas. There is the real possibility that the measures in the proposed courts modernisation Bill, with more cases to be handled by magistrates’ courts with extended sentencing powers, will lead to an increased prison population. So can the Minister share the Government’s assessment of the proposed Bill’s impact on prisoner numbers, and can he ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, gets more support from the Government for the good work that he is already doing?
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the King’s Speech we were told that the Government are going to pursue a foreign policy
“based on a calm assessment of the national interest”.
The Prime Minister often reassures us that he intends to act in the national interest. I would have thought that went without saying. But with lawyers at the helm of government, perhaps it is intended to counter the strong impression that it is adherence to international law that lies at the heart of foreign policy, and what international law is must be interpreted by the high priests: human rights lawyers such as the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General.
But the gracious Speech is right to emphasise the importance of “defence and economic security”. We must of course spend more on defence, but how are we going to afford that? Britain’s welfare bill is set to surge by £18 billion in a single year. That increase alone is, according to the Centre for Social Justice, the equivalent of 15 Royal Navy frigates, 220 fighter jets or a quarter of a million soldiers’ salaries, more than three times the current size of the British Army. Yet, at the first sign of opposition to his welfare reform, the Prime Minister capitulated. With his authority now so thoroughly undermined, is it remotely likely that he will have another go at reducing the welfare budget?
Even assuming that money can be found, there is not much point in having an enhanced defence capability if the lawyers advise that it cannot in fact be deployed. Cases such as Al-Skeini or Smith and others v Ministry of Defence have left our military entirely uncertain as to what they are allowed to do. This has had an unwelcome effect on morale and recruitment, reinforced by the Government’s desire to undo the legacy Act and drag veterans before the courts for incidents that happened more than 50 years ago.
We are gathering an unwelcome reputation for so-called legal freeloading. General David Petraeus recently observed that the current Government’s approach to so-called lawfare reflects a threat to national security.
The security of our borders against illegal migration is of course of major concern, not just to us but to other countries within the Council of Europe. The recent meeting in Moldova created a declaration, but I share others’ views that it is unlikely to have any practical effect on the decisions made by courts in Strasbourg or the courts in this country. We of course have gone for a maximalist approach by incorporating the convention into our own Human Rights Act and requiring our judges to take account of that jurisprudence. I look forward to what the greatest Home Secretary for 20 years may be about to say about immigration, but I fear that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that, without our leaving the ECHR, this particular bird has flown.
I hoped there was going to be some mention of the effective anti-SLAPP legislation so much talked about. It is a pity it is being left to a Private Member’s Bill, albeit in the capable hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.
I wish there were something positive about growth in the gracious Speech because, without growth, how can the noble aspirations referred to ever be realised? I am afraid that this is a Speech from a Government entirely bereft of ideas as to how to improve this country, apart from a certain zealotry towards international law. They lack a plan, and the Prime Minister now has an extremely slender grasp over their leadership.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak yet again, as many others have, about antisemitism. I would love to be able to stand here today and say that the tide was being turned against antisemitism and we would not have too many more debates like this, but I am afraid I cannot say that because the tide is still running in the wrong direction. I welcome the increased powers to stop protests that threaten public order, which the Government had already taken before the gracious Speech, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the glorification of terrorism should be a criminal offence. I had the impression that the Government were going to put that on the statute book, but I may be mistaken about that. All you have to do is look at the marches carrying and chanting repellent slogans to see how terrorism is being glorified on our streets.
There are just two facts to bear in mind. One is that on 7 October 2023, when people were being murdered, raped and tortured in southern Israel, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign applied for a licence to have a protest on the streets of London. Two days later, the Stop the War Coalition—I think it uses the word “coalition” as a matter of irony—held a protest outside the Israeli embassy. Why would you do that unless you were inciting racial hatred? I think that is exactly what they were doing. By the way, the last time I raised the activities of Stop the War, I started getting threatening emails and messages from it, which indicates to me that I have probably hit the nail on the head about its activities.
The rise in antisemitism is possibly—no, not possibly, definitely—the most frightening thing that I have ever witnessed, and I am getting on a bit these days. There are elements in our society that, without any shadow of a doubt, have one aim, and that is to drive British Jews into the sea. That is what they are about. Some of those elements receive support from Tehran. Directly or indirectly, they get funding and resources from that poisonous, evil regime in Tehran that slaughters its own people. I am very pleased to see, though not before time, that the Government plan to proscribe the IRGC. We should have done that before, as should have the previous Government and probably the Government before that.
I welcome the fact that we have criminalised activities that constitute undeclared links to the regime in Tehran. We should also think about criminalising people who have undeclared links to demonstrably Iranian proxies who are operating in this country. That includes criminal gangs, by the way. We are talking not just about religious organisations or political organisations but about criminal gangs, and until we take strong action to criminalise those gangs and organisations that are receiving direct or indirect funding from Tehran, we will not turn the tide on antisemitism.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have a few minutes in this debate on the humble Address.
I want to deal with a couple of issues around Northern Ireland. The first, mentioned in the Address, is the Northern Ireland Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the increasing of the number of days in which it can implement or take a decision on an issue from five to 10. It is one of the most ineffective committees I would have ever thought possible, and I am not sure that an increase in the time in which a decision can be taken from five to 10 days will be hugely effective, but at the same time I welcome it.
The other issue is the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. We have heard a lot from this current Government indicating that the last Bill did not have any support. I have news for the Government: this Bill does not have any further support. In fact it has even less, if that is possible or practical. We have heard much about amnesties. The Labour Government wanted to provide amnesties for terrorists back in 2001, but that was blocked. They had given letters of comfort to many terrorists, and that has progressed through the system unknown—they did not even bring it to this House or the other House at all.
I call on this Government to show a bit of backbone, particularly in relation to the Republic of Ireland. Instead of being dragged by the nose through the courts by the Irish Government, which they are allowing them to do, they need to stand up to them for once. These are people who have hidden the terrorists of Northern Ireland and murdered our kith and kin and indeed some of their own people—Irish citizens. They claim to be doing this in the name of Ireland but they have murdered their own citizens, let alone our friends and neighbours, and they have been protected by the Irish people at times and the Irish Government. That has to stop, and this Government must stand up to the Irish Government.
My third issue is something that I am pleased is not in the Bill: any change that might have come about in the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It currently sits at 10 but I was concerned that there may have been plans to change that, so I really am pleased that that is not happening.
My fourth issue—people will say, “What has that got to do with this?”—is that this Government provide significant financial support to the Scottish Football Association. I think anyone who has seen them was disgusted by the scenes in Glasgow on Saturday afternoon of people being attacked and football players being attacked by supporters who did not even let the game finish between Celtic and Hearts at Celtic Park, along with the disturbances outside that left two police officers in a critical condition. That cannot be allowed to continue in our communities, particularly in the name of sport. There is now a significant test for the Scottish Football Association. Will it stand up to the big clubs? Will it stand up against these lawbreakers and thugs and those who have no respect for law and regulations, or will it just cave in with a mild sanction or possibly nothing at all?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, when we think about the justice system, let us not forget Cinderella—the family courts. It is not entirely bad news; there is some good news on this front. Exceptionally in this debate, I congratulate, if I may, the Minister, and indeed her predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, on the Government’s recent commitment to complete the rollout of what is now called the child-focused model in private law disputes concerning children. Previously known as the pathfinder scheme, and initiated by the previous Government, this new approach introduces a problem-solving, multi-agency approach in private family law cases concerning children in place of the traditional adversarial model. Recently described by the retiring President of the Family Division as one of the most important developments in family law over the past 30 years, this new approach has been shown to reduce backlogs, shorten proceedings, save costs, reduce stress and, most importantly, enhance the voice of the child in these often-traumatic cases.
But there is, as always, a “but”. I appreciate that the most difficult thing in government is to extract from the machine a commitment to achieve a certain policy aim by a certain date—in other words, to set a deadline. Has anybody ever succeeded in getting the Government to set a definite deadline by which a commitment will be delivered? None the less, my plea today to the Minister—and through her to the Lord Chancellor and the Government—is to set a deadline for the completion of the rollout of the child-focused model in the family courts. Please give the children, stuck through no fault of their own for months and sometimes years on end in the family courts, the priority they so plainly deserve.
This is a success story. It is a partial answer to those who believe that nothing works. Good public sector reform can be achieved, but the drive has to come from Ministers. I respectfully suggest that the end of 2027 for the complete introduction of child-focused family courts across the country, including London, would be a proper deadline. We are not yet even half way there. We have made good progress—and great credit to everyone concerned—but let us press on with this most important project.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I should like to add my sorrow at the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. He will be sadly missed.
I strongly oppose the current proposals of the Government in relation to jury trials, for the reasons so brilliantly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, but I would like to speak, in the short time I have, about modern slavery and the potential for dealing with it in the immigration and asylum Bill which is proposed.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there has been no evidence to show any serious abuse of the system of finding victims of exploitation. It was said by the last Government; it is said by this Government, and so far we do not know why. It might be of interest to the Government to check the figures. Some 77% of negative decisions in the NRM were changed to a positive outcome, and only six people last year were disqualified for having said that they were exploited when they clearly were not. One of the major concerns is a lack of training for the police, who are the first responders to the national referral mechanism, the NRM.
I will move briefly to the supply chains. It is very sad that nothing is being done or being proposed. The Select Committee of which I was a member recommended that the Government look at mandatory rules in relation to supply chains—everything is currently voluntary—and at the moment nothing has been done, despite the EU having now a directive on due diligence. That is something that, again, the Government should be looking at.
There is a worrying lack of co-ordination among agencies, with a lack of data about victims and a failure to share the data when it actually exists. I hope that the Bill may underline the usefulness of prevention and risk orders, which came in in the 2015 Act and are not used to the extent to which they could be. They are very useful. They can take away passports and prevent people going to certain places and so on and could be very much better used.
There have been only 243 convictions for slavery and trafficking during the last year, and one of the major reasons why this happens and why there are so few convictions, and indeed so few prosecutions, is the failure to look after the victims—so the victims disappear. They are not there when the trials commence and, consequently, it is much more difficult to get a conviction. The failure of support for victims is a serious issue; we ought to be doing better than 243 convictions in a year. There are excellent multi-agency arrangements for exploited children, at least half of whom are British, but it would be very useful if that could be rolled out right across the country.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and a privilege to have been here today to listen to the contributions so far in this debate, especially the valedictory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and his important call to us all.
I stand in your Lordships’ House today reflecting on the King’s Speech, not just as a Peer but as a mother to two children who have to pass anti-car ramming bollards, high walls, five security guards, a gated air lock and, as of just a few weeks ago, a guard dog just to get into their primary school. Why do Jewish children experience the start of their school day in a way that is so different to millions of other children in this country?
Hate crime offences in the UK have risen nearly every year for the last decade, from just over 40,000 offences in 2013 to over 115,000 in 2025. Prevent referrals last year rose to 8,517. This is the highest ever—up by 27% in 12 months. All these offences and referrals are the result of extremism, online radicalisation and antisemitism. These three key issues coalesce to pose a toxic and destabilising threat to our domestic security and social cohesion. I welcome the measures to be presented in the national security Bill, which will criminalise the creation and sharing of the most harmful, violent material online. There is, though, no specific mention of counterextremism measures in the forthcoming legislative agenda, which I hoped would complement the Government’s recent social cohesion strategy, Protecting What Matters.
Anti-Jewish hatred is found within all extremist ideologies: far left, far right and Islamist. Antisemitism is also consistent with non-ideological extremism. It has often been referred to as a gateway for radicalisation, through conspiracy theories that so often lead back to deep-rooted anti-Jewish hatred. Our understandable focus on counterterrorism has left us without the capacity to address the growing volume of extremist activity that operates below the terrorism threshold. The report by the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that we lack a meaningful, stand-alone counterextremism strategy, that we are overreliant on Prevent and that community-based early intervention approaches have been eroded through underfunding.
Prevent is also poorly equipped to detect online radicalisation, despite the internet being a hotbed for radicalisation, as other noble Lords have alluded to in this debate. An increasing number of young people are being radicalised online. X and Telegram are acting as key amplifiers of extremist ideas and movements. Their algorithms are designed to promote extreme content, which most people are not searching for, through bots and antisemitic accounts hijacking popular, neutral-content posts, turning them into breeding grounds for antisemitism. These are used to socialise and normalise hate and conspiracies.
The Antisemitism Policy Trust published research the other week, confirming again that TikTok is actively serving young people extremist content. A young person aged 15 interested in fitness and male lifestyle content was, within just one hour, being served antisemitic conspiracy theories. By his sixth one-hour session online, he was watching videos celebrating Hitler and denying the Holocaust. He did not seek or search for any of this content.
We cannot let these extreme ideologies and their increasing capacity to recruit more young people continue to infect minds, especially when we know that more things can be done. First, we need a new legal framework to address hateful and extremist groups that radicalise individuals and undermine our democracy, in the same way that Australia has done after the deadly Hanukkah shooting. Secondly, we need to urgently treat big tech, social media and messaging companies in the same way as we do our broadcasters in respect of regulation. People are not radicalised in a vacuum.
These online activities have real-world consequences. We cannot let this continue. We need urgent action.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, like many other speakers, I want to focus today on a sentence that would have been unimaginable in a Queen’s Speech of 40, 30 or even 20 years ago. It is the sentence that begins:
“My Government will take urgent action to tackle antisemitism”.
I want to make three points. First, I have a confession to make. Many years ago I wrote to the then Israeli ambassador in London because I disagreed with the view, which he had expressed, that it was not safe for British citizens who were Jewish to live in Britain. He urged them to go and live in Israel. I wrote to him to say that I thought he was being alarmist and exaggerating, and was tarnishing Britain’s international reputation. Well, today, I am afraid I have been proved wrong.
Last year the Community Security Trust recorded 3,700 anti-Jewish incidents. “Incidents”, by the way, completely understates what it was describing. These so-called incidents involved discrimination on campuses and in the world of the arts. They involved verbal assaults on the streets of our towns and cities, attacks on Jewish cemeteries and synagogues and, worse still, as we have seen recently, attacks and firebombings leading to the deaths of Jewish people as they worshipped. These things were not happening in a foreign country a long way away. We are not talking about Germany in the 1930s and Europe. This is happening in Britain, something that none of us could have imagined when we were growing up—unimaginable.
My second point is this. I welcome the Prime Minister’s very clear denunciation of antisemitism and the fact that it has been echoed very strongly by the leaders of other parties, including my right honourable friend Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Lib Dems and the leader of Reform UK, because words do matter. That is why I was less than happy with what the leader of the Green Party said very recently: that he did not believe Israel had the right to exist. When challenged, he went on to say that he did not believe any country, including the United Kingdom, had any right to exist. I regard that as stark raving bonkers, to be honest, but what really worried me was how his remarks might be perceived, because they carry sinister undertones. They have a sinister subtext which, however unintended, could well feed further anti-Jewish prejudice or hatred. Everyone should reject the preposterous and dangerous view that British citizens who are Jewish are somehow responsible for the actions of a foreign Government, in this case the Israeli Government. They are not.
This morning, and this is my third point, we heard about the arrest by the FBI in the United States of al-Saadi, a commander of an Iranian-backed militia group responsible for firebombings across Europe and, almost certainly, in the UK. The gracious Speech talked about urgent action. I hope that the Minister will tell us in his speech what action is being planned and when, and in particular when the Government will take action to proscribe the IRGC.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on the Representation of the People Bill, which seeks to protect our democracy. What is more important than that? I declare an interest, since I have been liaising with and advising the charity Spotlight on Corruption.
