Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: The number of people currently serving imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences, whether in prison or on licence in the community, who have served more than their original tariff

Fourth Oral Question. Baroness Burt of Solihull.

15:09

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On December 31, 2024, 695 unreleased IPP prisoners with 10 years or more over tariff years or more over tariff representing 67% of this population. Data on the number of recall Data on the number of recall defenders who have served 10 years or more over their tariff is not centrally collated. On September 30 last year 2,300 IPP offenders on last year 2,300 IPP offenders on licence with 10 years or more over tariff with 80% of those represented tariff with 80% of those represented in the community.

1742 licences were terminated on November 1 after the

15:10

Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat)

- -

terminated on November 1 after the commencement of reforms in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I know how hard he is answer. I know how hard he is working on this issue. I appreciate that some of the answers are not that some of the answers are not collected. Nevertheless, the fact collected. Nevertheless, the fact remains that almost 700 IPP remains that almost 700 IPP prisoners who have never been released from prison have been released from prison have been locked up for more than a decade longer than their original sentence indicated.

Most of them, because their mental health is such a terrible state. Does the noble Lord the Minister accepts that in many of these cases it was the IPP sentence itself that broke their mental health, trapping them in a self- perpetuating nightmare? So does he agree that resentenced in these prisoners with appropriate safeguards and help is the only way to rid this country of this terrible stain on our justice system?

15:11

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and also for the interest she has in this important area. I want to assure her and noble Lords we are not giving up on Lords we are not giving up on anyone. Insofar as mental health goes of IPP prisoners and all prisoners, the Chief Medical Officer agreed to consider the IPP sentence in an independent review which I am pleased about. When it comes to re- sentencing, public safety must come first and the Parole Board are expert in deciding who is safe to be released and who is not.

That is why the Action Plan is vital and we need to make sure we keep making good progress on it. progress on it.

15:12

Lord Woodley (Labour)

- -

Like many others and indeed the previous picture, I believe free sentencing is the only way to wipe the IPP stain off the justice system for good. But the government has mentioned the worry about the overruling of the Parole Board. Does the noble Lord the Minister agree the noble Lord the Minister agree that initially limiting resentenced to those already living on licence in the community fully addresses this objective? Because the Parole Board has already decided they are Board has already decided they are

15:13

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend for his question. Those in the community are already benefiting from the significant changes to the licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. An avenue for an early end to the sentence after a successful period in the community. We sentence those living in the community and we worry it would halt the management of these individual some of whom are at the critical moment of being recently released from custody. Although this is not a good example of someone who has been released, every person I go to, I always ask to meet and IPP prisoners and sit in their cells, sit in the office and talk about their situation.

I recently met a prisoner who is 11 years over tariff. He spent eight years at a hospital. He has not engaged at all in his sentence and the Action Plan is not working for him. That is why it is important we need to give people hope and the Action Plan for me is the way to do it.

15:13

Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)

- -

In building on the previous question, there are many IPP prisoners who have been considered safe to be released by the Parole Board and been released but then recalled to prison other than for a further offence. Are the government considering whether different considerations perhaps come into play in respect of these released

15:14

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

and then recalled IPP prisoners? They were previously considered safe to be released and in terms of risk to be released and in terms of risk assessment and the future possibility of release. possibility of release. Introduced a new power to enable the secretary of state to release recalled IPP and DPP offenders using the recall review where safe to do so. Without the offender needing a release decision from the Parole release decision from the Parole Board. We now consider every recalled offender for the system and it is already being used for swifter release and in some cases we have seen record prisoners released several months ahead of the parole hearing.

I know the noble Lord will know not everybody who was recalled

15:15

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

to prison is an IPP prisoner. 30% of IPP records are because of a further IPP records are because of a further There is a concern about public protection. Obviously we all are concerned but there is no absolute guarantee that non-IPP prisoners guarantee that non-IPP prisoners will never reoffend. So why pursue this unrealistic goal for IPP prisoners and thereby track them in a limbo which is rightly described not only by my noble friend but across the political spectrum is a terrible stain on the criminal terrible stain on the criminal

15:15

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

I agree and the job I am doing it is my job to make sure that as many IPP business engage with the action plan and get released and stay out and do not come back. In 2024 the number of IPP unreleased sell-by 182 and records fell by 83, but noble Lords will, I am sure, be aware that we are dealing with a number of issues in our prisons at the moment to do with the lack of capacity. We are trying to battle to make sure that we get prisoners in the right person to engage with the action plan and hopefully they get out and stay out.

stay out.

15:16

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops)

- -

Given that, taking into account what is been said already I do welcome inequitable provisions in the prisoners act passed by the last Government allowing termination of conditions for IPP prisoners. However, there are huge legal complexities involved and I wonder what steps the Government is taking to ensure those eligible for termination of their licence

15:16

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

conditions actually understand their rights and are able to exercise rights and are able to exercise them. Wye thanked The Right Honourable Trevor for her question and I agree with you that I have met and I agree with you that I have met IPP prisoners both in person and in the community who are not fully aware of the situation they're in aware of the situation they're in and what they need to do from here. I think that you raise a challenge

15:17

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

to me and my colleagues and the Ministry of Justice which I will take away and reflect and get back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take away and reflect and get back to you on that. Given so many of those prisoners serving their sentence have never been released are suffering from chronic mental illness, is it not time for them to be considered for transfer and treatment in a mental health setting? And not in prison any more. And I mean that systematically and not simply at hoc, as when individuals are transferred, as I know some are, to a mental prison. And in that connection, what consideration has to Government given to the proposal from the Royal of psychiatrists? For the development of the regime parallel to section 117 of the Mental Health Act.

To offer support to these people if they do achieve release through that route. release through that route.

15:18

There are 241 IPP prisoners insecure mental health settings as of our last figures that have been published. And it is those that are of real concern to me because they are so far away from being safe to be released, but what we need to make sure that we do is to support and in the example that I give and in the example that I give earlier on of the prison that I met recently, to support them on their journey. And I think that the Government that they're doing on the Mental Health Act with visions being Mental Health Act with visions being put in place will hopefully contribute to a more successful outcome.

outcome.

15:18

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

Following on from the request for more detailed data, can I asked the Minister will the Government make public detailed data of the different gradations of risk prevented by the various cohort of IPP prison population? Assuming treated as an undifferentiated. And then cut the Governments apply the same risk assessment criteria used for early release decisions to the release of IPP prisoners and release them now, hardly earlier. Because to exclude IPP prisoners from emergency measures to ease overcrowding seems irrational and even cruel.

15:19

Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)

- -

The noble Baroness will be That I raised it when we had the PS roundtable if you months ago and we are hoping to have another one in May. We talked about the rating of IPP prisoners and at the time we just rated those in prison and I am pleased that everybody in the community is related that will help. I am hopeful that noble Lords will suggest to me what they would like on the agenda for our roundtable which will hopefully be in May when it comes to data and important questions throughout the data and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

certainly we could discuss them. That concludes Oral Questions for today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. It may be convenient to have a short pause wearing any noble Lords

15:21

Legislation: Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill - committee and all remaining stages

Church of Scotland Lord High Commissioner Bill stop Smith of Basildon.

15:21

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

15:25

Lord True (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble Baroness for the way she has piloted this bill. And I confirm that what this bill. And I confirm that what she said was moved in unanimity in the House and the second reading debate at the very broad and deep support there was for the bill, for this enlightened appointment by his king. And the great goodwill that this House bears to the honourable lady as it takes on this appointment. We on this side thank the noble Baroness and thank all those involved behind-the-scenes in preparing the bill and wish it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Godspeed. Can I also thank the noble

15:26

Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Baroness Leader of the House and indeed for the Noble Lord tour said about the debate we have had last week. It was actually quite remarkable. I think for two reasons. Firstly, because it was historic from a historic stain but we wanted to move and I think also because we had confidence in the ability of Lady Nish to fulfil the role that was being proposed for her and I think I would also like to give thanks to the people that have been involved in the team, think it has probably been done at breakneck speed and had to be done very quickly in order to meet the deadline in May.