There is much to commend in the Representation of the People Bill, but the question is whether it goes far enough in certain respects, particularly given the febrile political landscape we now see, with more political parties seeking opportunities for power or a share of it. The temptation, therefore, by unscrupulous actors to give a fiscal advantage to a particular party by bending or circumventing the electoral rules on political donations and spending has never been greater. The Government are taking various measures to clamp down on abuse but, once the Bill reaches this House, I will be testing whether these measures should be strengthened in certain respects—for example, as regards foreign money finding its way into ostensibly permissible donations from donors in the UK, the amount of money that can be donated by each donor, and the limits on political parties’ spending.
There is, however, a quite separate urgency arising from the proposal to give the vote to 16 year-olds from 2028, which is whether young people have the necessary knowledge that they themselves have stated they want—and need—about our constitution, Parliament, the rule of law, the differences between the political parties and so on, to help them decide how to use their vote. Yes, some of this is mentioned in guidance on what citizenship education should cover in the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4, and the Government have responded to Becky Francis’s review of the curriculum by saying that they will extend aspects of this to key stages 1 and 2. This is good but does not go nearly far enough.
We know from the House of Lords Liaison Committee in 2022 that the teaching of citizenship has been badly neglected. This is confirmed by a recent study by London Metropolitan University of 14 and 15 year-olds in 120 schools, which showed that many of them have no real idea of what British political parties stand for, or even what a constituency is. The Liaison Committee said there was a lack of teacher expertise to make citizenship education in our schools meaningful. There should be at least one teacher trained in civic and constitutional education in every primary and secondary school.
I would add that giving 16 year-olds the vote means that the current guidance on the content of citizenship education in the national curriculum must be given a statutory mandate that requires a programme of civic and constitutional education, including education in domestic and international human rights, and the balance to be struck between such rights and individual responsibilities. This was recommended by Sir Peter Gross in his 2022 review of the Human Rights Act, and it has never been so important, given the starkly different views between our parties, for example on our membership of the ECHR. Young people need to be taught the basic facts so that they can make up their own minds and cast their vote accordingly.
In conclusion, the late and greatly missed Lord Harries of Pentregarth introduced a Private Member’s Bill in July 2024 that highlighted the importance of citizenship values, but without ultimate success. I hope we can do better in this new Session. One opportunity might be the Private Member’s Bill on citizenship education that I have been fortunate to secure in the ballot. This would require our young people to be taught on all these issues by trained and impartial teachers, so as to make their vote at 16 more meaningful for them.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this House. I begin by expressing my sincere gratitude for the warm welcome I have received from all sides. I thank the officers and staff of this House for their patience, professionalism and kindness in guiding new Members through these early days. As Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, I serve the people of Suffolk, that great east of England county upon which the sun rises first each morning. I aim to join those who live out the particular Suffolk virtue of quiet service: people getting on with the task, often without applause, motivated by a genuine desire to make their communities better places for all.
My academic literary research before ordination took me deep into the works of the great Elizabethan poet, Edmund Spenser, whose Fairie Queene examines some of the private and public virtues needed to uphold the common good and the bonds of society. Whether biblically or classically rooted, virtue is much needed. Leadership in this current age needs to refocus on the common good, the social bonds and contracts that hold individuals together as communities. Of course, I include in that a matter at the heart of our debate today in response to His Majesty’s gracious Speech: justice, with a specific interest in the realities of and responses to miscarriages of justice. I thank my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, from whom we will hear later in this debate, for her energy, commitment and expertise over the years in urging us to reimagine a better criminal justice system for all. I welcome the Government’s desire to improve the courts and look forward to seeing their proposed legislation in these areas.
The United Kingdom has long been seen as a standard-bearer for the rule of law—yet even strong systems are not immune to error. When those errors lead to wrongful convictions, the impact is profound, not just for individuals but for confidence in the whole system. In this landscape, the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission is indispensable. It exists as a safeguard—a recognition that the justice system must contain within it the means to correct its own errors. It is in relation to the CCRC that I draw this House’s attention to the case of Jason Moore, convicted in 2013 for the murder of Robert Darby. I mention this matter with the permission of Jason and his sister Kirsty. Both Jason Moore’s and Robert Darby’s families have spent the last 13 years campaigning to have that conviction reviewed. Amid fiascos of lost evidence and problems with the management of identity parades and vital witnesses, Jason is still waiting for the CCRC to come to a decision about sending his case to appeal. His case has been under consideration by it for six years now.
Miscarriages of justice are not abstract legal concepts but lived human experiences. They concern individuals who maintain their innocence while navigating a system that can be slow, complex and difficult to penetrate. Wrongful conviction is not simply the loss of liberty; it is the loss of years, sometimes decades. When convictions are ultimately overturned, the sense of relief is tempered by a stark reality: lost time cannot be restored. Noble Lords may be aware of previous criticism of the CCRC and the promise of a review of it by the Law Commission. Since justice delayed is justice denied, this review needs to be concluded, with any actions that follow from it considered with urgency. I therefore press the Minister for a timescale for the completion of that review.
As this House considers the legislative programme set out in His Majesty’s gracious Speech, I hope we will give due weight to those whose voices are hardest to hear: individuals maintaining their innocence over many years from within prison, and the families who stand alongside them. Any system worthy of public confidence must be able to correct and learn from its mistakes. In the words of Edmund Spenser,
“Where justice grows, there grows eke greater grace”.
If I can contribute in however a modest way to strengthening fairness, timeliness and accountability within such systems, I shall consider it a privilege to do so.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich for an important and moving maiden speech. The first person in her family to stay in education after 16, this tenacious Teessider has a lot to offer your Lordships’ House. When Bishop of Stepney, she was my amazing friend Reverend Alexandra’s boss, and it was following the untimely death of Reverend Alexandra’s husband, my wonderful friend Michael, that I learned that the right Reverend Prelate was at the vicarage with a bottle of gin for my newly widowed friend. When asked who was there, she simply said, “It’s Joanne”, showing her trademark humility, care and—frankly, with that bottle of gin—practicality.
She did not falter in the difficult and complex task of being the lead bishop for safeguarding. She continues as deputy leader for safeguarding and is an exemplary agent for culture change via stronger governance and processes. Having seen first hand the devastating impact of safeguarding failures, I wish her all the best in those important endeavours. I look forward to seeing the right reverend Prelate bring the rigour and compassion that have characterised her 26 years in ordained ministry to your Lordships’ House in years to come.
I very much welcome the measures outlined in the gracious Speech to improve the justice system, whether that is via changes to policing or the expedition of justice by the measures outlined in the courts modernisation Bill. It is clear that 14 years of austerity, neglect and, frankly, a lack of courage to pursue the evidence had left our justice system, from police to courts, prisons and probation, in a sorry mess. I am sorry that we have heard so much in this debate about the changes to jury systems and so little about what happens after people are incarcerated by the state.
We are all too aware, in these times, of the threat posed from outside the country and the arguments for increased defence spending to protect society, and this can be to the detriment and neglect of arguments for funding commensurate with ensuring safety for people currently inside our country, both those in our prisons and in wider society. If we cannot keep people in prison safe, how can we hope to achieve any of the other more lofty goals of recovery from addiction, education, rehabilitation, skills and training? This is about pragmatism. We do not just send people away to become non-people, never to be heard of again; we send people somewhere. We send them to prison.
Indeed, there is legislation in the gracious Speech, in the national security Bill, which will tackle the rise of accessing violent material online. This will lead to even more people being imprisoned under that legislation—but what happens then? In some cases, these prisons, smaller ones with less staff turnover, are able to help people effectively repair their lives in a variety of ways, tackling root causes. But, in too many cases, despite the best efforts of hard-working prison staff, they do not. Those prisons become a criminogenic factor in themselves. Being safe in custody is not about having an easy life—some tabloid fantasy. It is about the hard reality of prison and making it a safe place for people to live and work. In 2025, there were 79 self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales. The rate of self-harm was 837 per 1,000 prisoners. One in three women in prison self-harmed in 2025, and they were nine times more likely than men to do so.
There are all kinds of people in our prisons, as was recently vividly brought to life by James Graham’s play “Punch”, an adaptation of Jacob Dunne’s memoir about his 2011 manslaughter conviction following a single fatal punch. These people in prison could be my child or my neighbour; they are not just faceless people. Safer prisons lead to safer societies and I know that my noble friend the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending is deeply committed and is managing to turn things round. I am proud of those achievements, yet there is still a way to go. We cannot hope to deliver this Labour Government’s bold, landmark commitments, including halving violence against women and girls, without functioning prisons and probation, without safe prisons that are equipped not just to do that basic thing of keeping people alive but to enable people to live again and to contribute to society. Therefore, I urge the same commitment in this parliamentary Session to pursuing domestic and indeed prison safety as we are showing on the international front.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, in normal times—does anyone remember those?—I would probably have focused my remarks on the gracious Speech on a number of other issues I care about: women’s health, women’s rights, violence against women and girls, pornography, childhood harms, including social media and smartphones, obesity—all topics I am more comfortable with. But today, I step outside my comfort zone, because, like many, I am so worried about the divisions in our country, graphically illustrated by the two marches in London this weekend, at a policing cost of £4.5 million. The growth of sectarian politics, illustrated by the election of hundreds of new councillors who care more about Middle Eastern politics than local issues, is extremely worrying. Measures to deal with extremism, counterterrorism and state threats included in the King’s Speech are welcome but surely do not go far enough.
Our national security, the integrity of our democracy and the cohesion of our society are all under immense pressure as never before. The extremist threat facing Britain has evolved rapidly and our response has not kept pace. As MI5’s director confirmed in his threat updates from last October and 2024, Islamist extremism remains the most significant terrorism threat to the UK and accounts for 75% of MI5’s case load. We are watching how this plays out in real time, with the increasing number of antisemitic terror-related attacks, some with clear ideological motivation and links to foreign influence networks, including those aligned with hostile states. If anyone is still in any doubt about the rise of antisemitism, they have only to look at the StandWithUs UK report, based on the testimonies of Jewish students who have been isolated, assaulted and intimidated on campus.
Evidence shows that Islamist extremist communications have generated the highest and most volatile levels of activities, often intensifying in response to geopolitical crises, particularly those relating to the Middle East. This matters profoundly because it demonstrates that threats to our domestic security are not isolated from global events; they are shaped by them, amplified by them, and increasingly imported into our online and civic spaces in real time. At the same time, extremist narratives—Islamist, far right and others—are no longer neatly separated; they are converging. They share common features: conspiracy theories, anti-establishment sentiment and hostility towards democratic institutions. We see another worrying trend: the growing involvement of young people, sometimes very young people, drawn into extremist ecosystems through digital platforms where Islamist propaganda, alongside other forms of extremism, spreads rapidly and often unchecked. This is no longer simply a matter of isolated extremist groups; it is an ecosystem enabled by technology, influenced by international events and capable of mobilising individuals at scale.
We must be willing to acknowledge the scale and persistence of these threats without fear or equivocation and, equally, without stigmatising communities who are themselves often the first victims of these ideologies. We need a modernised counterextremism framework that goes beyond terrorism prevention, one that can intervene earlier, particularly in online spaces where radicalisation now primarily occurs. Extremism thrives where trust is weak, where truth is contested and where communities feel divided and unheard, and that is certainly the case today. People are angry, afraid, suspicious and divided but still long for a country at ease with itself. They do not feel that the Government understand or share their concerns. They worry about increasing antisemitism and what feels like a tin-eared response to recent atrocities. I urge the Government to listen to them and act urgently, or we will all pay the price.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on her maiden speech. It is also the end of an era, with the departure from our Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, who is a legend in his own lifetime, with his constitutional expertise.
I want to mention the immigration issue that faces this country, because the vast numbers of people that have come into the United Kingdom in recent years simply cannot be integrated at the rate that they are coming in. In the year to June 2023, the gross number of immigrants arriving in the United Kingdom was 23,000 people a week. How can we integrate 23,000 people a week? It is utterly and completely impossible and we have no meaningful, effective means of dealing with this throughout the country. We are creating vast ghettos, and we do not really know what is happening within them. Recent attempts to get control of this are floundering. Boats continue and have not been stopped—indeed, we have little idea who is in them—and the gangs have not been smashed. The reason for that, of course, is that the incentive to come here, using boats as one example, faces no meaningful deterrent, as 95% of those arriving have remained. In the absence of any meaningful deterrent, the Government have been trying, and the Minister has been working very hard, but the truth is that he has been playing catch-up throughout this process.
I fear, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks and others have mentioned it, that the decisions announced in Moldova over the last few days will have little impact, because of what we have brought into our national law. They are only recommendations; there is nothing in a treaty and there is nothing in legislation.
There is a massive cost to taxpayers. We talk about the plight of many of these people, and that is fully understandable, but we do not talk about the plight of the people who live here and who are paying for it. For instance, a couple of years ago, we were taking a couple of hundred pounds a year off somebody’s heating allowance, yet people who come into the country in boats are in centrally heated hotels, fully fed and taken care of. There is a fundamental unfairness, and it is a breach of the social contract between the people and the state. I have tried to get the figure as to what all this is costing. My personal opinion is that it is about £10 billion a year, and maybe the Minister in his response can tell us, but I believe that there is a fundamental underlying dishonesty in the way mass immigration is being dealt with by successive Governments and Parliaments, and it will have to stop.
I want to say just one thing about the union. In recent days, we have seen potential candidates for the Labour leadership, should a vacancy arise, talking about going back into the European Union. We had a referendum 10 years ago and, whatever our views on that referendum, the fact is that a decision was reached, whether we like it or not. If one is prepared to take away that decision now, to go back on it and perhaps consult the people—maybe not—what is the argument against the Scottish National Party, which says, “We want another referendum”, having had one only 12 years ago? If we are prepared to have one for Europe, we are opening the door to a break-up of the union.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, I approach this debate in the positive spirit of one who wholeheartedly believes in the greatness of this nation. Indeed, global recognition that this is a stellar place to spend your life is vividly illustrated by the demand to live here. Where better to savour world-class sport, opera and the arts, a no-pay health service, policing by consent, jury trial, free speech, an interesting maritime climate, and national treasures from David Attenborough to a Greggs sausage roll? Yet we have to recognise that criminality is steadily chipping away at the foundations of our civilised society.
Decline rarely starts with great crimes. Inevitably, it begins with minor transgressions such as vandalism and fare dodging being tolerated and consequence free. Now we see a growing lack of respect for the law on our own streets daily: routine parking in disabled bays, cyclists riding through red lights, balaclava-clad youths on mopeds snatching mobile phones, and mass marches of hate. The spread of retail crime is increasing too, with the flagrant stripping of goods from retailers’ shelves almost commonplace. We, the consumer, bear the cost in higher prices for food, clothing and other everyday necessities. This is the last thing we need in the midst of a cost of living crisis.
More than 70 years ago, I remember sitting in my South Yorkshire mining village home when a knock on the door announced the arrival of the local policeman, responding to a complaint of me riding my bicycle on the pavement. Supported by my father, he delivered a stern rebuke to me, while my mother sobbed tears of disappointment. It was a fine example of community policing and parenting, which produced a swift and lasting improvement in my behaviour.
I strongly welcome the police reform Bill’s proposal to ensure responsive and accountable local policing, and the action already taken in the Crime and Policing Act to remove the perceived decriminalisation of thefts from shops valued at less than £200 and to make assaults on retail workers a specific offence. While current feedback indicates that violent assaults appear to be reducing perhaps a little bit, it is absolutely vital that we build on any progress made by having local police services that actually respond to calls for assistance from stores. It is equally vital that we also grant retailers more power to help themselves. High-risk stores often employ security guards, but they have no powers to do more than act as a visible deterrent. Clearly, security guards urgently need the additional powers to restrain and detain offenders, but such empowerment will be useless without the promised investment in community policing, together with a quicker-acting justice system and meaningful punishments.
We hear a lot about apprenticeships, and I strongly agree, but retail stores are providing one that we do not need: an apprenticeship in crime that escalates from self-scan cheats and grab-and-run artists to the organised wholesale grand theft of high-value items from stores.
The dismantling of our values is dangerous, and it impacts all of us. It is only one small step from a low-level offence to serious crime. While I am not so naive as to suppose we can revert to the days of PC Dixon of Dock Green, the friendly bobby on the corner 70 years ago, I strongly believe that strengthened community policing and the overdue crackdown on anti-social behaviour is absolutely key to maintaining our status as a great and safe nation of liberty, fairness and order, in which people are eager and proud to live.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, in the gracious Speech, there are two matters where constitutional principle relating to our justice system requires particular scrutiny, and they also require scrutiny in relation to the strength of our union.
First is lay participation in our Crown Courts. The jury and the magistracy have been an essential part of our constitutional structure for centuries: they date back in statute to the 13th and 14th centuries. They are a hallmark of our system of justice, underpin its worldwide reputation and give the public confidence in the administration of justice. There is nothing I have seen that can possibly be taken as an excuse for dismantling that constitutional principle.
If you read carefully the report of Sir Brian Leveson’s second volume, you will see that the causes of the problem are multifaceted but that each of them is capable of remedy. One of those issues is productivity, with which we are all familiar. The decline in the productivity of the Crown Courts, measured by the time of sitting days over the last 10 years, has been 16%. We are used to remedying this and must do so. I am glad the Government are committed to making more resource available, and I hope I can have confidence in the Minister and the Government in taking these necessary steps, so we do not destroy what underpins our justice system, namely lay participation.
Second is constitutional principles relating to the police and the great reform that is now being undertaken. There are two of particular importance: that the police are operationally independent from local and central government—just as the prosecutor, the justices and the judges must be—and that the police have and must continue to have a discretion as to the way in which they enforce the law. I hope very much that the Bill will underpin those two principles, just as principles are underpinned in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 in respect of the judiciary. I also hope that, when we look at police reform, we will look with particular care at the way in which the police have been governed over the past century or two and learn from the mistakes that have been made.
As to Wales and the strength of our union, I hope the Government will now see what, on occasion, I have raised in this House: the need for the devolution of justice to Wales. Wales is a small country, it has effective and efficient courts, and it certainly had them before this Parliament abolished them in 1830. Secondly, I have no doubt that, if policing is to be properly reformed in Wales, it must be tied very closely to the way in which the rest of the government of Wales is conducted.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, first, I support the Government’s health plans, which include a strong focus on prevention and neighbourhood, and I want to help them build on the integration of health and other services required by the Health and Care Act 2022.
We are getting there with the early years in delivering health through Best Start Family Hubs, which are thankfully now in all local authority areas. But, by definition, family hubs are for families with all children up to 19, and up to 25 if they are SEND. County councils such as Essex have pioneered healthcare for older children in their hubs and have much evidence of good practice to share.
Votes for 16 and 17 year-olds was a government manifesto commitment, but I cannot support it on child development grounds and due to its almost complete inconsistency with the rest of English law. Yes, prepare 16 and 17 year-olds to take the adult responsibility to help determine who governs this country, but do not thrust it upon children.
When I visit youth custody sites, I notice staff consistently refer to anyone in their care as children, because they are under 18. I was told it is not because they are highly vulnerable but because calling them children underlines to all concerned that children is what they are. Surely making them voters would require changing the Children Act 1989, which states that a child is a person under the age of 18. That definition is used across vast swathes of law and social policy, including safeguarding, family law, social services, education and youth justice. It is also used by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
So what if under 18s can work full-time and pay taxes? That is about training a child in the way they should go: taking responsibility and contributing. Our tax and voting systems do not completely overlap in terms of entitlement. Any further shift towards adultification needs to be strenuously resisted as it is a major threat to keeping children safe, as seen when victims were blamed in child rape gang cases. Neurodevelopment research is harnessed to argue for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It shows that maturity of frontal lobes, where risk management and judgment take place, is not complete until around 25. One has to ask whether the Government are genuinely interested in children’s welfare or their votes.
Similarly, the draft conversion Bill panders more to identity politics than an objective need for a better legal framework. Violence and coercion are already illegal. This unnecessary legislation is also harmful; it intimidates those with genuinely therapeutic and caring motivations from engaging in any way with someone seeking help.
On the courts modernisation Bill, I will explore how we can improve the Children Act 1989 if this Government remove the rebuttable presumption that the involvement of both parents in their life serves the child’s welfare. Would the Family Justice Minister meet with me to discuss, for example, improving the welfare checklist?
Before I sit down, I want to say that I consider it a great privilege to have heard the valedictory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, today. I will paraphrase Dr Emma Crewe, who is an anthropologist of Parliament who has said that, in the Lords, influence depends heavily on personal relationships, reputation, civility, reciprocity and trust across parties and groups. Courtesy therefore functions almost like a social currency. Peers who are respectful, co-operative and considerate are more likely to gain influence or persuade others. Thereby, we are a model to the outside world, and I pray that we will continue to be so.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as an adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service, and I intend to focus on the importance of diversity in policing and the Government’s police reform proposals. His Majesty’s most gracious Speech describes how Ministers will defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference. I have witnessed the Minister defend those values from the Dispatch Box.
This country’s unique system of policing by consent is based on the Peelian principles of 1829. The principles speak of the power of the police being dependent on public approval and their ability to secure and maintain public respect. As this country becomes more diverse, the police have a duty to provide an appropriate and professional service to everyone, no matter their colour, culture or ethnic origin—to borrow from Sir William Macpherson’s definition of institutional racism—extended now to other sections of society that have particularly lost confidence in the police: women, LGBT+ and disabled people.
The police need to secure the trust and confidence, public approval and co-operation of law-abiding citizens in every community if they are to be effective in the prevention of crime, the preservation of public tranquillity and in bringing offenders to justice. The police rely on fellow citizens to inform, assist and co-operate with them. Treating everyone with dignity and respect, respecting difference, is essential to the efficiency and effectiveness of the police in a diverse society.
On the police reform proposals, it makes complete sense to brigade national policing functions, such as counterterrorism, under one leading organisation. The system of police and crime commissioners concentrates too much power—and now, without exception, party-political power—in the hands of one individual, particularly in the hiring and firing of what are supposed to be apolitical chief constables. There is always a danger of personal or political—with a small p —differences resulting in good chief constables being sacked because of these differences and good chief police officers not applying for important posts because the incumbent deputy has a close relationship with the PCC. The abolition of police and crime commissioners is a step in the right direction. However, many directly elected mayors are the police and crime commissioners for their areas, and similar arguments apply. This reform does not appear to me to go far enough. Do the Government have proposals to address the issue of potential personality differences?
The amalgamation of police forces from the current 43 has been on the agenda for decades. There are efficiency savings to be had, but there is a considerable initial cost in terms of rebadging, reorganising, culture and public perception. Police officers have an allegiance to their forces, and in Scotland many citizens felt that they had lost touch with their local police force with the establishment of Police Scotland. When crime is lower, public confidence in the police is higher, and there is money in the bank. Having learned the lessons from Police Scotland, force amalgamations may be the right way to go. What is the Government’s timetable for these reforms?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I add my voice in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. The noble Lord gave us a great reminder of the bizarre ways in which our constitution has come into being by historically adding lots of small entities and having norms and customs. He reminded us that unpicking the glue of something can actually be hugely damaging to the relationships of what make nationhood, and his wisdom should be remembered for all time.
I want to talk today about juries, but I would have spoken on so many of the aspects of the justice system that are being reformed. However, I want to talk about the folly that I think is contained in these reforms to jury trial. I was very interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who described to us the importance of educating our young about citizenship education and teaching them what citizenship means because they are going to be voting before long. One of the things that citizens value, however, is that they bring something to the justice system, which you do not get anywhere else; they bring their experience of the community to the system. It is that lay participation, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to, that enriches the system, building trust and confidence in it.
Opportunities for citizens to do something in the public sphere that affects the lives of their fellow citizens are rare. They have it if they vote, but there are few other ways in which they can make that contribution. We should, therefore, be recognising that reducing jury trial is one of the fundamental ways in which citizen participation is being undermined. We talk about active citizenship all the time, and the recent elections showed us that people are increasingly feeling that their views and the contribution they could make is of little consequence. I think we are making a serious mistake in thinking that reducing jury trial is going to be the solution to the problems in the justice system.
I agree that there is an alarming backlog of cases in the criminal justice system, but everyone—including Sir Brian Leveson, who provided the recommendations—agreed that the backlog was largely a result of chronic underfunding. I see the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, sitting there, and he should hang his head in shame for the cuts that were introduced in his time. I can honestly tell noble Lords that the jury system is part and parcel of what has made our system great; it is respected around the world because it is the fairest way to determine guilt or innocence, and it has the confidence of the community.
It is wrong that we should be misleading the victims’ movement into thinking that this will provide speedy justice for raped women and girls. It is a piece of spin to secure the support of a group of people who have been failed disgracefully by the criminal justice system, and they are not going to be helped by these reforms. Reform is needed, but it is not this.
I remind noble Lords that the Secretary of State for Justice, David Lammy, said not that long ago:
“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”,
and he wrote a great report on securing the support and confidence of minority communities. He seems to have done a volte face. I quote again what the Prime Minister has said repeatedly throughout his life as a lawyer:
“The right to jury trial is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual”.
It really does hold that place; it is one of the pieces of glue, and if it is further restricted, the greater the imbalance. It is a serious mistake to be reforming jury trials, and my message to the Government is: think again.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on leave to remain, but first I want to comment on the background policy papers the Government published on the upcoming immigration and asylum Bill. If you read the beginning of certainly one of those papers, it seems to suggest that somehow the UK suffers more with asylum seekers than other parts of Europe. Let me make it clear that this is not the case. The numbers of asylum seekers in Germany, France, Italy and Spain are well ahead of the number here in the UK. If you look at it on a per capita basis, countries such as Greece, and many others, are well ahead of us in terms of statistics.
Let me come on to indefinite leave to remain. I have in my close family a guy—my step-grandson, in effect—who has leave to remain. He works hard, pays taxes and has no intention of claiming any benefits whatever—that would be against his moral compass. He is well integrated into his local community and is a great father. He is able to do all this because he has the certainty of indefinite leave to remain, which gives him stability and allows him to be a positive member of British society. However, the Government have plans, via this Bill in the King’s Speech, to continue their agenda of not allowing people to acquire that position for 10 to 20 years. This is fundamentally wrong. It creates cost for those individuals and, as I understand it, everybody’s situation is going to be looked at again after two and half years. That is a huge bureaucratic burden on our Civil Service at a time when it is under great stress anyway, with backlogs of appeals and the number of asylum seekers still coming into the country, although that may be reducing. It is particularly bad, in terms of its retrospectivity, for those who are already here and now see those horizons moving far ahead to 10 to 20 years’ time.
I just wanted to make the point that changing the rules in terms of years is wrong. For those individuals who want eventually to become British citizens—and we should encourage that—and officially part of British society, it can lead to alienation rather than the integration that we want. I ask the Government to think again about those timetables.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I want to raise briefly the issue of modern slavery and specifically the proposals in the immigration and asylum Bill that were announced in the gracious Speech last week. In the background notes for the Bill, I liked the intention to embed provisions to ensure that child victims of exploitation
“are identified and supported more effectively”.
I hope very much that this will include finally bringing into force Section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act, to make independent child trafficking guardians available across the whole of England and Wales. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether Section 48 will be started as part of these new measures.
I am, however, very concerned that the inclusion of modern slavery measures in an immigration Bill confuses an issue of human rights abuse with the knotty problem of immigration control, since this could deter victims from coming forward. I am also disappointed to hear the Government speak about “potential misuse” of modern slavery protections, when, in fact, a committee of this House found in 2024 that it had not received
“evidence of widespread abuse of the modern slavery system”,
as my colleague, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has already mentioned.
In closing, I ask the Minister to confirm whether the NRM changes will allow discretion on a case-by-case basis, and to assure this House that all modern slavery victims exploited in the United Kingdom will have access to support.
I also add my appreciation for the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. I have known him for many years. He is, in every way, a giant of a man, and it has been a pleasure to have known him and worked with him. We shall miss him very much.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, let me begin where the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, ended. It has been a huge privilege to share these Benches and this debate with my noble friend Lord Hennessy. I briefly add my own tribute. Understandably, much of the discussion has been about his role as a Member of this House, and as a historian and academic on the constitution. He is also the country’s pre-eminent historian of the British submarine programme and the national deterrent, and we—this nation, the town of Barrow-in-Furness and I personally—owe him a huge debt for the contribution he has made over the years. He will be so deeply missed, and I am humbled to be able to call him a friend.
I welcome the tackling state threats Bill. We all hope that it will deliver a proscription of the IRGC that is every bit as strong as full proscription with a different name. I hope the Minister in his conclusion will say whether the Bill will be fast-tracked, as has been suggested in recent days. It is urgently needed and has been for many years, but the sense of crisis currently, with the conflict in Iran and the explosion of violent antisemitism in our communities, means there can be no excuse for delay.
Can the Minister also explain why it was suggested that neither that Bill nor the announced national security Bill include a commitment to enact the Government’s also much-needed commitment to tackle extremism in the charity sector? This was a welcome announcement on an issue that is also urgent. Surely, the power to strike off charities will require primary legislation. Therefore, if the Government could clarify why there is no mention of that in any of the briefing on the Bills, that would be appreciated.
Furthermore, what is the level of commitment to any measures that may be deemed necessary following the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, into hate crime and public order? The Government have said that they will publish that review shortly and will enact a number of recommendations from it. It is unclear where that would fit in. Obviously, many of us in this House believe strongly that there is a need for urgent changes to public order legislation, so I hope the Minister will agree to enact such measures. I hope he will also agree to enact the measures I have been banging on about in my review and subsequently, in particular a proscription-style tool, but also stronger powers to tackle the hate-infested marches that have now reached crisis point. Jewish communities in Britain are under siege from all sides: from Islamist extremism, the far left and also, of course, the far right. These measures are deeply needed, and the Government must match their rhetoric with legislative action.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in my response to the gracious Speech, I shall focus on what is missing. Soon, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, will be missing. The noble Lord joined your Lordships’ House shortly before I did and was so gracious as I enthusiastically presented myself in front of him, grateful that I had used his books when I learnt at A-level. He laughed and invited me for tea, and shared his wit and wisdom with me, for which I remain very grateful.
In his valedictory speech, the noble Lord also made good on the missing mention of the constitution in today’s debate. The Representation of the People Bill says it will meet
“an evolving and sophisticated threat”,
but it seems to me to be too little, too late. Measures are welcome on political donations, but the ecosphere of influence is well beyond traditional political party donations. Social media, think tanks, higher education and the lack of supervision of companies limited by guarantee are worthy of investigation and legislation. These are the influence operations which the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, referred to.
Missing is serious consideration of the potential risks of not having a written constitution. There remains no limit to the number of Members of your Lordships’ House that a Prime Minister could request a monarch to create. The sensible amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in the last Session were ignored, and I hope that such an amendment preventing any Government or coalition Government having an overall majority in your Lordships’ House will be within the scope of the removal of peerages Bill.
Yes, your Lordships’ House will face every few weeks a question on when His Majesty’s Government are going to introduce humanist wedding ceremonies in England, as there is a missing “marriage Bill”. The Law Commission report was issued in July 2024, and still, four years later, I believe we are only at the stage of waiting for a White Paper. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the timetable for that legislation. Without this, people—mainly women—who marry in a religious ceremony which is not recognised in UK law suffer a grave injustice. This leaves—usually—women with the inadequate remedies of breakdown of a cohabiting relationship, or informal dispute resolution, often called a sharia council. The last review of these was in 2018 and needs updating. Therefore, I ask His Majesty’s Government to get ahead of the rumours and anecdotes and provide clear evidence to allay or confirm concerns. The last review, by Mona Siddiqui, could be supplemented by the recently retired president of the Family Division.