But I know that the work done by the Chancellor of Lancaster has been very much appreciated and I would just like to add my thanks not least to the Noble Lady herself that we managed to get this legislation through and I look forward to seeing lady elision at the General Assembly on the 17th of lady elision at the General Assembly on 17 May. on 17 May.

15:27

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

I do not think there is much I can add to that. Think the House welcomes the great count of agreement and cooperation of the House and long may it last.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill due now past. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Third reading of the nondomestic rating multipliers and private schools bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and private schools bill. I beg to move the bill is read a third time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

third time. The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The

15:27

Legislation: Non-Domestic Ratings (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill - third reading

contents have it. In clause 7 amendment one, the Baroness Barran.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my three amendments for this third reading. My amendments are simple and seek to

15:27

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

remove any reference to private schools following the removal of clause 5 and I hope very much the Government will accept these amendments to ensure we are sending a clean copy of the bill to The Other Place. I am pleased that the two important principles that we debated during the passage of Bill were upheld by the House report. Firstly, that the tax on education should be removed from the bill. And, secondly, that we should not introduce a two-tier system for charities.

I was glad to have the support of the noble Lords across the House to remove clause 5 from the bill and with particular thanks to the Noble Lord story who also co-signed that amendment. This clause on its own will only raise £70 million for the Exchequer, but its impact cannot be ignored because it comes at a time when the Government has already hit independent schools with additional costs with the decision to introduce VAT on independent school fees in the middle of a school year and an increase in employing National Insurance contributions.

And then this suggested change which would exclude independent schools from charitable business rates relief. Although it would raise minimal amounts for the Treasury, it will damage schools disproportionately. And, again, as previously discussed, the bill would create a two-tiered charity system, allowing the Government to treat charities differently, bringing politics into charity law, and our charities and our charitable schools should not be subject to this end I am very glad to the noble Lords across the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment one is agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, we have three amendments tabled that are consequential to the amendments passed at report stage of this bill. As they simply refine this bill. As they simply refine those amendments that have already been passed we do not support these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. The question is that amendment one is agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment two, moved formally? The question is that amendment two and three en bloc is agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

15:31

Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

I beg to move that this bill do now pass, my lord. Through this bill, the government is delivering on the pledges as set out in its manifesto. I thank noble Lords who dedicated much of their time to scrutiny and have been diligently working with the government to make sure the desired outcomes aligned with government intentions. Kickstarting the long overdue transformation of the business rate system so it can be fairer, protect the high street, support investment and how is a system fit for the 21st century.

The government seeks to secure additional funding to deliver on commitments to education and By concentrating on the broader picture towards the state sector where most children are educated. They have been amendments made for the Commons to consider. But the government does not accept them. The bill as it entered the House delivered on the government mission to rebuild Britain and the amended state of the bill does not go far enough in the ambition to kickstart economic growth and eliminate bias to opportunity. I thank the noble Baroness is, Lady Scott, Lady Burt, Lady Barran, Lady Pinnock and Lord Jamieson, Lord Monaghan, Lord Shippey, and the Earl of Lytton for their considered approach to the substance of the bill.

I'm grateful for the conversations we had throughout the time in this house. Your passion and expertise have been invaluable. Our discussions about the issues have been reflective of the strong feeling shared by many across the country and I thank you for your advocacy and participation. I also extend my gratitude to the bill team. Nick Cooper, and others for technical expertise and for the handling of the bill and in particular I am grateful to my private office and private secretary stop my Lords, I beg to move.

15:32

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, in concluding this bill, I wish first to thank my noble friends on my own benches. Who have supported me. In particular the noble Baroness Scott and the noble Lord Jamieson. In our work to protect high streets and independent schools. I would also like to thank noble lords from across the House who have spoken in support of the many sectors who risk being negatively impacted by the bill. In particular I would like to thank the noble Lord Fox, the noble lady Baroness Pinnock for their work on helping businesses up and down the High Street and the noble Lord story for his support in protecting independent schools.

Andy noble Lord Thurlow for his amendment for calls on the reform to the business rates system that the government have failed to deliver through this bill. I would like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his constructive and positive way in which he has engaged throughout the passage of the bill. On these benches we are pleased that a number of issues on which the House has been united has allowed us to encourage the government to make changes to this bill.

And restores manufacturing businesses and healthcare will likely face increased business rates through these proposed changes, especially with regard to some of the plan and I hope the other place will consider the sensible amendments which retain the current standard multiplier for these crucial sectors. The amendment in the name of Lord Jamieson is the key to exploring the impact of the threshold of the higher multiplier. The cliff edge nature is particularly concerning. Despite the government insisting they want to focus on growth, this threshold will impact the decisions many businesses will take and not in the direction the government seeks.

The noble Lord Thurlow is right to call on the government to consider when they will pursue a reform of the business rate system in line with their manifesto commitment to ensure online giants pay their fair share of business rates. Since the government have not delivered this kind of reform, they should indeed commit to publishing a review of when they will. As I said in relation to my amendments, I was pleased to see clause 5 removed, given it addresses directly the principle of taxing education, and -- Two level.

We look forward on these benches to seeing the response in the other place to these very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasonable issues. I want to start by thanking the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to start by thanking the noble Lord the Minister and his civil servants in the bill team for the helpful discussions to aid detailed understanding of this bill. The one issue that still irks me is The one issue that still irks me is that the bill was debated without an impact assessment. The convention impact assessment. The convention seems to be that this is the case. But I find it unacceptable. We have debated and agreed a bill of this nature and the implication is that it has many businesses, I just believe it is unacceptable to do so believe it is unacceptable to do so without an impact assessment.

However, I am delighted we on these benches are delighted that the 290 hospitals which were destined to have the higher rate multiplier applied will be excluded from that penalty. We hope that the other place will agree with the sanity of this proposal. The noble Lord of the ministers said in his remarks that the aim of the bill was to protect the High Street. It is not clear that will be achieved by this bill. Only time will tell. But I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will be pleased to know that I will be keeping a thoughtful brief on this particular issue and be questioning him at regular intervals if the High Street is not benefiting from the elements of the bill.

Given that, I do want to thank my noble friend Lord Fox, who did much of the work on the implications for business. And the ever knowledgeable and wise Elizabeth Plummer in the Whips' Office, who was able to give me sound advice on the course of the bill. With that, my Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister and look forward to the consequences of the bill.

15:38

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

For my part, I also add my thanks to the noble Lord the Minister for his willingness to engage at all times. Business rates is of course as is known a rather niche area of activity for your Lordships. But certainly I started my professional career just over 50 years ago in the Inland Revenue evaluation office so I have been rather tired with this

15:38

The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)

- -

particular problem for a long time. If I have come across as a bit of a business rates nerd, I apologise to business rates nerd, I apologise to the house. But as the noble Lord the Minister mentioned, the name of Mr Minister mentioned, the name of Mr Nick Cooper, who I of course have known a long time through several administrations, and I think he was astute enough to observe this might astute enough to observe this might actually, given my time may be limited here as a retained limited here as a retained hereditary Peer, this might be the last occasion on which I would have to ball your Lordships on a matter to do with business rates.

So there is something positive for you to look forward to. -- Bore your logic. I thank the noble Baroness is and the noble Lord and my colleague Lord Thurlow for their willingness to discuss matters of crucial importance. I do take the point made by the noble Baron that the manifesto said one thing and it does not appear to me that this is actually what we were led to expect. But my Lords, for all the talk, all the policy-making, all the manifestoes, you do not get to alter economic reality and you do not get to alter markets very much.

Therefore I suspect that the process of part attrition which has gone on in the business sector, particularly over issues to do with high streets will continue so long as that root and branch reform, so badly needed and successive administrations have promised, none have yet delivered. I know that it is tough and it is difficult when you are dealing with something that is difficult to collect but we do have to understand the consequences of lack of fairness and balance and what it means in terms of business decisions.