Missing from the modernisation of courts Bill is a legal definition of the duty or covenant that is owed to jurors. Modern evidence methods have changed their experience. Rapes are usually filmed, or skulls can be 3D printed and handed around the jury to show exactly where the machete went in. Jurors are compelled to be there, cut off from their usual support relationships, as they cannot speak of what they are hearing, and they are the only people in the courtroom who have no legal right to support. Court staff, lawyers and even judges now have support mechanisms in place. While I welcome the recent pilot project, having met many jurors who have been made seriously ill by jury service, I know that the matter does not have the urgency that is needed. I fear His Majesty’s Government will only act once there is a regulation 28 recommendation from a coroner. To avoid that risk, a duty should be on the statute book.
Depriving a large number of people of jury trials is not court modernisation. That is a misnomer. I remember the valedictory speech of another hero of mine, Lord Mackay, who mentioned the seriousness of appointing judges to the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. Their life could be on the line. While that is a risk of a different magnitude, the barristers who are also part-time judges raise legitimate concerns around their safety if they make determinations of guilt or innocence in these more serious cases.
It looks like the Committee stage of various Bills will be very busy, helping to fill in so much of what is missing.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I begin by recognising an important democratic moment in Wales: 11 days ago, Plaid Cymru secured the largest number of votes that any party has ever received in Wales, leading to the formation of the first Plaid Cymru-led Welsh Government. I hope the Minister responding to the debate will join me in wishing the new Cabinet well as they begin delivering their plan for government, focused on protecting household budgets, reducing child poverty and unlocking economic potential. The people of Wales have spoken clearly: they want a fairer deal for their communities. While there will of course be differences between Governments, there is also a genuine opportunity for constructive collaboration to improve lives across Wales.
Turning to His Majesty’s Speech, nine of the Bills announced last week apply to Wales, in addition to others carried over into this Session. I regret that time does not permit me to address them all, so I will focus my remarks on the police reform Bill. I have raised the case for devolving justice on numerous occasions in your Lordships’ House, and the Minister who will be responding to this debate knows these arguments well, so I will not rehearse them today. Instead, I wish to highlight two recent developments which, in my view, significantly strengthen that case.
First, we saw the signing of two memoranda of understanding between the Welsh Government and the UK Government very recently: one on youth justice and another on policing. These agreements reflect a growing recognition that the current settlement requires closer alignment and co-operation, particularly where devolved and reserved responsibilities intersect.
Secondly, following the recent election, the Prime Minister spoke with the new First Minister of Wales and indicated that he is open to discussions on the further devolution of powers. That is a welcome and important step. Just today, there was a Statement in the other place in which the Minister for Justice, David Lammy, also noted that the door is open when talking specifically about justice. Taken together, these developments point in one direction: towards a more coherent and accountable justice system in Wales. The police reform Bill provides a timely and practical opportunity to begin that process.
There is broad political consensus in Wales—across Plaid Cymru, Welsh Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party—that devolving policing would enable better priority setting, more effective prevention, and services properly tailored to the needs of our communities. As things stand, justice remains reserved, while key intersecting services such as health, education, housing and social services are already devolved. This fragmentation undermines both effectiveness and accountability.
If we are serious about improving outcomes, particularly for young people and vulnerable communities, alignment is not a luxury—it is a necessity. I ask the Minister, ahead of the next meeting between the Prime Minister and the First Minister, whether his department will be actively developing proposals or options to support the devolution of policing and to facilitate a smooth and orderly transition.
The instability we have seen recently is not inspiring confidence beyond it. There is an opportunity here to take a different approach—one rooted in partnership and respect. We can begin a new chapter in how we govern these islands, based on trust between our nations and institutions. I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s plans in this area.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the proposed changes to settlement rights for overseas workers. I recognise the need to balance compassion with control and fairness with sustainability. However, I must express my deep concern regarding the proposal to extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain for overseas workers from five to 10 years or even more, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said.
These workers came here in good faith and at our invitation at a time when our nation faced acute shortages—and those shortages have not disappeared. They have worked tirelessly to support our elderly and vulnerable citizens, often in demanding and underappreciated roles. In doing so, they have become an integral part of our communities; they are no longer strangers but our neighbours, colleagues and friends. Their children attend our schools, they contribute to our local economies and they participate fully in community life. They have begun to build their futures here, with the understanding, based on existing policy, that after five years of lawful residence and service they would be eligible to settle here permanently. An accessible path to settlement is crucial to integration. Forcing people into a state of enduring temporariness and precariousness—not fully included in this society for over a decade—is a disaster for integration.
We must also acknowledge the financial and personal sacrifices that many of these workers have made. Many still carry substantial debts as a result. For some, once in this country, their exploitation and misery do not end there. Some British employers are aware of their vulnerability and abuse the control and power of sponsorship; such is the unacceptable face of exploitation and modern slavery in our country. If they complain about their rights being violated and report their plight to the authorities, they fear being placed on the first plane back home to their country of origin.
I understand the Government’s perspective that immigration must be brought down. I also understand how some of our citizens feel about higher levels of immigration. However, those levels have fallen significantly in recent times. Fairness and integrity have long been the hallmarks of our national character. Let us ensure that these values are reflected in our decision-making. I urge the Government to reconsider this proposal, to uphold their commitment to advancing integration and protecting workers from abuse and to maintain the original pathway to settlement for those who have already given so much in service to our society.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, antisemitism is rightly at the top of the national agenda at the moment. Given the comments of both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, this matter clearly enjoys cross-party consensus in both Houses. This is not simply a question of physical protection; antisemitism has now also impacted on the public sector across a range of areas, including the NHS and—of particular relevance to today’s debate—the criminal justice system and policing.
Members of the House will well recall the West Midlands Police’s lamentable approach to “community engagement” during last year’s Maccabi Tel Aviv football match debacle. The handling of the matter rightly led to the involvement of the present Home Secretary and resulted in the departure of the then chief constable. The police obviously have a crucial role to play in the fight against terrorism, but when it comes to extremism more broadly, and particularly to non-violent extremism, they also have a long pedigree of getting themselves into pickles, owing to an obsession with finding what are seen as “credible” partners to reach out to vulnerable sections of some Muslim communities. Too many of these partners turn out to be sectarians and antisemites.
Perhaps the starkest example of this was the support given by the Metropolitan Police, many years ago in 2004 under the commissionership of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, to the visit of the late Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an extremist cleric and hate preacher who openly supported suicide attacks against coalition forces in Iraq as well as against Israeli civilians. Strangely, he too was seen as a credible figure who could persuade angry young people in this country not to become jihadists on these shores.
More recently, after 7 October, the Metropolitan Police’s London Muslim Communities Forum was dogged by controversy. If noble Lords have never heard of that body, it is perhaps of little surprise. A full list of its members, minutes of its meetings and record-keeping of its advice to the police have never been published. What we do know is that its chairman was forced to stand down from his role in November 2023, after footage of him chanting the slogan “From the river to the sea” went public. Subsequently, the Metropolitan Police stated that it was working on a new advisory group “charter” that would include a
“shared commitment to engage through mutual respect and inclusivity”.
Yet two and a half years later, that charter does not seem to have been made public. I ask the Minister: why not?
There are ample precedents for Home Secretaries to intervene when policing is getting it wrong. The then Home Secretary, acting under her powers contained in Section 54 of the Police Act 1996, commissioned a report from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services into activism and impartiality in policing. This highlighted a lack of clarity around the purpose, administration and governance of police “staff networks”, which are too often consulted on policy matters, as well as on legitimate welfare matters.
Since the last King’s Speech, things have changed significantly for the worse. We need to re-evaluate the Government’s approach to operationally independent bodies, and their policies, in the light of the antisemitism crisis. The Government have made it clear through their recent White Paper on police reform that they intend to:
“Solidify the boundaries of operational independence”.
The key question now for Ministers, therefore, is what such a solidification might mean for holding police forces to account for the policies that they themselves forge and create, leading to bias and sectarianism in their own ranks. The present Home Secretary herself recognised the role of Ministers in her previous role as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, when she addressed the questions of the sentencing guidelines. As she pointed out, it is for Ministers to be responsible for policy. Likewise, we now have to ask whether policy on these vital matters, including the impartiality of the police, is too important to be left to the police, just as war has always been said to be too important to be left exclusively to the generals.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
The firebombing of synagogues, the Golders Green stabbings, the Heaton Park murders—the whole country clearly needs to wake up to what is happening. The Government are right, finally, to proscribe the Iranian IRGC—which the head of MI5 says has been linked to over 20 deadly plots on our soil in just the past year—but timing is now of the essence. JTAC has raised the terrorism threat level to “severe”, meaning it assesses that a further terrorist attack is highly likely in the next six months. The question I pose to the Minister is: will the Government apply that same timescale to the legislation needed to ban the IRGC?
In doing so, what assessment have the Government made of the work of the Iranian embassy here in London and of the reports that the Iranian embassy is trying to enrol supporters in an official martyrdom initiative? Clearly, action on state-based threats is vitally urgent, but, as my noble friend Lord Hennessy reminded us earlier in his valedictory speech, our system of government now also depends on what he described as the “mobilisation of decency” and civility, tolerance and the duty of care.
Compare and contrast that with the anti-Jewish racism so blatantly on display in some of our political parties in just the past few weeks. We had an electoral candidate describing people as “Jewish cockroaches” and another who had said:
“Ramming a synagogue isn’t antisemitism. It’s revenge”.
A candidate elected in Tower Hamlets described the Holocaust as a “holohoax”. A candidate elected in Hackney said that Israel was harvesting organs to alter the “DNA of Zionists”. A candidate arrested, but elected in Lambeth, had previously said that 9/11 was not the action of al-Qaeda, but a false flag attack by Israel. What is clear in all these instances, and many more—this is just the tip of the iceberg—is that, in fact, in this Islamist fantasy world, the hatred of Israel is utterly indistinguishable from the hatred of Jews. They are one and the same.
Caroline Lucas was clearly right to call for urgency of action within the Green Party, but it is not just the Green Party. In her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, laid out some further practical action that the political parties should take. I echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, made, which is that there is a lacuna in the law, which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, is investigating. His report was due in February, I think. Will the Government commit that, if they see that in the next month or two, they will incorporate any recommendations that require legislation in one of the Bills on the docket this Session? Can they also tell us whether the Representation of the People Bill, which will be before us, and which is apparently intended to tackle harassment and the intimidation of voters, will have anything to say about the door-to-door intimidation of voters in places such as Sheffield, Brighton and Hackney, who are being asked whether or not they are willing to disavow support for Israel?
If one imagines an equivalent situation where Tommy Robinson’s supporters were out engaging in a similar exercise in Bradford, asking whether voters there would disavow Pakistan, or in Tower Hamlets in respect to Bangladesh, that would rightly be seen as the kind of racism it is. Why should this be tolerated? This is an urgent crisis that demands action. The Government need to get on with it.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak today in response to His Majesty’s gracious Speech. It was a delight and privilege to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Case, and of course, that of my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. She and I share a commitment to justice, and I refer to my interests stated in the register as Anglican Bishop for HM Prisons.
The gracious Speech set out the Government’s ambition for the UK to be
“a country fair for all and a place where every child is included in the nation’s highest aspirations”.
In relation to energy, defence, and economic security, it specified taking decisions for the long term. This emphasis on both the child and the long term is vital. Looking at all legislation through the lens of the child would better join up government departments and would also bring clarity to a long-term holistic vision and resist short-termism.
While we do not have a Bill specifically on prisons, I urge the Government not to take their eye off the ball. We have made some progress with sentencing, but when looking at matters such as prison capacity, jury trials, court backlog, legal aid, et cetera, it is short-termism simply to act to try to fix an immediate crisis. There is an urgent need for a long-term plan which is effective and evidence led.
With regard to the police and the criminal justice system, the gracious Speech referred to
“services the British people expect”.
But for far too long we have let the public narrative and media headlines shape our penal policy. It is therefore not surprising that, too often, our system leaves people stuck in cycles of reoffending. We are not being courageous in acting on the evidence regarding what enables change and transformation. Our long-term vision must be about reducing offending and reoffending with a long-term aim of building stronger communities. It must be about investing in restorative rehabilitation, braver community alternatives, valued probation and, of course, victim support, because we cannot be siloed in focusing either on offenders or on victims.
We must be clear on the purpose of prison, and we must put relationship at the heart of our legislation to enable the flourishing of individuals and communities within a diverse and vibrant society. Outside this Chamber sits the statue of Queen Victoria, flanked by the statues of Justice and Mercy. As a Christian, I believe we must hold these together. Justice is about more than punishment. The gracious Speech stated a desire for every child to fulfil their potential, yet we are constantly treating symptoms and not underlying issues. We need to take adverse childhood experiences seriously and pay attention to nurturing healthy relationships, which begins in childhood, and we need to address all that underlies so much offending. Incidentally, this also connects with the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls.
To conclude, if we want a country that is fair for all, we must resist siloed and short-term fixes, not least in relation to criminal justice. I urge the Government to be courageous in thinking long term to ensure safe and flourishing communities. Of course, that begins with the flourishing of every child within a network of healthy relationship.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, In November 2023, in a speech about the October 7 attacks in Israel, I spoke about the escalation of Islamic extremism throughout the West. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, along with many other terror organisations, during the last 40 years had spread like a cancer across the globe. It was not as though there had been no warnings. In 2001, as an MEP, following 9/11, I was the rapporteur in the European Parliament responsible for the legislation on security at airports. I had spent 25 years in the airline industry and witnessed the growing threats from hijacking by the PLO and Black September in the 1970s to the horrific terrorist attack on flight Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie.
It should have been a wake-up call, but it has not been. We have had 30 years of the IRA’s atrocities, murdering civilians on our shores. However, as those threats began to diminish, they have been replaced by the terrorist atrocities we have seen at first hand—7/7, Glasgow Airport, Lee Rigby, Westminster, Manchester Arena, London Bridge, Reading, and many more—carried out by Islamic extremists, as if counterterrorism and the security services do not have anything better to do.
After October 7, the pro-Palestinian hate protests started. Week in, week out, we heard “from the river to the sea” and calls for jihad. Nazi placards and blatant antisemitism were in full view. Hizb ut-Tahrir, later proscribed, took part. Hamas sympathisers and children dressed as Hamas terrorists had their photographs taken with members of the Metropolitan Police. I complained, we complained, and nothing was done. Excuses were made, and so it continues.
Some of us met with Gold Command from the Metropolitan Police more than 18 months ago. I asked about the threshold which apparently, if reached, would mean that these protests would have to stop. He obfuscated, and so I asked him, “If these protesters shouted, ‘Kill the Blacks!’”—he was a Black officer—“or ‘Kill all Muslims!’, would there have been a second march, or any following?” I believe not.
Two and a half years in, antisemitism has escalated to a degree I thought I would never see in my lifetime. There are attacks on synagogues, restaurants and shops, murders and stabbings, and British families and children are now surrounded by a ring of steel. They are threatened daily and fear for their lives. Warm words will no longer wash.
The Prime Minister sounded very surprised when he spoke recently. Where has he been? He blamed the far right, as usual. It appears that those of us who speak out on these issues and spell out the problem are all far right. The vast majority of people who marched at the weekend in the “Unite the Kingdom” rally were certainly not far right. They were ordinary people tired of living with this Islamist threat hanging over us. There were Israeli flags, Iranian flags, and every flag from every part of the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, at the Nakba rally, they were still calling for the annihilation of all Jews and of Israel, and much more.
In conclusion, the public are sick and tired of this appeasing approach to these Islamists who actually hate our country. Unless the Government, the Metropolitan Police, the Home Secretary and everyone else involved are prepared to stop talking and take action, this will not improve. As Churchill once said,
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”
Let me be clear: those of us speaking out on this will not stay silent.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the gracious Speech’s emphasis on economic security, which is of particular importance to people on low incomes, and its reference to the Government’s belief that no child should be held back due to poverty. The child poverty strategy, including the abolition of the unethical two-child limit, represents an important platform on which the Government can now build.
If economic security is our guiding principle, it must also be the aim of future social security reform. The legacy of the previous Government continues to be a social security system that does not live up to its promise of providing security through social means, and the new conventional wisdom that spending on working age benefits is out of control is simply not true. As Trussell warns, our social security system should provide a firmer footing so people can thrive, and progress on reducing food bank need can be sustained.
The promise of economic security and the chance for
“every child … to succeed to the best of his or her ability”
has implications for Home Office policy on asylum and migration, some of which will be included in the immigration and asylum Bill. Yet the Home Affairs Committee report on the earned settlement changes, echoing the concerns of civil society groups about the impact on poverty, warns that:
“The Government will need to understand and mitigate any increase in child poverty”.
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether the Government accept this and, if yes, how they propose to act on it? The asylum changes also spell potentially worsening poverty or even destitution.
It seems that “every child” does not include migrant children, despite the child poverty strategy’s commitment to
“ensuring that vulnerable migrant children receive the support that they require, regardless of their immigration status”.
The extension of the qualifying periods for settlement will massively increase insecurity for both refugees and migrants and their children, with damaging implications for their mental health and the Government’s aim of better integration.
Worrying too is the inclusion in the Bill of a new, supposedly independent appeals body, rejected by the Law Society as an abrupt and potentially “harmful change” when the priority should be improving the quality of initial decision-making. Can my noble friend say whether the Government will be publishing the results of the recent, somewhat rushed, call for evidence?
Finally, on a brighter note, I look forward to us receiving the Representation of the People Bill and, in particular, its extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, the success of which will very much depend on the strengthening of citizenship education, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and as I am sure the much missed late noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, would have argued. I hope, too, that we might consider following the example of Wales and Scotland by extending the franchise to foreign residents, as some argued for at the Commons Second Reading and as supported by the Prime Minister in the past.
There was also strong support at Second Reading for the establishment of a national commission for electoral reform. Since then, the local elections have underlined just how far the old first past the post system is out of sync with multi-party politics. To quote Martin Wolf in the FT,
“the great danger is … tyranny of the minority, in which a small plurality secures overwhelming power. First-past-the-post has become suicidal. The time to reform the old system is now”.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, the antisemitism emergency, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has described it, and the balkanisation problem of ethnic and religious division—perhaps I should say balkanisation crisis—has haunted today’s debate on the King’s Speech and clearly concerns this House deeply. Plainly, we need a more developed cohesion policy, integration policy and security policy, including stricter border controls, deportations and much swifter trials. We look forward to seeing the detail of the national security Bill and the tackling state threats Bill. However, we also need a far more developed counter-extremism policy, and I want to concentrate my remarks on what that might be.
We must at the start be able to identify the problem in order to defeat it. A key driver of the antisemitism emergency here and abroad is Islamist actors linked to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and our enemies abroad who lurk in the twilight zone between normality and terror. The first requirement of a counterextremism policy is to shine a spotlight on them—in other words, to name them in the annual state of extremism report proposed by the Government. That will require changes to libel law. The Government could usefully combine them with the action against SLAPPs that Ministers have promised. The annual state of extremism report can then be converted into a rolling register. No individual, group or organisation on that register should be consulted by Ministers or officials, be patronised by government or receive a penny of public money.
That is just the start. The Government should apply to the extremists the approach deployed in education reform by successive Conservative, Labour, coalition and other Governments: inspections on the Ofsted model, accompanied by fines, prosecutions and an enhanced right to sue. Are Jewish or other students harassed in universities? Encourage the Office for Students to issue fines and, if necessary, hold the authorities personally liable. Are Jewish, Israeli or other artists the victims of silent boycotts? Create a new ombudsman who can probe complaints and issue fines—and so on, throughout the public sector and, where necessary, in the public square.
I make three other quick points. First, in the wake of the forthcoming review from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, we need to adopt the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, already mentioned in this debate, in relation to cumulative marches and static protests. The deliberate targeting of synagogues in these marches must end. Secondly, where is the action we have been promised to extend the Charity Commission’s powers to suspend trustees and shut down charities involved in extremist abuse? Thirdly, this programme will only be fully effective when we overhaul our human rights frameworks.
Extremists do not win because most people vote for them; they win if most people stay silent because they do not want any trouble, and when democratic politicians lack the will or the wit to produce a plan. Government cannot do everything. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, pointed out earlier, this crisis is a challenge for the whole of civil society. However, government can do something. It needs a plan. This is a plan—or at least the start of one. I commend it to the Government, to my own party and to all other democrats with the wit and the will to act.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I add my tribute to today’s maiden speech, and to the predictably exquisite valedictory speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield.
There is much to commend in the gracious Speech. However, I urge noble friends in government and all who aspire to lead it to strive towards an overarching narrative of hope, not just constant reminders of insecurity and threat. The public feel the news as acutely in their pockets as on their screens. We must be careful not to keep repeating grim diagnoses without the prescriptions for justice that people rightly expect of us.
I am proud to see the Hillsborough Bill feature but am less happy that we have not secured it to date. As the Manchester Arena victims’ families will testify, a blanket exemption for the security agencies would be no kind of Hillsborough law at all. Where transparency would compromise security, provision can be made for application to a judge for a specific exemption. Otherwise, understandably, institutions close ranks to spare blushes—but not always lives.
I believe in the importance of jury trials for three reasons. First, like voting and paying tax, they allow ordinary citizens to contribute to civic life. Without them, one class always appears to sit in judgment over others. Juries improve trust and confidence in, and the legitimacy of, our criminal justice system. Secondly, juries protect the judiciary from opprobrium where the evidence points to acquittal in high-profile cases. The demonisation of lawyers and judges has been an extremely dangerous trend in recent times. Finally, the ability of the jury to decide guilt or otherwise without reasons is a precious last-ditch safeguard against abusive laws and prosecutions.
I have grave concerns about attempts further to dilute the right to elect for jury trial. Years of underfunding courts should not become an excuse for further restricting access to them. My concerns relate to principle and practice, but also to democratic politics. Do noble friends really want such an open goal for far-right populists—an opportunity to argue that Labour is for European rights but not ancient English liberties? It is telling that immigration and asylum is grouped with strengthening national security rather than public services or even economic security. Further words are ominous. As under earlier Conservative Governments, asylum is conflated with illegal entry. The desire to tighten the application of Article 8 of the ECHR displays some distrust of courts. Just as open goals on jury trials are misguided, so is trying to compete in performative unkindness rather than administrative competence. Concerns about fairness notwithstanding, the bulk of public opinion remains committed to rights and freedoms. Why legitimise those who would tear them down?
The Representation of the People Bill, with votes at 16 and vital safeguards against foreign interference and domestic election intimidation, is an historic proposal. How wonderful it would be to mark a century of hard-won mass suffrage in two years’ time with this landmark progressive change.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am keen to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, whom I have known for a long time as a fellow professional historian in this House, for his work and the tremendous influence he has rightly had on the life of this House. I would also like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Case, whom I have also known for a long time—it is the shared vibe of the Cambridge history department.
The noble Lord, Lord Case, in his role as Cabinet Secretary, was a fundamental defender of the national security of this country. He was also there when the message came from the European Union that it was looking for a way out of the protocol and the Windsor Framework. This was at the time of the Truss Government, and he played a major role in bringing back the Windsor Framework, which is a difficult and, in some ways, messy compromise that still leaves a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland; but it is still an improvement.
The King’s Speech has an important passage on the union:
“My Government is committed to the strength and integrity of the Union of the United Kingdom”.
It recalls the words of Keir Starmer when he was leader of the Opposition—that in the event of a border poll, he would campaign for the continuation of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The remarks in the King’s Speech are in the same spirit. The most important legislation with respect to the union, however, is the legacy Bill. There is an important explanation of the legacy Bill in the glossary published by the Government alongside the King’s Speech, and there are the Minister’s important and very helpful remarks at the beginning of this debate.
I still have two queries or problems. The legacy Bill announces a new relationship with the Irish Government, but it also says that there are new protections for veterans, while the Irish Government say there are none. At some point or other—perhaps the Minister can help me tonight—this has to be clarified. Either the Irish Government are correct or our Government are correct.
On legacy, I have another point that is perhaps worth making. I was the historical adviser to the Bloody Sunday tribunal. I return to a point made earlier in the day, especially by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Hoey, about the costs of the ICRIR. I am a supporter of Sir Declan Morgan and the ICRIR, and they need to have the money to carry out their work in Northern Ireland. It is worth remembering that the Government announced that the Bloody Sunday tribunal would cost £12 million. That was in old money; in the end, it cost some £200 million. As the Government continue to discuss the legacy question, the money needs to be made available; there is no point in having an ICRIR without giving it resources. None the less, there needs to be absolute clarity, particularly on how the legal profession in Northern Ireland may or may not share in these fruits. I speak as a former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We now talk about duty of candour. There needs to be openness, clarity and transparency on this issue, because there is no doubt that the Government’s legacy Bill, for which they have a mandate, is going to be incredibly expensive. We have not really heard an explanation of where exactly the Government stand on that.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, our country is in the grip of an extremism crisis. Whether it is left versus right, woke versus traditionalists, globalists versus nationalists, there is a growing prevalence of extremist rhetoric and activity, which is increasing social division. I will concentrate my brief contribution on the shocking rise in antisemitic rhetoric and violence, and I declare an interest as a proud British Jew.
Of course, this represents a crisis for the British Jewish community, but it is symptomatic of wider problems in Britain as a whole, and we should heed the warning signs that this could be a harbinger of looming societal breakdown. Antisemitism is being fuelled by a toxic mix of Islamist and far left anti-Israel extremism, plus some from the far right, with worrying involvement by overseas actors. We see the weekly protests on our streets, the fear in our universities, as highlighted in last week’s shocking StandWithUs report, and increasing violence against Jews on our streets. The Home Affairs Select Committee emphasised the failure of the current approaches, including Prevent, and the need for earlier intervention to tackle extremism. Well, it may be a little bit too late for that, but I welcome the Bills to ban the IRGC—why has it taken so long?—and to tackle state threats.
It is long past time to beat about the bush. Most recent anti-Jewish plots and attacks have come from Iran and its proxies. We have seen Kata’ib Hezbollah from Iraq, a relation of Iran, claiming responsibility for the latest violence on our streets. The IRGC and others of its proxies are helping to fund this and are using British banks and property purchases with impunity to pay people to commit these acts. MI5 tracked 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots last year. There is a growing use of co-ordinated unlawful tactics by direct action protest groups linked to the Middle East, engaging in extremist activity just below the terrorism threshold but incited by ideologically motivated, foreign-influenced Islamists, again linked to the IRGC.
A 2024 Electoral Commission report found that 46% of general election candidates had reported abuse, threats or intimidation, so this has spread to the core of both national and local politics in this country. Why do we have groups siding with the terror regimes that are suppressing their own people with violence, torture and murder? How has this infiltrated our political discourse? The Government must urgently follow through with sustained action to confront the hatred and the extremist Islamism fuelling it. We need stronger powers to close charities that promote extremist ideologies. We must act decisively against the British banks that have become a soft touch to help fund this violence, despite reams of money laundering rules. Companies House should properly co-ordinate and correlate names of known foreign malign actors and common directors of previously known terror-linked companies. I hope that we will be able to control these extremist threats forcefully and speedily by taking advantage of the legislation we have.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register: I am supported by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. I wish to talk about the annual event for this Parliament that is an immigration and asylum Bill. Our position on these Benches is clear: we believe that the British people demand a migration system rooted in order and compassion, one that provides a disciplined framework for entry while protecting those fleeing for their lives.
The Government, to their credit, have reduced regular migration to near net zero, but we must be honest about our national needs. With an ageing population and a falling birth rate, migration is not a choice but a necessity for GDP growth. Analysis from the OECD is clear. Well-managed migration and successful integration are critical to prevent our economy falling backwards. We agree that those who enter irregularly and do not require protection must be humanely returned. However, an orderly system requires a functional queue, and currently, beyond the micro French deal, no such queue exists. Without a legal path for entry, we cannot effectively address those who jump the queue.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teverson, who has described the proposed Bill as being flawed. It is flawed because, first, it targets the wrong people, and, secondly, it is applied retrospectively to people who are already living and working legally in the United Kingdom, in the hope that making their lives difficult will dissuade irregular arrivals. There is no evidence that penalising immigrants living here legally through increased costs, complexities and barriers to family reunion will change the minds of those seeking to come here irregularly. There is no evidence that people seeking to come here irregularly will be dissuaded from coming if they see that those immigrants who have been given protection and are living here legally are being given a tough time. By proposing a road to settlement that favours the wealthy over other hard-working contributors, the Government are creating a system that suggests that millions of legal residents are unwelcome. This is the snakes and ladders policy described by the most reverend Primate earlier today.
There is a word cloud in a recent analysis of the problem where people who are going to be affected by this new law were asked to name the migration system in this country by giving one word to describe the UK immigration system. They were: “confusing”, “hostile”, “frustrating”, “unfair” and an expletive beginning with the letter “s”. As one EU resident said, “They don’t want to make us feel welcome and let us belong”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, commented, belonging that is just conditional is dangerous for our society. Costs, errors, complexities, family reunion, the effect on employment and education, and hampering children’s development are all problems that the Bill will make worse. Making millions of legal residents feel depressed and unwelcome does nothing to create an orderly or compassionate system, let alone help the pathway to integration. We must move beyond legislation that prioritises fear over humanity and economic common sense.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, in the gracious Speech His Majesty said only this about the thorny topic of immigration and asylum:
“Legislation will be introduced to increase confidence in the security of the immigration and asylum systems”—
nothing else. That is perhaps unsurprising, given the likely choppy reception that the trailed proposals will have from the government Back Benches in the other place and indeed, if the recent SIs that we have just passed are anything to go by, from the government Back Benches in your Lordships’ House.
The proposed Bill is a start. I welcome it and I look forward to continuing to support the Minister, but the present proposals do not go far enough. It is doubtful that the new Bill will achieve its objective to increase confidence in the security of the immigration and asylum systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, said of the Government’s policy in her opening today:
“We will not hesitate to remove those with no right to be here”.
As we will see, that resounding rhetoric does not seem to match the facts. Time permits consideration only of one issue that demonstrates these conclusions. The Times reported on 26 April and 6 May this year that FoI requests had revealed the following:
“Britain returned a total of 11,629 rejected asylum seekers last year. Over the same period a total of 80,264 asylum seekers were refused asylum”.
The figures
“revealed that migrants from countries most likely to cross the Channel in small boats were among the least likely to be returned home”.
For Eritreans, the most common nationality among small boat migrants last year, the proportion of failed asylum seekers returned was just 5%; 1,269 asylum seekers presented in the UK and were refused asylum but just 64 were returned. In relation to Afghanistan, 7,330 Afghans were refused asylum last year but just 115 were returned. From Ethiopia 876 were rejected but only 15 individuals returned, giving a return rate of 1.7%. The figure for Iran was similar, only 1.8%, and for Somalis it was 1.5%. Even for Sierra Leone the figure was less than one in 100, while for Cameroon 1.5% of failed asylum seekers were returned. Even Rwanda, designated as a safe country by statute in the last Parliament, saw a return rate of failed asylum seekers of just 2.6%.