Both made here and indeed decisions made abroad as an alternative. Finally, I would like to thank Simon Green and others who have been an unfailing source of useful information to do with the background to current business rates because I am not a current practitioner. I pay tribute to them and others from the surveyors Association of which I am a member and the RAC S of which I am also a member. With that I wish this bill well.

I am fairly certain that it will reappear. So I am not in any way complacent that this is the last word on the matter. But there we are. We have given it I think our best shot in a rather difficult area. I do wish it well and I share the views of other noble lords in wishing the other place may pay some regard to the rationale behind our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

efforts. I would like to thank noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for their contributions. Thank you. The question is this bill do now pass. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Consideration of Commons Reasons on the National Insurance Contributions secondary Insurance Contributions secondary contributions bill. Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contributions bill. Lord Livermore. I beg to move the Commons reasons be now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Commons reasons be now considered. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not

15:42

Legislation: National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill - consideration of Commons reasons and amendments

content". The contents have it. Motion eight. Lord Livermore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move in motion that this House do not insist on amendment one, to which the Commons have

15:43

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

one, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons Ia. I also speak to motions e.g., one, H1, W and W1. Before I address the motions directly, I will set out by the bill before this House is necessary. Upon taking office, the government inherited three distinct crises. In public finance. In public services. And the cost of living. That included a £22 billion black Public services at breaking point with NHS waiting list at record levels and working people suffering the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation.

Inflation reaching over 11%. Faced with this reality, any responsible government would need to take action. We took action in the budget to wipe the slate clean. Repair public services. Protect working people. Invest in Britain. A historic investment of an additional £25.7 billion for the NHS. Helping to bring down waiting lists more quickly and end over a decade of underinvestment and neglect. We took this action in the fairest way possible. By keeping our manifesto promises to working people not to increase their tax, National Insurance or VAT.

But we did need to take difficult decisions elsewhere on tax. Including changing employer National Insurance contributions contained in this bill. After this change, more than half of businesses with National Insurance liabilities will either see no change or see liabilities go down. 865,000 employers will also now not pay any national insurance at all next year. We have consistently acknowledged some businesses will now contribute more and the impact will be felt beyond businesses. It was a difficult decision but the right decision.

It was not acting was not an option. As a result of the decision and others taken in the budget, we have built a foundation of stability of which we are now taking forward our agenda of growth and reform. There are consequences to responsibility but the consequences of irresponsibility for the economy and working people would have been much greater. We saw that with the Liz Truss mini-budget which crashed the economy and saw typical mortgage payments increased by £300 per month.

Let me turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Scriven These seek to exempt certain groups and the changes to the employment rate and threshold in the future. This includes powers to exempt care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commissioned dentists, NHS commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of healthcare and those providing hospice care from changes to the employee national insurance rate and threshold and it includes powers to businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 fewer long-time employees for the change to the employment threshold.

As I have set out, the revenue raised from the measures in this bill will play a critical role in preparing public finances and rebuilding our public services. Clearly any future changes would exempt certain groups from paying national insurance and would have cost implications. Necessitating either higher borrowing, lower spending, or alternative revenue raising measures. For this reason, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw amendments 1B, 5B, and HB. I turn now to Amendment 21 bid tabled by the noble Baroness lady Rolf six to require the Government to lay before Parliament in view of the impacted measures in this bill on a number of sectors.

The Government of course carefully considers the impact of all policies including the changes to national insurance. As I have said previously, an assessment of this policy has been published by HMRC in their tax information. The economic and fiscal outlook also sets out the expected economic impact of the changes to apply National Insurance contributions. They have therefore outlined the impact of this policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and previous similar changes to taxation and the Government does not intend to provide further impact assessments.

For this reason I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion AB agreed to. Motion 8.1, Lord Scriven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. Motion 8.1, Lord Scriven. I beg to move the motion one as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the motion one as an amendment to motion a and do propose amendment one point B blue. propose amendment one point B blue.

15:47

Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)

- -

At report stage this past loss amendments one and a number of consequential amendments to exempt the NHS services and social care from the government's hike in National Insurance contributions and we are grateful that the House agreed with these benches that such a rise would have potentially devastating consequences for those that form the backbone of community healthcare for the people they serve. Despite the immense financial pressure that these vital services are already facing, and despite the clearly expressed views by this House, the Government has chosen to overturn our amendments.

We accept the Commons reasons that these amendments engage Commons financial privilege. And we will not be seeking to break with convention today by asking the House for alternative amendments that would evoke the same response. So, this brings me to Amendment one point a which introduces amendment one point B blue and motion one point in and that looks complicated, but they really are very simple. These amendments introduce a regulating making power to allow the Government, at a later stage, to exempt social care, pharmacists, and other NHS services included in original amendment.

Noble Lords will know that I do not propose this lightly. We on these benches are naturally suspicious of giving Government, any Government, such powers without full sweetening provided in legislation, but we are so profoundly worried about the impact of the bill on the NHS and social care. My amendment seeks to address the deeply concerning implications of the National Insurance contribution increases on our vital Health and Social Care Act providers. NHS dentists, pharmacists, hospices, GPs, and social care organisations.

The government's current approach to reimbursement embedded within next year's financial contract negotiations will not solve the financial cliff and cash flow issues many providers are facing. And as a damaging policy that will only exacerbate the existing financial crisis that these sectors already face. I will not dwell at length on the consequences of that national insurance increases as we have already explored them thoroughly. However, it is essential to reiterate the stark realities. The national insurance contribution increase imposes an immediate and substantial financial burden that for some NHS dentists, community pharmacists, hospice, GPs and social care providers it will force them to make difficult choices are potentially reducing services and care packages.

Cutting staff, reducing access, and directly impacting on the most vulnerable in society. This will also present at the NHS, whilst hospital beds are being blocked by keeping individuals and hospitals because they cannot access appropriate social care packages. The government's proposed solution for reimbursing these costs through next year's contract negotiation is fundamentally flawed. It amounts to a system of taking money away from those struggling organisations with no guarantee of its full return. This will create significant cash flow problems, particularly for those already operating on tight budgets.

It would be the very issue that pushes some community pharmacists social care providers and dentists over the edge, rendering them unable to continue providing on social NHS services and care. Furthermore, the NHS contracting cycle is notoriously complex. I know this is a format NHS manager. The reality is very different from being in a Whitehall office. It is complex and opaque. Contract negotiations bundling various factors, including inflation and other cost pressures. There is no guarantee that the full amount of the national insurance increase will be reimbursed.

Too often initial drafts appear to include all necessary provisions, only for providers to discover media that the additional activity requirements of other tricks that funders put in half effectively negated the promised increase. Also, delays in finalising contracts are commonplace, leaving many sectors with months of accumulated pressures and memories old cash flow debt issues. For example, community pharmacies are currently operating under a contract that ended in March of last year. With only two weeks remaining in this financial year, the new agreement is still outstanding.

And they have not been reimbursed for the cost pressures of this financial yeah. This uncertainty in delay creates immense financial instability. The current system lacks the flexibility needed to address the immediate crisis that the national insurance increase will impose on NHS and social care providers. In more agile and realistic approach is urgently required, therefore my amendment proposes that the Government can be granted the power to utilise the power of the instrument if necessary and this would allow for targeted and timely support ensuring that these vital services are not disestablished, shall I say disabled and pushed to the brink.

The Government must abandon its rigid adherence to self-imposed rules and listen to the concerns raised about the impact of the national insurance increases. They must not continue marching forward blindly with this act of folly. My amendment makes this offer to the Minister. Give yourself some flexibility. Allow yourself to act quickly to preserve risk damaging national insurance rates on our Health and Social Care Act systems also give the Government a way to get off the hook. Once you will see how this increase will jeopardise community health and social and other essential services.