The largest cohort of failed asylum seekers in the UK are from Pakistan. Last year 10,853 people from Pakistan were refused asylum, but only 445 Pakistanis were returned to Islamabad in the same period. This is so notwithstanding that the UK and Pakistan agreed an asylum returns deal in 2022. Indeed, it is of note that nearly 200 failed Pakistani asylum seekers were living in taxpayer-funded accommodation as of December 2025.
The central point is that, if failed asylum seekers can stay here anyway, then it renders largely useless our very expensive and time-consuming asylum application and appeals process. Further, this state of affairs plainly creates a very significant pull factor for migrants to enter illegally, by small boat or otherwise, because they know, as is abundantly clear from the statistics, they are unlikely to be removed even if their asylum claims are rejected.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of the EHRC and as a fellow of the think tank Policy Exchange. The nation’s confidence and trust in our public institutions is ebbing and, as it does, it damages our constitutional and economic settlement as a country. I am very glad the Minister identified this as a priority in her opening remarks.
Britain’s reputation for honest, competent and politically neutral public administration has been a prized national asset. It underpins economic confidence, democratic legitimacy and social cohesion. Its loss has consequences far beyond Whitehall and Westminster. The 2023 ONS Trust in Government survey found only 27% of UK adults have trust in government, with Parliament at 24% and political parties languishing at 12%. This places us far below the OECD average of 39% for trust.
A recent report by Arch10, called Two Britains, sets this out. It surveyed public sector workers across the Civil Service, the NHS and education, and compared that to the views of the general public to test impartiality. It found patterns of divergence that many of us have experienced intuitively but had not seen through data and rigorous evidence as in this report. The public sector, when compared with the general public, consistently holds more negative views of Britain and our place in the world. It is 50% more likely to believe that Britain has done more harm than good, not just historically, but on current policy too—presumably in disagreement with the elected Government. For example, on attitudes to Hamas, the proscribed terrorist organisation, more than half the general public have no sympathy towards it at all, yet 30% of the NHS were sympathetic to it. When asked about our adversaries such as Iran and Russia, a significant section of public servants hold them in high regard. When evaluating fake news, public servants were more likely to believe factually incorrect anti-Britain statements than what the evidence showed.
Beyond this report, other institutions such as the BBC have been exposed over a lack of impartiality too. Rob Burley’s essay only yesterday showed how the LGBT and DEI agendas have “captured” editorial teams, where objective reporting was sacrificed in favour of a single perspective. It would be laughable were it not so serious for trust in our national broadcaster.
The consequences are not abstract. A controlled trial of 7,000 participants found that simply being reminded of verified controversial decisions by public bodies, such as “two-tier justice”, reflected precisely this kind of divergence and caused one in six people who trusted the Government to cease doing so.
No one seeks ideological conformity in reverse, but what is needed is the robust, consistent and unambiguous reassertion of impartiality as the foundational norm of public service. A revised Civil Service Code should make this explicit across all contested areas of policy, not merely in relation to party politics. Recruitment should concentrate on impartiality alongside technical competence, and we should look afresh at whether current set-ups, such as staff networks, board-level champions for causes and some diversity and equality frameworks have inadvertently entrenched the very problem they sought to remedy.
When publicly funded institutions have drifted from the values of the public they serve, this is a genuine threat to democratic governance. I ask the Government to read the report and to act on it in the public interest.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the immigration and asylum Bill includes welcome provisions to change the modern slavery system, including better tools for law enforcement to tackle exploitation and stronger processes to identify children. However, the Bill continues to emphasise alleged abuse of the system, despite no data supporting this. That approach risks blocking survivors from support, weakening the prosecutions of traffickers and failing to deliver the reforms needed to identify and support victims effectively. Measures to improve identification and support for children are positive, but the absence of provisions to strengthen corporate accountability is a missed opportunity.
Two years ago, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who spoke earlier, I was a member of the Select Committee in your Lordships’ House reviewing the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which recommended proportionate sanctions on companies that fail to meet supply chain requirements. The Government responded that legislative change would follow “in due course”. Eighteen months later, supply-chain accountability is entirely absent from the King’s Speech. Can my noble friend the Minister explain why the Government are not building on the Modern Slavery Act to create a level playing field for responsible businesses, by introducing legislation to make human rights due diligence mandatory?
I am concerned that the Government have dropped their promise of binding legislation on the most powerful AI systems. Even the scientists building these systems warn that superintelligent AI poses threats to our day-to-day lives and national security. That is why, earlier this year, I joined over 100 parliamentarians in supporting the campaign by ControlAI to address this urgent threat. In 2024, the King’s Speech explicitly called for regulation on the developers of “the most powerful” AI models, but last week’s King’s Speech contained no mention of the risks from advanced AI and the need to regulate the most powerful AI systems. The speech did set out the Government’s ambitions on national security, resilience and sovereignty, but sovereignty and national security mean little without control over emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence. The Government’s decision not to introduce legislation on advanced AI seems a concerning signal about their shifted priorities.
I also want to say a few words about the police reform Bill. The move towards a more centralised policing model must not lead to the weakening of local specialist services supporting child victims of exploitation and trafficking. Home Office estimates show that more than 15,000 children were identified either as at risk or involved in child criminal exploitation in the year ending March 2025. Too often, children who are exploited or trafficked are as likely to be criminalised as recognised as victims. Structural changes to policing will not address these systemic problems. Policy and culture change within the police is needed on this issue.
I very much welcome the proposal to include violence against women and girls as a national policing priority. But policing reform must include investment in specialist services, such as mandatory training on trauma-informed and child-centred approaches, as well as action to build trust with children, particularly those from Black and marginalised communities, who experience disproportionate harm and discrimination.
Finally, several noble Lords have expressed concern over the future of the union, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I agree with both: the noble Baroness rightly said that the alarm expressed over the largest parties in all three legislatures now being those which want to leave the UK is overblown. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, warned of the Scottish Government’s plans to seek a second referendum; he offered wise counsel in setting out three steps which must be taken to prepare for such an eventuality producing a majority in favour of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK. Although a threat to the union is being talked up just a bit too much, that does not lessen the need for vigilance. I believe that the Government must ensure that they are sensitive to key issues within the remit of all three of those legislatures.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on the plans in the gracious Speech to modernise hate crime legislation. I declare my interests as CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network and non-executive member of the Law Commission board. The Government must confront a growing and dangerous reality: anti-Muslim hatred is normalised. Successive Governments have failed to address this with the seriousness it demands.
One of the clearest failures lies in our hate crime legislation. The law provides stronger protection against stirring up racial hatred than it does against stirring up religious hatred. In practice, deeply abusive and inflammatory statements about Muslims, Jews and other faith communities can be made without legal consequences, unless they are explicitly threatening. Extremists understand these loopholes and exploit them deliberately to radicalise others who then go on to commit hate crimes. If the Government are serious about reform, they must implement the Law Commission’s recommendation to bring offences relating to stirring up religious hatred in line with those covering stirring up racial hatred. Social media platforms must also be held accountable.
I will share some examples of the impact of anti-Muslim hatred. A Muslim man was murdered in 2013, and another in 2017, by far-right extremists. More recently, there have been attempts to run over Muslims with vehicles; 19 year-old Alina Burns expressed a desire to kill all Jews and Muslims and attacked a Kurdish man in the street with an axe; men entered a mosque in Manchester armed with an axe; 60 year-old Thomas McKenna stockpiled guns and explosives and planned to kill Muslim migrants; 19 year-old Alfie Coleman planned a mass shooting and was going to target London Mayor Sadiq Khan and a mosque; and two Sikh women were raped because the perpetrators believed that they were Muslim. Muslims continue to face verbal abuse in the streets and on public transport, and mosques are being vandalised. Graves are being desecrated—even the dead are not spared hatred.
Muslims do not feel safe, and Muslim women particularly do not feel safe. We saw on Saturday how Muslim women were targeted yet again. Three women got on the stage at the Tommy Robinson rally dressed in a burka, with a crowd shouting, “Take it off, take it off”. The women then took off that clothing to a cheering crowd. It was a deliberate public display of anti-Muslim hostility, aimed at dehumanising visibly Muslim women. The action signalled that targeting visibly Muslim women with intimidation and abuse is acceptable. Where is the condemnation from Government Ministers or indeed in your Lordships’ House? We feel invisible.
Almost half of religious hatred is aimed at Muslims. More than 4,000 incidents are reported annually to the police, but 80% of victims do not report and the actual figures are more likely to be 20,000-plus and growing. They do not report because they can see that Muslim safety does not matter to this Government. Jewish communities also understand the devastating consequences of religious hatred being ignored. They too continue to face rising hostility and abuse.
I have stood here many times in the Chamber and asked about anti-Muslim hatred and about the safety of Muslim women. I get the same response from Ministers: that funding has been provided for mosque security and a national helpline. However, these initiatives were introduced by the previous Government, and the only change we have had is a different service provider for the helpline. Repeating the same examples time and again creates the impression that the Government are failing to listen to the scale of fear, anxiety and frustration felt by Muslim communities. There has been no initiative specifically targeted at Muslim women. When will the Government listen to Muslim women? Perhaps the Government also have stereotypes about Muslim women—that they can too easily be dismissed.
The Government’s recent definition of anti-Muslim hostility is welcome, but, without implementation, without a strategy and without dedicated support, communities will continue to feel that Muslim safety does not matter to this Government. I therefore ask the Minister: does Muslim safety matter to the Government, and will the Home Secretary make a Statement unequivocally condemning the anti-Muslim hatred promoted—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness bring her remarks to an end? It has been five minutes, and the time limit is four.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to focus on dilemmas around national security at home. I fear that relevant Bills in the gracious Speech betray some confusion about who the enemy is, and this disorientation can mean laws and policy that punish the wrong people. This was brought home by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, many hours ago now, in relation to the shocking tale of the Nova exhibition in London. I remind noble Lords that this is a commemoration of the massacre of young Jewish festival-goers, yet how morally muddled we are that the police put the onus on the organisers to hide their location and signage to stay safe. It also begs the question, safe from who?
The national security Bill identifies, “escalating threats such as Islamist and extreme right-wing terrorism”, but I must say that I cringe when I hear this overused couplet, for one reason: the Government seem far more at ease proactively taking on the extreme right as the enemy than being tough on the far greater and more serious threat of Islamism. We had a vivid example over the weekend, with the tale of two protests. It is telling that, within days of Labour’s unprecedented electoral defeat, the Prime Minister’s reset speech chose to assert his authority by targeting far-right agitators as enemy number one. He even became tough on border control, block-banning undesirable foreigners—or, rather, 11 international speakers, including European parliamentarians—from speaking at Tommy Robinson’s Unite The Kingdom gathering. We might agree that the views of those banned speakers are deeply unpleasant, and many are, but do we agree that opinions dubbed far-right are now deemed a security risk? How does treating a foundational value of western democracy, free speech, as an enemy make anyone safer?
Last week there was further No. 10 hyperactivity: ministerial denunciations of just one protest and a melodramatic filmed appeal to the nation. The Prime Minister posited that citizens’ attitudes to Robinson’s shindig were
“a fight for the soul of this country”.
This gave organisers far more credibility and free PR than merited. But targeting far-right threats in this one-sided way has backfired. Many decent people took it personally, not because they planned to go to the rally or were fans of Robinson, and certainly not because they are far right—many, to be honest, were working-class Labour voters until recently—but because they resented that their worries about mass migration, Islamist sectarianism, grooming gangs, et cetera, were being scapegoated as “dividing the nation”. Many furiously asked why there was no special broadcast denouncing the other protest, protest number two, down the road on the same day.
That pro-Palestinian hate fest even gained a new moral authority. Taking its cue from the Government, it rebranded itself as “Nakba for Palestine, against the far right”. They even wrote new chants to add to their antisemitic repertoire. To quote one:
“What do we do with Tommy’s crew? … Shoot them in the neck like Charlie Kirk.”
Hearing that bellowed out by a large baying mob should force us to ask, who is the threat or enemy here?
Finally, the national security Bill is also a response to the horrific murders in Southport. Unlike other noble Lords, I am disappointed that the Bill disproportionately falls back on targeting that old favourite enemy, online content: cue more censorship. I worry too that it will be a distraction from tackling offline, preventable violence by the likes of Axel Rudakubana or indeed Valdo Calocane. When we scrutinise this Bill, we must look closely at the evidence of the Nottingham inquiry. Calocane did not butcher Barnaby, Grace or Ian because he spent too much time on TikTok or X. Instead, at least partly, state agencies, from psychiatrists to the police, seem to have interpreted the Mental Health Act that we passed here as a signal to treat dangerous perpetrators as vulnerable and to avoid any action that can be labelled discriminatory or racist. The laws we pass have consequences. We should think of that seriously.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, for outlining, much earlier today, the challenges that this country has been facing over a period of 20 years in the rapid rates of immigration. I am also grateful—as noble Lords will be, because I will not repeat the speech—to my noble friend Lord Murray, who outlined the number of failed applicants who arrive on boats and are not removed from this country: 41,000 people crossed the channel illegally in those boats last year alone. The deeper problem we have is not stopping the boats, which has clearly failed, but managing the system that processes the applications once they arrive. In practice, the reality, as my noble friend pointed out, is that, really, anyone who arrives on a boat ends up staying, and that is a massive incentive to keep coming.
We know that the cost of this is huge—£4 billion last year on asylum hotels housing those illegal arrivals in the country—and the pressure on the neighbourhoods, the people who have to live near all that, is enormous. It has become unfashionable and the subject of hostility, as we are experiencing on our justice committee at the moment—a matter of irreconcilable difference, some might say—to express any concerns about this whatsoever, yet the public have voted again and again to ask the democratically elected Governments to address it.
It appears that this Government are hopefully going to learn something from the failures of the previous Government, and I welcome the proposals of the current Home Secretary—the best one we have had since the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, of course—and hope very much that they will have the support of her Back-Benchers in the House of Commons and the Labour Benches in this House. They will certainly have mine, because we are already facing really weak productivity growth, mounting public debt and rising pressure on public services.
British people are some of the most welcoming and tolerant in the world. I walked this weekend from the National Gallery to see an exhibition and through Chinatown on the way home, and we went to eat Indian food afterwards. This is the most fabulously tolerant and diverse country, but we cannot sustain the pressure on our resources and the pressure that ordinary people are feeling in their neighbourhoods. We have to listen to people who have told us what they want to happen. We have seen it with the Brexit vote, the vote in 2019 and, again, in 2024, when Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, promised to smash the gangs— I am not saying that in any way to score political points; it is incredibly difficult to stop those boats. But these proposals by the current Home Secretary are reasonable and overdue, and they should be supported. I very much hope that they will be.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on immigration, as noble Lords would expect. I hope my voice will return—it has just disappeared.
It is increasingly clear that the sheer scale of immigration has now reached the point at which it is changing the whole nature of our country and, indeed, threatening serious social tensions. The riots nearly two years ago in Southport and elsewhere, as well as recent attacks on Jews, are an indication of the underlying tensions that already exist.
Looking back in time, the 20 years between 2001 and 2021 saw the proportion of “white British” in the UK fall from 87.5% to just under 75%. Furthermore, the non-white proportion of the population tripled from 6% in 1991 to 18.3% in 2021. As for the overall population of the UK, it increased by 8 million, of which nearly 7 million was due to immigrants and their children. We cannot confine our discussion of immigration to the detail; these basic, major facts must be widely understood and acted on.
The pressures I have just described are without precedent. UK net migration in the year to mid-2023 was close to 1 million in one year, which is nearly the population of the city of Birmingham. Those numbers have declined substantially in recent years, but, none the less, it is an indication of the extent to which, frankly, the previous Government lost control of the borders, and the present Government are struggling if they are really serious about it.