If the Minister will not listen, he will leave me no option but to test the opinion of the House. This is a generous offer to the Minister. I generous offer to the Minister. I urge him to accept my amendment and I beg to move in a .1.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that the motion matter AB agreed to. Since then, motion 8.1 has been moved. As an amendment to motion a, addendum insert and do propose addendum insert and do propose amendment one point B in low. The question therefore is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

1.81 be agreed to. It is with some regret that I do not insist on my amendment eight and

15:55

Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)

- -

not insist on my amendment eight and its consequential amendments and I am disappointed that Financial Privilege has been invoked to prevent a full and proper debate in The Other Place on the potential damaging impact that reducing class II secretary threshold by a brutal 45% would have on jobs. Businesses and organisations employing less than 25 staff. And I fear the Government will look back on April 6, a date that the new regime kicks in, as a day of economic self-harm, a second April Fools' Day, if you like.

I do propose to move amendment eight 8D in low and that spirit of pragmatism, my amendment, like the Noble Lord Scriven's, would simply bestow on the Treasury the power through Statutory Instrument to specify exemptions and the lowering of secondary Class 1 thresholds for business charities and indeed all organisations employing less than 25 people. We are talking about 10 million jobs across the UK that are not protected by laws threes increase in the employment allowance. Which offsets the increases, but typically only for those employing three or less staff.

Given the potential damage to Given the potential damage to employment wages and growth, why would the Government not want this weapon in its armoury? What would be a very difficult year ahead for small employers who also face close to 7% increases and the national and added compliance costs with the new Employment Rights Bill. I also support amendment one point B and 5B in name of that noble Lords given. Which strikes me as entirely sensible and pragmatic exemption tool to give to the Treasury, given the very challenging circumstances facing care homes, hospices, pharmacies and other primary care providers.

And, finally, I support amendment 21 point B in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Neville- Rolfe, seeking a review of the impact it makes increases by sector. No, the impact notes that came with this bill were extraordinarily light on detail, especially when you consider that this bill permits employers across these sectors to more than £5 billion per annum in additional. And impact more than 10 million jobs. No, I did ask the Minister at Committee stage how many jobs each sector would be impacted by the increase.

A fairly basic question, one could argue, and yet no answer has been forthcoming. We heard at report stage from the Government benches that such assessments would, I quote, be econometric lead impossible. I respectfully disagree. We are asking for sectoral impact assessments that cover such key issues as a number of jobs impacted, impact on vacancies, job creation redundancies, labour activity and output and wages. An entirely reasonable request, in my view, and when the Treasury should readily embrace.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also rise to speak to this group of amendments, including my amendment 21 point B. The address that very real negative impact of that very real negative impact of the jobs tax. The Government refuses to acknowledge. This bill is the

15:59

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

most important economic measure they have put forward so far. And it makes very significant changes to many businesses and social enterprises on a very short timescale. They have raised concerns, these businesses, that are reflected in the flatlining growth as worried owners seek to anticipate such a brutal change. Noble Lords across the House have raised the consequences in number of times, and yet the Government remains unreceptive. At every stage of this bill's progression, we have raised the concerns of the healthcare sector.

Effect on care homes, pharmacies, dentists, GP surgeries, and hospitals. It will have a real impact on people's lives. And I am particularly concerned about the hospice sector. The recent extra funding provided its capital funding and will not support the day-to-day functions. Hospice UK have reported that the burden of increased to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This will not be covered by the 26 million This will not be covered by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This will not be covered by the £26 million covered as mentioned by the Minister. Children's hospitals the Minister. Children's hospitals -- children's hospices were provided for via the hospice grant. Can the for via the hospice grant. Can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how much of his £26 million is much of his £26 million is additional funding and how much is additional funding and how much is in fact recurring? My Lords, I am certain that there will be a number of hospices which are not able to absorb this cost.

They will be left struggling with more people dying in needless anguish. As such, the noble Lord Scriven's amendment, and it is good to see him back in his place, is very important to ensure hospice For anyone that needs it. That flexibility that he spoke. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Londesborough wholeheartedly. I cannot understand why the government don't recognise the role these entrepreneurial businesses play in supporting economic growth. I mentioned at Exist in the UK and it is 5.5 million.

This is an important group of people. The noble Lord's well judged amendment would allow the Treasury to protect them from this Treasury to protect them from this damaging measure if the need arises. The government has also rejected the calls from many of us to publish a full impact assessment. Stating as the Minister has done again today that they had already published such an assessment. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could point me to those figures. As it stands, the impact note published on November 13 last year does not mention a single one of the sectors in the review amendment.

It does not refer one time to charities with annual revenue of less than £1 million. Early years providers. Hospices. The hospitality sector. Pharmacies. Small businesses. Social care. All the transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities. Yet we know from multiple surveys by charities and business organisations about the negative impact of these changes on headcount and costs. And that is before they even come into effect. I am very disappointed in the way in which the government have gone about this.

Their reasoning is weak. Frankly it is an affront to this House they failed to provide proper reasons given there is clearly no government impact assessment on any of these important sectors. It is something that has been discussed many times. Peers from all benches have agreed the short note provided is completely insufficient for effective scrutiny. This review will ensure that they do a better job in the run-up to future fiscal events. I hope my review amendment will secure the support of the house.

16:03

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lords, I rise very briefly to note the noble Lord the Minister referred to the £22 billion black hole. It does feel on occasion when that occurs in these kind of debates that the issue is being taken with a certain glib pinch of salt because we have heard that phrase so often. But if I accept that there was a real problem, one of the things I would be convinced by the government on is the need for economic growth to get out of this situation.

Which is why I cannot for the life of me work out how we have ended up in this situation where we are introducing measures that are going to damage growth substantially. So I agree with the Minister we need to feel that £22 billion black hole. It has been argued across the House from a range of people that these measures are not going to do that. They are going to make that hole even deeper. I would like to appeal to the Minister to stop digging himself into this hole ever deeper.

At least accept that these amendments are modest and give the opportunity to the government to review whether these National Insurance contributions increases will do the damage as alleged. I have been inundated over this issue more than any since I have been in this House by people working in social care hospices, charities and small businesses. Everybody is tearing their hair out. All they want is for the government to listen. These modest amendments simply call upon the government to have the capacity and flexibility to think again if those people worried about them are right.

If the government is right there is nothing to worry about. Show a little bit, I would suggest, humility to the concerns raised by a wide range of political voices in this house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendments within this group. I speak briefly on them. As with many of the members

16:05

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

on them. As with many of the members of your Lordships' House, I would share the general scepticism and indeed hostility towards the direction of travel of this legislation. I believe if the central mission of this government's economic growth, but also from the public finance point of view, I believe this ultimately takes us in the wrong direction. I appreciate that wider message is not one that is before us today. The amendments that have been put before us are modest in nature and also I think quite cleverly drafted, designed not to make a direct challenge to the financial authority of the House of Commons.

It is disappointing the Commons took that particular approach. But nonetheless I think these are respectful and well drafted amendments which try to deal with this issue. Dealing with it specifically, the Minister mentioned one of the key considerations and key intentions of this government was the issue of reform public services. Protecting public services. At least that stated aim it is one I think all of us in this House would share. Central to that in particular is the provision of support for the national health service.

To ensure the necessary reforms take place within it. To save the national health service from the state it has been left in at present. While there are many pieces in the jigsaw that need to be fitted, it seems to me central to any chance that we have of improving the national health service that we deal with social care. They are inextricably linked. In particular we need to turbocharge the provisions that can be made through social care and also which is contained in the amendment on a range of related topics.

Dentistry, range of related topics. Dentistry, pharmacy is, so the pressure can be taken off the front line services of the NHS and hospitals. It is critical I think from a health perspective and economy perspective that we make sure there is the swiftest possible turnaround in hospital stays. There are too many people within our society who are bed blocking. That is not the choice they wish to make but actually it is something that is detrimental to the health service, to those individuals and detrimental to the economy.