Meanwhile, the birth rate of the white British population has fallen sharply. The reasons for this are not clear, but if it stays very low and net migration remains high, it will bring forward the day when the white British become a minority in England and Wales. That might sound like an exaggeration, but it is actually based on some very conservative estimates of the numbers. Such rapid population growth, which the Home Office barely mentions, would have severe social and economic impacts, with serious implications for the future stability, cohesion and very nature of our society. Indeed, this is already happening as the pace picks up; meanwhile, we are importing division and conflict from countries where internecine strife is endemic.
It is very nearly 25 years since I cofounded Migration Watch with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University. That work is now chaired by Alp Mehmet and remains as vital as ever for the future of this country. I hope, therefore, that this House will soon engage on these massively important issues for our future.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I will talk briefly about two topics: one is related to the Home Office, and the other—if I have time—is related to the Ministry of Justice.
The first is the proposed police reforms, which is always a controversial topic when raised, by any Government. Speaking as the only Member of either House to have served as an elected police and crime commissioner, and, given their coming abolition in 2028, probably the only one ever—perhaps I may even be a quiz question in times to come—I have to say that the time for police reform has come. Forty-three separate police forces in England and Wales is frankly too many. Regional policing is important and has been around for a long time, dealing with serious crime, but some rationalisation is clearly necessary and with the reorganisation of local government, this is probably the right time to act.
But—and it is a “but”—there is a great amount of local admiration and pride resting with the achievements, service and traditions of each of these individual police forces. Leicestershire, where I come from, is no exception. Therefore, when reform comes—and it will—it is crucial that it not be implemented in too heavy-handed a manner. It must not tread on local traditions and local pride. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and his committee, and the Government, have a really tricky job in getting that balance right. I hope this House will help them.
Part of me regrets that abolition of police and crime commissioners, but frankly, I am not surprised. I loved my five years doing the job and was privileged to do it, but what matters now is the future. How will the new policing and crime boards be constituted and how are they to function? Much depends on getting that right as well.
My second subject is the proposals relating to immigration and settlement. There are, I believe, still decisions for the Government as to how the legislation is going to work. I do not think final decisions have been taken; it may be that my noble friend can put me right. It is my view that one proposal should be dropped straightaway, if possible, and here I share the views of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord German, expressed earlier. I would not put it quite as they did, because I am a loyal government Back-Bencher, but their point is well made, as far as I am concerned. The plan is to change the rules so that migrants who are already in the country, have lived here, brought up families, worked hard and behaved well and were told that after five years they would be entitled to indefinite leave to remain, or settlement, will have to wait 10 years before that event occurs. That change, if it is carried out—and I very much hope that it will not be—seems grossly unfair to those individuals and may be unlawful. In any event, it is wrong in principle.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, in the gracious Speech we hear once again the aspiration for a country that is fair for all, a nation in which opportunity is widely shared, justice is consistently applied and every citizen feels that they belong. This is powerful stuff and I doubt that anybody would disagree with it, but the real question is: is it borne out in reality? Do we actually deliver on it?
If we are to test that honestly, we should begin with a hard case, and I cannot think of a harder case than the Windrush generation, one of the most troubling scandals in recent public life. Here were citizens who came to this country, often at its invitation, and contributed over decades to our economy, public services and communities. Yet many found themselves wrongly classified, wrongly excluded and, in some cases, subject to profound injustice. This was not simply an administrative error. It was a systemic error, one in which process took precedence over people and warning signs were insufficiently heeded. The lesson here is not only about correcting past wrongs—important though that is—but about embedding a deeper awareness across government of the human consequences of policy.
A country that is genuinely fair for all must ensure that its systems are not only efficient but humane, not only consistent but sensitive to where that consistency involves injustice. That requires a culture that is both accountable and willing to question itself, and where restitution happens faster than at a snail’s pace, which is certainly applicable to this case. To coin a phrase, fairness delayed or maladministered is fairness denied.
We see a different, deeply serious challenge in the current upsurge of antisemitism. This is not an abstract concern. It is about Jewish citizens being able to feel safe going about their daily lives, whether they can participate fully in public life without fear and whether long-standing forms of prejudice are being sufficiently challenged whenever they appear. Antisemitism, like all forms of hatred, does more than harm those directly targeted. It undermines the fabric of trust on which a fair society depends. A society cannot be credibly fair if a group, such as our Jewish citizens, is persistently exposed to violence, hostility and exclusion. Addressing this requires not only firm enforcement of the law but a clarity of leadership and consistency of principle, especially when those principles are inconvenient to assert.
Alongside these issues, we should also reflect on the broader condition of our political life. In recent years, we have seen a notable degree of churn and instability: frequent changes in leadership, shifts in policy direction and increasingly hostile, fragmented and sometimes scandal-riven public discourse. This looks increasingly like instability rather than normal democratic change. That instability undermines confidence—not only confidence in capital markets and business, but confidence among the citizens of this country, who, after all, have no choice but to be deeply dependent on government for the services it provides, both during their lives as a whole and particularly when they are vulnerable at certain points. How confident are they that the Government will come forward with the services and support they require?
The aspiration of a country that is fair to all remains both right and necessary, but its credibility will be judged not by its wording but by its application: by how faithfully we learn from past failures such as Windrush; how firmly we confront prejudice in all its forms, particularly antisemitism; and how effectively we bring stability and consistency to our political life. Fairness is not a slogan; it should be something which affects every aspect of our activities.
Lord Ranger (Con)
My Lords, I am encouraged by the King’s Speech to believe that there will be strong measures to tackle racism, in particular antisemitism. Noble Lords will agree that the Government’s first and foremost duty is to protect British citizens. In the wake of the attack in Golders Green on two innocent members of the British Jewish community, it is time to stop importing conflicts into our country with serious consequences for our race relations and social cohesion.
I am not a Jew, but I acknowledge the contribution this tiny community makes to the world. Jewish individuals won 220 Nobel Prizes in economics and sciences between 1901 and 2025. Some 22% of all Nobel laureates have Jewish roots, while the Jewish population worldwide is less than 0.02%. As a result, they have touched the lives of almost everyone in the world, including those who wish to harm them.
It is a sad indictment of our nation that high-achieving Jewish students are scared for their lives in our colleges and universities. This is the time when students should cherish their journey of acquiring knowledge to serve humanity.
Britain has historic links with many countries around the world, and citizens of those countries are now British citizens. Most of them are making a positive contribution. However, we are not obliged to turn Britain into a war zone by allowing rivalries between nations bringing their conflicts to the United Kingdom, affecting the lives of every British citizen, not to mention the colossal cost of policing disputes. Our police forces are under enormous strain to maintain law and order at home; to ask them to take on the additional responsibility of dealing with international disputes is not sustainable.
As a result, our foremost duty is to maintain cordial relations among our citizens by preventing foreign rivalries becoming a cause of conflict in the United Kingdom. We have one King and one country, and as a result, we have become one. We must keep out of our nation those influences that divide us.
The role of every Government is to instil British values in new arrivals so that they integrate easily into our society and make the most of what Britain has to offer. The qualities of tolerance and respect for every faith, for women and for the rule of law have made us a great nation. Britain must ensure that every citizen moves in the same direction to maintain social cohesion and keep our country functioning in perfect harmony.
We should apply the rules equally and rigorously to every community and every faith to move our nation forward with minimal diversion. We must avoid costs that burden the police and taxpayers and, above all, create animosity and disharmony among our own citizens, with dire consequences for us and our next generation.
Finally, the King mentioned that a two-state solution in the Middle East is the way forward. Rival forces should be encouraged to promote peaceful coexistence, as death and destruction do not benefit anyone.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, for his brilliant valedictory speech. He will be greatly missed, both for the warmth of his company and for his combination of erudition and deep understanding, in contributions not only here but to our national debate. He warns us to take care to protect and nourish our constitution—and how right he is.
We also enjoyed two excellent maiden speeches: the philosophical approach of the noble Lord, Lord Case, to the working of our constitution, and the clear commitment to fairness and justice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, who also reminded us that the sun rises first over Suffolk. Both demonstrated the qualities they will each bring to our future debates.
The Hillsborough law Bill has been a long time coming, but we fully support it. At last, public officials will have a specific duty to tell the truth about mistakes made, unchecked faults and tragedies suffered in consequence. The offences of misleading the public and misconduct in public office should reinforce accountability and reduce the culture of cover-up and self-exculpation that is its very opposite. The increase in legal aid for inquests should also help level the playing field between bereaved families and those allegedly responsible for their loss. We support the principles of the national security Bill and the tackling state threats Bill, though we will always take care to protect individual liberties.
Central to today’s debate has been the emphatic recognition of the scourge, even in our still overwhelmingly tolerant and inclusive country, of widespread antisemitism, so powerfully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Pickles, and very many others. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, also reminded us of the appalling prevalence of anti-Muslim hostility. The proscription of the IRGC—long demanded by us but resisted in the Crime and Policing Act through three rounds of ping-pong, but now at last promised by the Government—will demonstrate our commitment. As the noble Lords, Lord Cryer, Lord Sherbourne and Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and others have said, the evidence of Iranian involvement in antisemitic attacks in the UK is overwhelming and now unchallengeable.
On SLAPPs, we will support the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on her Bill to restrict this abuse, and we urge the Government to support her too. We have long called for control of the bullying use of threatened or actual litigation to close down legitimate criticism. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford previously introduced a Bill on SLAPPs.
We welcome the commitment to increased investment in criminal justice, but the proposed restrictions of jury trials are wholly out of kilter with that commitment. The Government claim that the right to jury trial would be only minimally affected. Certainly, 90% of criminal trials are heard by magistrates, including nearly all motoring offences. But the Government’s proposals are concerned with serious offences, however Ministers may try to underplay them. How can the Government justify denying citizens of unblemished record a jury trial for almost any offence of dishonesty? On what criterion is that based? It is based on an arbitrary assessment that a three-year sentence is likely.
As such, a seasoned criminal with a long criminal record is to be permitted a jury trial, while a person of good character—who stands to lose career, family, friends, self-esteem and mental health if convicted of theft—is not. What is the reason? It is because the seasoned criminal is at risk of three years plus, whereas the person of good character is not.
Judges differ. A hearing before a prosecution-minded judge is a world away from a hearing before a different, more sympathetic judge. These differences between judges cannot be eliminated in the essentially human world of judicial decision-making on guilt or innocence. Judges cannot leave their leave their differing classes, lifestyles and racial prejudices outside court, so in these proposals we have the perfect recipe for unfairness and widespread resentment.
The virtue of jury trial is precisely that human differences are largely ironed out by the collective decision-making of a jury of 12 in the privacy of the jury room. Rightly, we never get to know how jury decisions are reached, but we do know that both criminal lawyers and the public at large respect and trust the jury process far more than they do the individual decisions of judges.
Juries are an essentially democratic institution, bringing lay decision-making into our justice system—a point powerfully made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti, and others. Public trust in juries is further enhanced by the racial and gender diversity of juries, and these proposals represent the most extraordinary about-turn by David Lammy, who, in his 2017 review, described juries as a major protection of defendants against racial disadvantage.
The Government rely on the need to reduce the backlogs and waiting times for trials caused by years of underresourcing by previous Governments. Certainly, we must radically cut the backlogs and waiting times to trial. The delays are intolerable, but attacking the system as a response is a desperate counsel of despair. In reality, there is no convincing evidence that these restrictions would indeed reduce waiting times. The Criminal Bar Association has demonstrated that the Government’s impact assessment overstates the cuts in waiting times by a factor of two. The Institute for Government assessed the reduction to be achieved as negligible. Furthermore, no one has been able to cost the extra time to be needed by judges to write reasoned judgments for every verdict, and no one has assessed the likely number of extra appeals from disputed judicial convictions or the extra time they would involve.
We have done so little to tackle the waiting lists by other, more sensible means. We have had an artificial cap on sitting days. That is now thankfully abandoned. As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, pointed out, that step is already reducing waiting times. Then successive Governments have allowed the court estate to fall into dreadful disrepair, leaving courts unusable and shuttered. We have failed properly to resource sufficient judges or lawyers of high quality to deal with cases efficiently. As Kirsty Brimelow KC, the Bar Council chair, trenchantly argues:
“Priority listing of cases comprising vulnerable witnesses is an approach that’s already been shown to reduce delays in those cases. There is growing evidence that the Crown court backlog is being brought down simply by the action of opening up closed court rooms”.
Then we have pre-trial systems that are inefficient and often paper-based when they should be digital. We regularly have cases adjourned and days wasted for lack of counsel to represent the parties because the work is paid too little to be viable. We still have the absurd position that defendants in custody are being brought to court late or not at all, causing lost court days. The combination of all these inefficiencies has brought judges’ average sitting times per day down from 3.8 hours to 3.2 hours since 2016-17. Restoring that to 3.8 hours, an increase of 18.75%, would massively outweigh any possible cut in waiting times from these proposals.
Furthermore, all these trials have to be paid for eventually, so the cost of accelerating trials is only deferred by delays, not avoided. The exception is that it is sadly true that some victims feel driven by despair to abandon cases because the waiting for trial is interminable, but that is clearly not an acceptable way of saving money.
The Liberal Democrats propose for courts to sit on two trials in a day, with different judges and juries in two sessions, for 3.5 hours or so in the morning and the same in the afternoon. The current sitting day of 4.5 hours or so is about the maximum length for witnesses’ and juries’ concentration, and lawyers’ preparation for the next day. With two sessions a day, juries would work half days, so jury service would be less of a burden. Court staff and buildings would be better used. About 50% more trials could be heard. The increase in immediate cost would be offset by savings later. Two-session days were successfully trialled during Covid and greatly increased the throughput of trials. So-called Maxwell hours—single-session, four-hour days—worked for the Maxwell fraud trial in the 1990s.
There is much else we can do. Some minor offences could be redesignated as summary-only, triable only by magistrates. Some complex fraud cases could possibly be tried by judge alone if the defendants consented, which in some cases they might. But there really is no argument for hacking away at the jewel in the crown of our criminal justice system in a fruitless exercise that will be profoundly damaging when there is so much else that could be done.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and as ever I express my gratitude to His Majesty the King for delivering the gracious Speech.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Case, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on their excellent maiden speeches. If that is a taste of what is to come, we are exceedingly fortunate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, on his valedictory speech and wish him well and many years of enjoyment outside your Lordships’ House.
The country was promised tough action to “smash the gangs” and bring down illegal migrant arrivals. We were promised that Labour would “take back our streets” and a Government who would put our national security first. Yet what has actually been delivered? Has illegal immigration come down? Have the gangs been smashed? Do British people feel their streets are safer? From the recent campaign, I have to say that the answer on the doorstep is unfortunately a resounding no. Small boat arrivals are at their highest ever level: 77,076 people have crossed the channel since this Government took office—a significant increase. Far from reducing small boat crossings, the actions taken by the Government have increased them.
The Minister of course talks up the Government’s record on increasing returns, but he will know that the vast majority of that increase has come from voluntary returns, not enforced deportations. Labour ripped up the Rwanda deal immediately upon entering office and has been floundering ever since, but we know now that the Government are exploring a similar system. Would it not have made more sense to persist, perhaps, with the Rwanda deterrent, which was oven ready, rather than unceremoniously ending it before it had even started?
In the last Session, we passed the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act. It contained some measures that we supported but, as I warned then, it is nowhere near strong enough to get a grip of the scale of the problem we face. We heard the Government boast about their new counterterror-like powers for border officers, but at the same time they repealed the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and refused to back our plans to deport all illegal migrants within one week and leave the ECHR.