Therefore it strikes me that we should be looking to take all measures which can possibly improve social care and improve the support that is therefore hospital provision. It seems to me that the national insurance changes that are being proposed would be deeply detrimental to those sectors. Indeed we have had warning after warning from people within the sectors as to the impact it will have. Therefore I believe that these modest amendments are at least an attempt to try to redress that.

In their wisdom, the government would tell us that in terms of impact, they believe this will be something that will simply be beneficial. That it will bring in additional revenue without in any way damaging the social care system. Perhaps the wisdom of government is greater than many of us in this house. Therefore we are not seeking to impose our views upon that. We are seeking a more modest proposition. Which is simply to say let's keep this under review. Let's have the opportunity for government if they are proved to be wrong, to make that swift intervention.

That seems to me to be sensible. Similarly with the amendment on small businesses, again which would be the fuel of our economy and which would be in many ways the critical aspect which will impact upon growth, again that opportunity is there not directly to challenge the tax rises, but at least make sure interventions can take place. Finally in relation to the final amendments, if we are making legislation, ultimately I think legislation should be evidence- based.

That means not simply at the time that we are making it but what is the direct impact? Therefore to have a range of reviews across a number of sectors, to see whether intervention is needed seems to be an eminently sensible approach. The amendments that are before us today, I suspect many of us ideally would like to have gone much further than we have done. But they seem to be modest in nature and an attempt I think at an olive branch to the opposition that came from the House of Commons.

I would urge the government to adopt what I think is a common sense approach and adopt these amendments. They do not need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to force us into division on them. I am grateful to the noble Lord

16:11

Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for reminding us of the rationale. The alleged £22 billion black hole which no independent black hole which no independent black hole which no independent The OBR could find 9 billion. No, no independent economist. I would be grateful if noble lords opposite could stand up and identify anti- Communist who agrees with the £22 billion black hole. At any time. I will make a mention. What did happen is this government was left with, when they came to office, the United Kingdom having the fastest growth in the G7.

What happened after that is the Chancellor came in and talked down the economy dramatically legislation came in against the non-domiciled and 10,000 non- domiciled, the equivalent to half a million taxpayers left the country. National insurance is raising its ugly head and frightening people and the effect on the economy has been dramatic. There was polling out today of 4,200 family companies. They have all said they will be cutting back on recruitment. This is what is facing our economy which has led to the shrinkage in GDP in January and has now led to the emergency budget.

None of which will be helped by these NI increases at all. As my noble friend said, we have had cries of anguish from the sector. The CEO of the Thames Hospice have said people will die in greater pain and anguish as a result of the effect of the NI changes, unemployment in hospices. Will the Labour Party vote head held high through the lobbies to support this? Will they do so in the Commons? This government will be constantly reminded of the damage they are doing to the social care sector, the hospices sector and indeed to the small businesses sector.

It is not too late. I very much hope my noble friend will think very carefully about how they vote this afternoon.

16:13

Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)

- -

I will genuinely be very brief. I agree with the spirit of the government in rejecting carve outs. No matter how emotionally appealing they may be. Looking at these amendments which I support however, I really don't understand why the government is resistant to the Treasury having a practical route to act if there is a change of policy in due course. Otherwise we bind future governments to having to produce new legislation to create carve outs if they wish. It seems to me rather obstinate not to accept these amendments which give that flexibility without overturning the nature of the bill and agreeing to carve outs.

I hope the Minister will either explain why the government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not willing or will accept these amendments. I support all of the amendments in the loo in this group. In particular might noble friend 's particular might noble friend 's

16:14

Baroness Noakes (Conservative)

- -

particular might noble friend 's amendment 21B. Asking for a review of the impact on various sectors of this jobs tax. It is official policy confirmed by the leader in the other place that Parliament will be given the information that it needs to scrutinise legislation properly. But shamefully the Treasury refused point blank to give the information we requested in order to scrutinise this bill properly. The amendment of my noble friend is very modest and reasonable. If the government do not accept it, I think it will show a accept it, I think it will show a lack of respect for Parliament and for process of parliamentary scrutiny.

I want to make one other point which is to my noble friend in relation to hospices. During the earlier stages of this bill, the Minister kept repeating that the government was putting 100 billion into hospices and 26 billion into children's hospices. It is clear that neither of these represent additional money available to absorb the cost pressures produced by the national insurance changes. My noble friend explained that. I hope the government will not try to pretend the funding situation for hospices is anything other than completely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to personalise this little bit because I think the hospice movement is unbelievably hospice movement is unbelievably important in this country and I grateful for other noble Lords for grateful for other noble Lords for raising the point again. My family has been I suppose very fortunate in unfortunate circumstances to have the benefit of two hospices, both at the end of life. Both faced the end of life. Both faced significant shortfalls in their annual running costs and live off annual running costs and live off the back of legacies.

Occasional big legacies. They have to raise substantial amounts of money already. The national insurance increase puts yet more pressure on the system. We have had the increase in minimum wages which means that they have suffered those costs in addition. Doctors and nurses do not come cheap, as we know. This just

16:17

Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)

- -

drives costs up furthermore, for the drives costs up furthermore, for the hospice closest to home it is nearly half a million. So, what does the half a million. So, what does the national insurance increase mean? It means either the loss of three nurses in this particular case who conduct some nearly 4,000 businesses in their community, preventing the in their community, preventing the need for hospital care. Or it means need for hospital care. Or it means losing one one bet which would be dedicated to the most complex needs for patients at the end of their life.

If hospices are forced to reduce their care to the community, what happens next? They play such a critical role in supporting the NHS and are not subject to the increase both in terms of community care and in using pressure on acute medicine hospitals as well as facilitating discharges from hospital. If the Government continues to impose financial strain on the hospice sector more hospices will be forced to scale back services or even close. That is something that we cannot have in this country.

Which will face yet greater strain on the NHS and to clearly a difficult sector, as we know, and one that we are trying not to pressure any further. Preventing salary increases for medical staff, the rise in national insurance is factored in. This particular hospice will have to raise yet another 200,000 on top of the half a million I have mentioned. This is but one of 200 fantastic operations in this country. I would just like to make the point again that the Baroness noble Lords have made.

That the recent announcement that the 100 million funding for his majesties Government for the hospice Government and the 26 million for the children's hospices is per capital project. Which, while very welcome, does not help this particular state of the situation and this is the situation that the Prime Minister's single leak seemed to ignore during last week. IBEC the Government to reconsider their position. position.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in favour of his amendments and to speak very briefly about hospices, which I know so many about hospices, which I know so many noble Lords have already done. Our hospices support over 300,000 hospices support over 300,000 people, mostly in the community. And this tax will cost the sector hundreds of thousands of pounds. Beds will close and outreach Beds will close and outreach services will be decimated. Where will people go to die? Yes,

16:20

Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)

- -

will people go to die? Yes, hospitals offer palliative care, but only 4/10 hospitals have the services that are necessary seven days a week. Despite this having been a national standard into thousand and four. The assisted suicide bill is being debated in The Other Place. Assisted dying is what hospices do. Ensuring that people can die in dignity, properly cared for, and living as fully as they are capable of right to the end of their life. We only die once.

I agree with what might Noble Friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has said previously but not exempting hospices from the start is shockingly cruel. But it is worse than that as it shows the lack of compassion and absence of humanity which is truly shocking. It leaves me speechless and I have nothing more to say.

16:21

Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Just very quickly for these benches, we on these benches do not dispute that the Government has handed the entire fiscal situation. The question is what taxes do you choose to raise two remedy and we feel that Government has made the wrong choice in this instance. But what we have done with these amendments in loose certainly those from Lord Scriven those that might Noble Friend from the crossbenches has proposed that in key areas powers provided to the Government Treasury to be able to as it were reversed that decision in those narrow circumstances after they discover, as they see the event play out, but in fact the choices they made were not the ones that they thought they had.

It is very unusual for these benches for us to be willing to provide what is in effect a Henry VIII power to the Government, but the fact that we would do so reflects our really deep anxieties as not political gameplay. We are deep anxious about what would help with community health, small businesses, and the knock-on consequences of all of that. And I wanted to say thank you to the Baroness because it was her thoughts at Committee stage that go a long way to at least try to find some common ground to pass powers over to the Secretary of State, this is the pattern that we have followed.