The latest crime statistics offer the Government some solace, but overall police numbers are down. There has been a reduction in the police workforce of some 1,334 as of 30 September 2025 compared to March 2025. How is the Government’s neighbourhood policing programme coming along? Well, according to police workforce data, they have hired approximately 2,500 new neighbourhood officers, but were we not promised 13,000 by the end of this Parliament? If growth continues at its current rate, the Government will almost certainly not hit their target by 2029. Much like their promise to build 1.5 million homes, I fear that this is just another target that this Government will fail to deliver on. On the issue of policing, I was heartened to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, talk about police discretion and police independence, something which I fear has almost disappeared. I am afraid that I must disagree with him on the other aspect of his speech on devolving policing to Wales.
I express our support for the measures to increase the baseline qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain, introduce the earned settlement pathways and make refugee status temporary. However, we know from the experience of the previous Session that the Government have struggled immensely with getting their agenda past their own Back Benches. There have already been U-turns on winter fuel payments, wealth reform and business rates for pubs, which were forced by the parliamentary Labour Party. Resistance from Government Back-Benchers to the indefinite leave-to-remain reforms is already palpable. Not content with torpedoing the efforts of the previous Government to enact the wishes of the British public and end illegal migration, the left-wing zealots on the Labour Back Benches now want to torpedo their own Government’s very sensible and vital immigration reforms. In a rare turn of events, I say to the Minister that I genuinely hope the Government succeed. The Home Secretary is to be commended for having the courage to propose these reforms and I sincerely hope that the Government have the backbone to stand up for what is right and face down the challenges.
Where they face difficulty, as my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has said, we on these Benches stand ready to help the Government pass their immigration and asylum reforms. That does not mean that we will not challenge the Government and seek to amend the immigration and asylum Bill when it comes to your Lordships’ House. I have been clear for many months that we do not believe that the Government’s plans go far enough. They are a welcome start, but these measures alone will not be enough to tackle the scale of the problem.
Unfortunately, though predictably, this Government do not have the vision or the political will to do what is necessary. We know that the immigration and asylum Bill will seek to reform the domestic interpretation of the qualified rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but this is merely tinkering around the edges. If we alter our interpretation of Article 8, illegal migrants, human rights lawyers and immigration advisers will simply turn to other parts of the convention such as the absolute rights under Article 3 and 4 to prevent their legitimate deportation.
The only solution to taking back control of our laws is to leave the ECHR in its entirety and to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. There is no other way. Until we do that, until we end the legal merry-go-round of appeals through the immigration tribunals and judicial review, we will not be able to end the crises at the border and restore order to our system. That is why, in our alternative King’s Speech, we have a fully worked-out plan to leave the ECHR and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, repeal the Human Rights Act, ban illegal migrants from obtaining asylum, deport them within a week and end all judicial review and legal appeals for these cases. The Minister can rest assured that we will be bringing forward amendments to that effect.
The Government’s failures do not just extend to immigration and border security. Crime remains a deep and growing concern. Too many people no longer believe that the law operates swiftly, visibly or fairly. Too many offenders regard punishment as uncertain and deterrence as negligible. What is the Government’s response? A programme that appears increasingly to confuse administrative reform with public protection. The Government have introduced their plans to limit our ancient right to jury trials—already referred to by a number of noble Lords this evening—and restructure the courts. We hear the endless drone of the managerialists talking of modernisation and efficiency, as if modernisation has ever solved a problem.
Victims of crime do not lie awake at night worrying about administrative structures. They worry about whether criminals will be caught, prosecuted and punished. Unfortunately, we know that, under this Government, thousands of criminals have been released from prison and thousands more will never even set foot in one. The Sentencing Act passed in the previous Session means that the vast majority of short sentences have been abolished. So, in future, shoplifters will almost never see the inside of a cell and even some sexual offenders and domestic abusers will instead be let out to roam the streets. This does not seem like the action of a Government who are determined to make the British public safer.
On that note, I wholeheartedly echo the comments made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar about the appalling rise in antisemitism. I am sure the Minister will have seen the excellent recent report from StandWithUs, which shows that Jewish students are being followed home, abused in the streets and sent death threats by their fellow students at our universities, as already referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. That report lays bare the sheer scale of antisemitism among students—and let us remember these are the very same people who claim to be anti-racist. They rally against anyone they perceive to have done or said something racist, and yet they think it perfectly acceptable to abuse and intimidate Jewish people. It is evidently the case that for some people it is not racism if it is directed at Jews. I ask the Minister what interaction there is between the Home Office and the Department for Education to address this.
In what is perhaps another olive branch to the Minister, it is welcome to see the inclusion of the tackling state threats Bill and the national security Bill. I am sure the Minister will not have forgotten our efforts last Session to force the Government to proscribe the IRGC. I once again thank the Liberal Democrats, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for their support in that. While I remain unconvinced that a specific regime is required to ban organisations such as the IRGC, and disappointed that it took the Government so long, it is none the less welcome to see that the Government have signalled their intention to make good on their word. We have offered to help the Government expedite this legislation to ensure that the IRGC and other entities that seek to promote Islamist terror and antisemitic hatred on our streets are swiftly prohibited and so that those who support them are appropriately punished.
When the Government act, however late, in the national interest, the Conservative Party will support them. But I would not want the Minister to start thinking that any of this will be easy for him—oh, no. While we will support many of the immigration and asylum reforms and while we will help the Government pass the state threats Bill, I remain resolute in my criticism of their record. Too much of what they have announced is too little, too late. They whisper warm words about ridding the country of the scourge of antisemitism. They refuse to acknowledge that the problem is with Islamist extremism. They bury their heads in the sand when small boat crossings reach a record high. They free thousands of convicted criminals and then legislate to prevent even more being put behind bars. And they still believe that passing ever more legislation is a substitute for political resolve. But the problem is not a shortage of Acts of Parliament; it is a shortage of political will, of competence and of strategic direction.
We were told that the creation of a Border Security Command would transform enforcement. We were told that enhanced powers and data sharing arrangements would dismantle organised immigration crime. Yet the criminal gangs are still flourishing, crossings persist, and confidence in the system continues to erode.
This country deserves better than perpetual crisis management masquerading as reform. It deserves a Government willing to make difficult decisions. The Government may announce Bills in abundance, but until they demonstrate the courage and competence to enforce the laws already on the statute book and to do what is necessary to regain control of our borders, the British people will remain unconvinced.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to wind up this aspect of the gracious Speech and to listen to the contributions that have been made over the six or so hours that we have had of this discussion to date. I want to begin, if I may, by just paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, for his service, for his award of the Garter, for his statement that politics of decency should prevail, and for his work to date. If he can write a book for me now on how to respond to 75 contributions over a six-hour period, that would be really helpful as well.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Case, for his maiden speech. He was confident, he brings experience to this House and he made a strong defence of the union. He joins the long list of Permanent Secretaries from the Civil Service who are in this place, and he will bring undoubted experience to the Chamber.
In the same way, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. She spoke very fluently on the key issues that she faced and brought criminal justice issues to the fore, including the issue of wrongful convictions. I say in response to her question that the review that she mentioned from Dame Vera Baird is independent and will report accordingly.
We have had a very good debate today. As well as those maiden and valedictory speeches, we have had some 70-plus contributions, which I will try and respond to in due course. This is important because the issues that we are discussing on security, policing, criminal justice, immigration and the union are essential to the lives of everyone in this country.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Dholakia, that we will do the things that we say we will do. We have a commitment to do them, whatever little political difficulties there are at the moment. This is a programme for government that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are committed to seeing through with the support of colleague Ministers.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that we have made significant progress over the last two years. Since taking office, the Government have made it a priority to restore neighbourhood policing. We have put 3,000 additional neighbourhood police officers in place as part of a potential 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, welcomes those police officers on the ground. We have a policing guarantee to do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, mentioned in his contribution, which is to look at the issues that matter to people on the ground: anti-social behaviour, knife crime, homicide and theft, all of which are falling. Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 we bolstered powers for anti-social behaviour, retail crime, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, knife crime, online stalking and exploitation.
On immigration and border security, this King’s Speech will build on our activity to date. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that net migration is down, asylum decisions are being made more speedily and more people with no right to be here are being removed. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, but it is a pity he did not do those things when he was in office himself, when he had the chance to do so only 18 months ago. We have stopped 40,000 attempted channel crossings in partnership with the French. On national security, we have introduced Martyn’s law and youth diversion orders. We have ensured that we have put in place a range of important measures.
We have an ambitious delivery programme. Among the things that we have talked about today, the issue of antisemitism has been key, and I want to touch on that first. The noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, Lord Ranger and Lord Godson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, all quite rightly raised the challenges of antisemitism. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made the welcome suggestion that we need to bring communities together to deal with that scourge. The noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, and my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, suggested that we need a cross-party approach to tackle this issue. It is extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned the Jonathan Fisher review, which was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cryer. It is important that we try to bring that into play. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, talked about the bans on recent marches; I think they were fair and reasonable, and we will debate that in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Altmann, all raised the subjects of extremism and the scourge of antisemitism. I say to my noble friend Lady Berger that it is not acceptable that her children have to go through barriers to school, but we have put that resource in to help protect the community and we have done it in a fair and effective way. I say also to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, that Muslim hate crime is equally important, and the Government will take a stand on those issues.
We are ambitious with this legislative agenda. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, that we understand and want to look at the question of delivery. I start with national security, which will always be our first priority. In the gracious Speech there are two Bills that are extremely important in defending our national security. One of them is the fast-track response to equip the Home Secretary with powers to designate organisations engaged in threatening activity linked to a foreign power. The issue is to do with a range of bodies. Noble Lords have talked about the IRGC. We do not comment on proscription as yet, but the Bill will give the Home Secretary powers to tackle terrorist organisations under state regimes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan recognised that those state threats are changing. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friends Lord Cryer and Lady Berger have supported and looked at the issue of those Bills. The noble Lords, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, Lord Walney, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Goodman of Wycombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, all raised the important issue of how we deal with those state threats. I say to all those noble Lords that the Macdonald review will be reporting very shortly, in May; the issue of charities is kept under continual review; and we will ensure that we have a national security strategy that we will revert to in due course. Those are important issues that we need to take place. I say to the House as a whole that the national security Bill, bolstering defences to counter the full range of threats waged against us, and the Bill on proscription are two important measures that will be brought before this House as soon as practicable to ensure that we put that national security footing on a stronger base.
The police reform Bill that has been mentioned will directly challenge policing in the modern world to look at how we can improve our response to the ever-evolving threats. The Home Secretary has laid out a significant programme of reform, based on the White Paper, to secure trust and confidence, to abolish PCCs, to strengthen local policing, to look at a national response and, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, to make sure that independence remains vital. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lord Bach have welcomed the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Martin, talked about the prevention of reoffending. That is extremely important and we need to look at how we can improve it. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, talked about ensuring that we have consultation on and consideration of these matters, and he is right. My noble friend Lady Hyde of Bemerton and the noble Lords, Lord Kirkham and Lord Paddick, welcomed in broad terms the direction of travel.
We had a discussion around the devolution of policing and how we can look at that from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I say to them both that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is currently looking on behalf of the Government at how we can deal with those issues, and he will report back in the summer.
There has been significant discussion of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. We are not going to achieve consensus here today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, mentioned IPPs, and my noble friend Lady Taylor touched on that issue as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, gave us a heads up on a future Private Member’s Bill. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter, Lady Berridge and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, all expressed concerns about the Bill, while my noble friend Lady Mattinson supported the proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, mentioned that he is concerned about rape trials. I say to him that rape trials will still have a jury before them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, worries about the three-year plan that was in place. That is going to be produced, and I think my noble friend will write to him very shortly on these matters.
On justice and reoffending, we are in favour of strong community punishments, we are investing in probation, we have increased the number of sitting days and, through the Victims and Courts Act, we have invested £550 million over the next three years in victim services. They are important issues but, quite rightly, there are concerns that will be debated and we will reach some conclusions in due course.
Immigration has been central to the debate tonight. It is right that our borders are secure, our rules are enforced, there is fairness, and we take steps to remove people who have no right to be here. There are plans in the proposals to look at a new model for Article 8, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Faulks. We will discuss in due course how we can make some tweaks to Article 8 of the ECHR, but we are not going to withdraw from the ECHR as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes. [Interruption.] The noble Lord is not in government at the moment, so we will see.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed concerns, which we will obviously look at and reflect on. But I am pleased that I have had support from my noble friends Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Watson of Invergowrie.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, raised issues relating to modern slavery. We will look at how we can examine Section 48 in due course.
Integration issues were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. We understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friends Lord Bach, Lord Sahota and Lady Lister. I hope that I will be able to persuade colleagues during the passage of the Bill that it is the right course of action. That is what this Chamber is about. I understand those concerns and we will return to them in due course. I welcome, genuinely, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for those proposals. But we will have to revisit them, test them and have that discussion in due course, because we have to have order and control in the immigration system.
We also have the Hillsborough Bill, which I am particularly pleased to have before the House, as a supporter of Liverpool Football Club all my life, and because it is the right thing to do.
We will rebuild public confidence in the justice process and, through my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, introduce that statutory duty of candour. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller raised some issues. I hope we can resolve them in an amicable way for all parties. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for the principle behind the Bill. The measures in the Bill will apply to all public authorities and services, including the intelligence services, but we have to work through the concerns and find some solutions to the issues that have been raised, and we will do in due course.
There has been a lot of discussion and debate on the union, on votes for 16 year-olds, on devolution, and on the issues in the gracious Speech as a whole regarding trust in politics. There are really important issues around the union. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made a sterling defence of the union and the role of the Government, as did the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised some issues which I will get back to her on, because I want to look into them in more detail.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord, Wallace of Saltaire, on how the patchwork fits together is important.
I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on the direction of travel on PR, but there are always issues that we can reflect on and look at.
My noble friend Lady Hayter raised the important question of donations and how we organise them. This was also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. We need to ensure that we take money out of our political system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, tempted me to look at Brexit. I think I will leave that one for tonight, if I may, but we will obviously have some further discussions on that and how we get a working relationship with the European Union. That is being looked at in relation to a range of issues.
As part of that section of the debate, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Farmer, talked about votes at 16. They have made their points and I refer them, if I may—I hope this will find favour with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, who I spoke about earlier—to Wales, where we have introduced votes at 16. A week last Thursday, people in Wales who are 16 voted. I am not even sure that they voted for my party, but we introduced this and they voted. There is a model to look at, and the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Carter, can be examined in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of—of somewhere I cannot read my own writing on now—hit on the really important point of trust being key. Trust in politics is absolutely key, which is why I also want to refer to the Northern Ireland Bill, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lords, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard and Lord Bew. The Government have had to look at this issue again and there is a carry-over Bill. The points raised today are extremely important. We will examine that again, but we have to try to reach a resolution on this issue with the Irish Government, the people of Northern Ireland and the parties here today. I hope that we can examine that in due course.
In essence, this King’s Speech is about reform. It is about continuing the work that we have done in government to make a difference on key issues. It is about reducing crime; it is about keeping our society secure from terrorism; it is about managing our borders effectively; it is about speeding up justice and supporting reoffending being reduced. It is also about ensuring that we give justice with candour and put that public trust in our society through the Hillsborough law. This is reform for a purpose. It is to ensure that we have better policing by supporting local policing and giving a better national focus. It is about providing security to keep us safe in an age of growing and diverse threats, as have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. It is about strengthening our borders, improving efficiency and speeding up justice to restore the ability of courts to deal with cases and give justice to victims.
I suggest that as a second-term programme in government, this is a solid amount of work. We have to deliver on the gracious Speech, but I commend the elements in it on the Home Office, justice and the union to this House. I look forward to arguing, debating and, I hope, agreeing on a number of elements of the programme during the next Session of Parliament.
As ever, my door is open to discuss any concerns. I will read Hansard tomorrow in detail and if I have not covered questions and points that have been raised—because there have been an awful lot of points—I will return to those in writing. I hope that noble Lords can, at least tonight, welcome this King’s Speech and support the general objectives of the Government.