I hope very much the Government will see it is not been forced to act in anyway by two of these in lieu. It is being given the opportunity or the possibility and we hope they will accept it in that spirit. That is Baroness Neville-Rolfe proposing to move which would require an impact evaluation. I have to say to the Minister when he spoke of the opening and talked about how few businesses would be impacted by the increase in employers next.

I begin to think he has central information that he should have been given because if he were to lucky would discover that the vast majority of companies that are not effective or those with three employees or less. Those small companies that we look to for scale and drive growth are impacted. So, I again to me it underscores the need to play the role effectively. I noticed new, it has not been the patent of past Governments, I fully accept that, but we need to move to get more detail in the impact evaluation as we deal with these issues in the House.

We on these benches have very much hope that the Government accept the three amendments in lieu. If it does not, then we will be supporting all three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have worked together on these modest commonsense amendments and we will also be supportive when it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comes to a vote. I am very grateful to all noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As I have outlined, the

16:24

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

debate. As I have outlined, the measures contained in this ill are necessary to repair the public finances to rebuild the public services to protect working people and to invest in. This includes an historic investment in the additional £25.7 billion for the NHS. Which is hoping to bring down waiting lists more quickly and put an end to over a decade of underinvestment and impact. In doing so, the Government has kept its promise to working people to not increase their income tax, national insurance, or their VAT.

We have always acknowledged that there are costs to responsibility, with the cost of irresponsibility would have been far greater. The noble Baroness asked about the impact of this bill on hospices. The Government, of course, recognises the vital role hospices play in supporting people for the end of life and their families and the cost pressures of the hospice sector has been facing over many years. That is why as several noble Lords have mentioned we are supporting the hospice sector with £100 million increase in adult and children's hospices to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care and the £26 million revenue to support children and young people's hospices.

More charities including hospices set up as charities can also benefit from the employment allowance which this bill other doubles from £5000 other doubles from £5000-£10,500. An assessment as I have said previously the Government have already outlined the impacts on this policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and previous similar changes to taxation and the Government does not intend to provide further impact assessments. The revenue raised from the measures in this bill play a critical role in preparing the public finances and rebuilding our public services.

Any future changes which exempt certain groups would have cost implications, necessitating by the higher borrowing, lower spending, alternative revenue measures. For these reasons, and for the other reasons I have already set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw amendments 1B, 5B, HB, and 20 1B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very have taken part in this very informative and I think important debate? And say to the Noble Lord debate? And say to the Noble Lord Londesborough and the Noble Lady Londesborough and the Noble Lady Baroness Rolf that I support their amendments. It is a strange world we live in. I never thought I would come to this House as a Liberal Democrat and argue for a Henry VIII power for a Government minister and a Government minister to turn it a Government minister to turn it down to try to help the Government with the consequences of a policy.

No one is denying the right of the Government to raise revenue. What my amendment does is give Government a tool to act swiftly with the consequences of what may happen and probably what will happen in Health and Social Care Levy. Because it is not just the pharmacist, the GPs, the hospices and the dentists practices that will suffer. It is people who require their services. Some of the most honourable who will find that services stopped because of the cash flow and debt issues that this will exacerbate on an already existing pressurised service and it is disappointing that when the olive branch is given that minister has decided to continue with the folly.

And looking on some bases of members behind him I think they understand some of the consequences that will potentially happen. And it is disappointing that the Government and the Minister has not agreed to the olive branch. Therefore, I do believe that it is right that I ask the House to agree to amendment and I would like to to amendment and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

16:28

Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)

- -

The question is that motion A1 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the question will be decided by division. I would advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now

16:29

Division

The question The question is The question is motion The question is motion A1 The question is motion A1 be The question is motion A1 be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The Contents will go to the right by the throne, the Not- The The questionnaires The questionnaires that The questionnaires that motion The questionnaires that motion A1 The questionnaires that motion A1 is The questionnaires that motion A1 is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have There have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted Not-contents,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted Not-contents, 173. Content, 71. -- 271. The 173. Content, 71. -- 271. The "Contents" have it. Motion be Lord

16:39

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

16:45

Division

therefore is that motion H1 is agree to stop As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, The The question The question is The question is about The question is about letter The question is about letter HY The question is about letter HY be agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the bar, the not contents to the left by the throne. The not contents is to the throne.

The not contents is to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is of The question is of that The question is of that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is of that amendment letter H letter one be agreed to. -- They They have They have voted They have voted content They have voted content 276, They have voted content 276, not Motion Motion J, Motion J, Lord Motion J, Lord Livermore.

16:57

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I have already spoken to Motions J to be, with the leave of the House I beg to move move them en bloc.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that Motions J to V be moved en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Motion W, Lord Livermore? I have already spoken to motion a W that this House do not insist on W that this House do not insist on its Amendment 20 insist on its Amendment 21, which the Commons had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 21, which the Commons had disagreed for their comments and 21 for the public to move. Motion a W1, Baroness Neville- Rolfe.

16:58

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion a W1... The original question is that motion W be agreed to? Since it has been moved as an amendment, I do propose Amendment 21 Amendment 20 1B in lieu. The question is that motion in lieu. The question is that motion a W one be agreed to because. The question will be decided by division, will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open,

16:58

Division

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question The question is... The question is... The The question is... The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is... The question is amendment W1 is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The Contents will go to right by the throne, the Not-contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is Is that Is that this Is that this amendment Is that this amendment is Is that this amendment is agreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The have The have voted The have voted content, The have voted content, 273.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The have voted content, 273. Not-contents, 172. The "Contents" Not-contents, 172. The "Contents" Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday, 20 March, conflict in Gaza.

17:09

Statement: Conflict in Gaza’

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure that members across both houses mourn the many innocent lives that have been lost to date in this that have been lost to date in this appalling conflict. I know that colleagues on all sides of your chips house will join me in sending chips house will join me in sending our sympathies and thoughts to all our sympathies and thoughts to all of those who have been affected, including the British national who was injured in last week's airstrikes. In his statement in the airstrikes.

In his statement in the other place last week the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he was in the process of making representations to the Israeli government to find out more about the investigations that they were undertaking into the recent airstrikes that were undertaken against targets in Gaza. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us with an update to the House on the outcome of those talks and any information that the Foreign Secretary has received from his

17:10

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

Israeli counterparts. This conflict has seen death, it seemed destruction and human suffering across a large area of the Middle East. Many lives have been irrevocably changed, and futures are uncertain for many thousands of people. We must never forget that the fault for this tragic situation lies squarely with Hamas. A lies squarely with Hamas. A murderous, viscerally anti-Semitic terrorist organisation. They terrorist organisation. They kidnapped children, they raped and mutilated women and girls and a massacre young people who are simply enjoying a music festival.

According enjoying a music festival. According to Israeli news reports they have fired now over 4,000 they have fired now over 4,300 rockets at civilian targets and inflicted the single deadliest anti-Jewish pogrom since deadliest anti-Jewish pogrom since the Holocaust. I must have deliberately -- entrench themselves in civilian communities to bring innocent people into the line of fire in the war that they themselves have created, and they have acted in a way designed and intended to bring about the maximum amount of suffering for civilians across the region.

The power to end this conflict lies with Hamas, they could agree to release the people that they have been present as hostages now, and they could avert any further escalation in this conflict. I therefore want to ask the noble Lord what the government is doing to support efforts to secure the release of the hostages. Does the government believe that phase 2 of the ceasefire remains within reach alternative solutions being considered? What is the government doing to make sure Hamas will never again have a role in Gaza's future.

The U.K.'s relationship with Israel is vital to ensuring that we can support those who have been affected by this terrible conflict. It is the only way that we can play a role in bringing it to an end. Israel must continue to see the UK as a trusted partner, if we are to continue to play a role not only in bringing about an end to this war, but in supporting peace and stability across the entire Middle East. Could I therefore ask the noble Lord what the government is doing to strengthen this relationship and whether the comments made by the Foreign Secretary last week which I am pleased to say that he has now withdrawn, have affected the trust between our two nations.

Finally ensuring that aid gets to those communities affected by this conflict is of course one of the most important roles that we can play amid the suffering that is currently taking place. Thousands of innocent people are suffering and we must do all that we can to make sure that food and medicine gets to those I want to close by asking the noble Lord what discussions the government have held with the Israeli government on the question of getting eight routes unblocked, and what has happened to British aid that is already present in the region, is it there or is it en route? Furthermore what assessment have the government made of how we can better support those communities affected and what more could we be doing to support the vital work of the international committee of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has shocked many and even in the days since the statement was first made in the House of Commons we have seen strikes within Lebanese seen strikes within Lebanese territory as well. Can the Minister territory as well. Can the Minister first update us on what contact His Majesty's Government has had with the Lebanese government with regards to the situation within Lebanon on, to the situation within Lebanon on, or twice I have asked the development Minister Baroness development Minister Baroness Chapman if she would be open to meet with myself and female Lebanese MPs who are at the heart of trying to design reconstruction which does not entrench the confessional system that offers new hope, but alas with the strikes in Lebanon on the hope as well as that with regards to the hostage families must now be teetering.

Indeed reading as I did I quoted in the chamber statement from the hostage families of the shock and anger of the Netanyahu

17:14

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

government resumption of war was really depressing. Because it dashes really depressing. Because it dashes what many have had which was finally the prospect of hope. So can the Minister update us as to what the government's assessment is of the government's assessment is of the process which had been brokered by process which had been brokered by Qatar. It is still a process which the government considers to be one which can be retrieved, or is the actions that we are seeing within actions that we are seeing within Gaza and Lebanon on now requiring a second, separate process and what discussions have the government had with our Qatari and Egyptian colleagues? The fact that the restart of the war has seen the proportion of victims being women and children on an even higher scale than before the ceasefire should be noted because the availability of food and medicine is now even less and it was then.

Yet again civilians are being treated disproportionately and they are being forcibly moved to new areas where there is no food, no new areas where there is no food, no Visit doesn't qualify as a war crime, the Minister knows if it is the government's view that there is a case, with regards to international humanitarian law being breached, what actions are we taking, which is beyond those that were taken last July with the limited suspension of certain export licences.

Turning to the Arab peace plan what the government's assessment is with the overall prospects for reconstruction if there is some form of peace, even though I do not think many people would be optimistic about it. What judgement can we put, what faith can we put in the judgement of the United States envoy, Steve Wheatcroft, who the Foreign Secretary said in his statement we were speaking with. Who, in recent days has ridiculed our Prime Minister, as a poser, over Ukraine.

He doesn't regard the war criminal He doesn't regard the war criminal Putin, as a war criminal as a bad guy, but as a gracious and good guy and said that Ukraine was a false country. If there is a judgement of the envoy on Ukraine, what faith can we have on his judgement over reconstruction of Gaza? What is our position on the Arab plan, is that one where the UK is supporting directly? Or are we sympathetic to what the Trump administration has been saying.

We have also seen, regrettably certain extremist elements of Israeli politics, who have rejoined the Netanyahu administration. This is not of administration. This is not of concern, just to people, within this parliament, but of course to civil society within Israel itself. We have seen the attacks on the judiciary, the statements for annexation of parts of the occupied Palestinian territory. The unprecedented sacking of the internal intelligence chief and the active encouragement of settler violence, so most surely we cannot have a relationship with Netanyahu administration, which is in the normal manner, so what actions is the UK taking to prevent settler violence and to prevent annexation.

What are our red lines for our diplomatic relations with the Netanyahu administration? Finally, with regards to 1 of the issues that must now be an imperative which is the imperative. Because even at the time of great humanitarian danger, there is A1 element that we can provide here. We did have a good debate and there were all members were able to express their views, in a favour and against my noble friends bill. On recognition. It is the understanding that the time is not now, for recognition.

It is the government's view that they will make a judgement when it is at the appropriate time for recognition. Can I ask the Minister what is would need to be in place, which are not in place and now, for us and to consider that the time would be right. Because at the end of the day, with the come up with the danger, one of the elements that can provide recognition, these benches believe in this and I hope the Government will at least move and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give more hope to them. Well I thank both noble Lords for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, comments and questions. I think we all share, deep concern about the resumption of Israeli military action, in Gaza. The UK does not support a return to fighting. It is absolutely not in fighting. It is absolutely not in anybody's interest and certainly the reported civilian casualties, reported civilian casualties, resulting from the renewed outbreak of hostilities are appalling. And certainly we are absolutely focused on ensuring that aid must immediately be allowed back into Gaza.

I think, the important thing is that we are absolutely committed to ensure that, we have urged all parties to return, urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement, in full and release of the hostages and work towards a permanent peace and security for the Israelis and Palestinians. That is absolutely the key. Just picking up on the noble Lord purposes a point, but when is the right time. The right time is when we see a clear pathway to a negotiated settlement.

I think that is what the former Foreign Secretary David Cameron said, it is what we have repeatedly

17:20

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

said. It should be an aid towards said. It should be an aid towards securing a proper process, for achieving a longer term settlement that sees security for Israel and a that sees security for Israel and a home for the nationhood for the Palestinians and working peacefully together. Can I just say to the noble Lord Callanan that the Foreign noble Lord Callanan that the Foreign Secretary has been absolutely, embraced in terms of communicating embraced in terms of communicating our concerns, but also communicating how we could reach, particularly access for aid, into Gaza.

The Foreign Secretary has spoken to secretary Rubio, in recent times, the EU high representative powers, at the UN emergency relief coordinator, Tom Fletcher, on 21 March. He also spoke to his Israeli counterpart Gideon Saar and he plans to speak to the PM must defer shortly. They have made a statement in the UN Security Council, on Tuesday, 18 March and provided 21 March. We join a G7 foreign Ministers in the statement before. Of course, in the E3 foreign Minister statement, the 21st of Minister statement, 21 March calling on all parties to re-engage, with the negotiations, to ensure this ceasefire is implemented, in full and becomes permanent.

I think, that the Foreign Secretary said, last Thursday, in his statement, that the block on supplies of basic goods and electricity was appalling and unacceptable. He went on to say that while ultimately these are a matter for the courts, the courts determined it was difficult to see how denying humanitarian assistance to civilian populations could be compatible with international humanitarian law. The Government has been clear that it is not, that it is not an international court and we could not make a judgement on whether Israel has breached it.

Our export licensing criteria is, the Foreign Secretary set out in the House of Commons back in September, requires him to, requires him to assess the risk to our exports, and commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. Our reviews concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching IHL. We took decisive action, on 7 September, suspending relevant licences to the IDF, for use, in licences to the IDF, for use, in Gaza. Can I just say that I think we have been absolutely clear that humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool and Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary has made clear that they are needing aid that is needed at a greater speed than ever before. The Security Council meeting on 18 March, we called for a rapid and unhindered insurgents in the flow of aid into Gaza. With the ceasefire to be reestablished as soon as possible. Of course the Foreign Secretary spoke to Tom Fletcher on 14 March, regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza. And Hamish Faulkner spoke to him on 17 March. We have been in constant contact and of course can I just say, in relation to the UN compound, the compound in Gaza, which was hit last week, our thoughts are very much with the victims and their families, including, as noble Lords have said a British national.

On 21 March, together with France and Germany, it called for an investigation into this incident, the UN President and its premises should be protected and never be a target. Of course, we are aware of the statement and we echo the UN Secretary General's call for an urgent ceasefire. As the Foreign Secretary said on Thursday, this was a shocking incident. The British national wounded. We share the outrage at the secretary general being in this incident. We have called for a transparent investigation for those responsible to be held to account.

Can I also say that it is really important as the noble Lord Callanan reflected, but the hostages having endured unimaginable suffering and the situation, in Gaza has worsened. This ceasefire is the only way for the region to move forward. Securing the immediate ceasefire, the safe release of all hostages has been a priority for this government, since the start of the conflict and we have not stopped, until they are all home. Time is running out and we implore all parties to return to dialogue.

Can I just write there is no moral equivalence between Israel, democracy and Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation. We have been clear that there is no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza. Can I also say, in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis's comments that we welcome the Arab comments that we welcome the Arab initiative, from the reconstruct and plan for Gaza and certainly in the statement on 8 March, we were France, Germany and Italy encouraged ongoing initiative and for all parties to build on the plans.

Certainly, just in relation to the situation with the hostages, on 20 March, the UK are linked at hostage, and addressed an open session of the Security Council, which was called for by the UK along with the US and France. Following Ellie's harrowing testimony, the UK said Hamas must be held accountable for its despicable actions and we repeated our call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. This has also been set out, in all four of the UN Security Council resolutions, on Gaza, adopted since the seventh, adopted since 7 October.

I think, the important thing is how we can ensure the focus continues to be on the ceasefire and the agreed process. And just to point to noble Lord purposes comments. We are committed, we do believe that these are our only hope for sustainable peace and we will work to all levels, to ensure that it can be delivered. In relation to Lebanon, escalation across the Israeli Lebanon line is deeply concerning. It is imperative that all sides return to a cessation of hostilities and work towards a securing and lasting peace.

The only way to restore security and stability, for people living on either side of the border. border.

17:28

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

I draw attention to my entry on the register of interests, including chairing the ICO advisory panel, on conflict resolution. Interrelated questions, there is a conference which is scheduled now, in June, by France and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I would appreciate if the noble Lord could provide insight as to the U.K.'s role and link to that the specific dates of meetings and engagement that has taken place with Steve Whit Kok, the US envoy. Clearly there United States, together with Qatar when it comes to Hamas, had the greatest leverage.

What specific role as the UK playing in engaging with these two key partners?

17:29

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Very much so. The Minister has been in regular contact with regional neighbouring countries and regional allies. Absolutely focused on that. Can I repeat what I have said on numerous occasions. We are very much welcome the US action in securing the ceasefire and the agreement. And the release of the hostages we have seen so far. We remain committed to speaking to them and with allies, to look at all possibilities to ensure that we can maintain that peace and focus on, maintain, focus on the ceasefire, to ensure a much longer lasting peace is that the noble Lord is absolutely right, we have to work, whether allies, to ensure that they understand the importance of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and particularly all regional I referred the House to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I referred the House to my registered interests. I had a humbling experience at the UN Security Council at New York last Thursday to which the ministers just referred. The brave eloquent and referred. The brave eloquent and moving speech of the freed hostage moving speech of the freed hostage his British wife Leanne and daughters were brutally murdered. I urge all noble Lords to read his urge all noble Lords to read his speech. Many Lords in fact today have orally spoken about aid to Gaza, let me quote short line from his speech.

I quote, I saw Hamas

17:31

carrying boxes with UN and UNRWA emblems into the tunnels, dozens and dozens paid by your government's feeding terrorists who tortured me feeding terrorists who tortured me and murdered my family. They would eat many meals a day from UN aid in eat many meals a day from UN aid in front of us and we never received anything. In light of his remarks anything. In light of his remarks can I ask the noble Lord the Minister questioned the shadow Foreign Secretary asked the Foreign Foreign Secretary asked the Foreign Secretary last week was what is HMG's assessment of reports of Hamas stockpiling aid? stockpiling aid?

17:31

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I think I repeat his statement was incredibly moving and did have a huge impact on all members I believe of the Security Council stop I think our statement afterwards was absolutely clear that Hamas must be held accountable for its despicable actions and we certainly reflected that in all of the UN Security Council's resolutions. I think in terms of the question in relation to aid, our focus is actually the problem is the aid is not getting in at all.

At the moment. That has to be the focus of our attention, and certainly we are looking at always to ensure that aid does get in. Not only through unripe which is an important agency in terms of delivery of aid -- UNRWA, but as noble Lord have raised in terms of the ICRC, we are absolutely focused on ensuring that, but the real problem at the moment is the fact that we can't get aid across the border into Gaza. That is the shocking situation that we need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

focus on at the moment. I'm very grateful for the statement we have had repeated in the House today and would echo from the House today and would echo from these benches comments noble Lords have made about the fact that Hamas

17:33

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

must have no part in a future government of the Palestinian territories or any future Palestinian state. It's been the state -- the case that every time the situation in Gaza has become more warlike under the fog of that war there have been atrocities committed on the West Bank, some of the more extreme settler movements who are trying to oust Palestinian we families, Palestinian farmers from territories that everybody accepts theirs by right, I wonder what His Majesty's Government can do to ensure we don't lose site of the West Bank at this time when quite rightly there is a proper focus on Gaza.

17:33

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I think the Right Reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to that, we have been extremely concerned about the level of violence and the increased level of violence, settler violence. I prefer to call them those outpost violence. We have made clear and the previous government also made clear that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and harm prospects for a two state solution. The Foreign Secretary met Palestinian community members in the West Bank and he heard how communities are affected.

He has also been clear with the Israeli ministers that the Israeli government must clampdown on settler violence and end settler expansion. We have been absolutely clear we also took action in relation to sanctions. We need to highlight this issue not simply forget that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

West Bank is an important part of ensuring long-term stability in the region. I draw attention to my entry in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interest. I recently

17:34

Lord Pickles (Conservative)

- -

the register of interest. I recently returned from a visit to Israel. The Minister is quite right to say that aid should not be used for a political pawn and he is quite right to concentrate on resuming aid going in, but I think the question that my noble friend raised is the use of aid, the deliberate stealing of aid by Hamas in order to buy ammunition, in order to sell on the black market, in order in fact to ensure that they continue to control a significant part of Gaza is important.

We can only have a lasting peace if one side isn't dedicated to the utter destruction of the other. We know through the report issued by my noble friend Lord Roberts last week exactly what we are up against, I think it's not unreasonable to say, when the aid goes back in it can be business as usual.

17:36

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord is absolutely right, I think I made it very clear how the United Kingdom government views the actions of Hamas. They are a terrorist organisation and they have committed atrocious crimes which they must be held accountable for. And I do hear what the noble Lord says in relation to aid but it's a simple fact that we are not getting aid in at all at the moment. We do want to use all agencies and certainly the noble Lord Lord Ahmad when he was responding on these questions understood the importance of ensuring that there were facilities to get aid to those people most in need.

We will continue to take every measure possible to ensure that is the case. I hear the noble Lord but I do think that our priority has to focus on how do we get that support to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most vulnerable those most in need. As the Minister recalled a few months ago the men published an assessment where he concluded that assessment where he concluded that there was a clear risk of breaches

17:37

Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)

- -

there was a clear risk of breaches by Israel, a clear risk in the government published assessment was in relation to the provision of humanitarian assistance. The statement of last week says that the government feels that this conclusion is being reinforced by the actions of the last three weeks and that conclusion was obviously the basis for the decision to suspend the arms licences. Can the government tell us a bit more about the Nexus between the British weapons and the alleged or suspected breaches of IHL? In other words, which British weapons the government consider could be used to commit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which breaches? I think I tried to make that clear in response to the Frontbench

17:37

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

clear in response to the Frontbench questions. Our export licensing cloud area my criteria as the Foreign Secretary set out the House of Commons back in September requires him to assess the risk that our exports could commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL. Our reviews concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching IHL and the action we took on 2 September, suspending relevant licences to the IDF for use in Gaza. That is the position and it remains

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so. Two brief points for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two brief points for clarification if I make a I understand there is a very difficult

17:38

Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)

- -

understand there is a very difficult issue in terms of aid when it was coming through from the Egyptian border, notwithstanding that the drivers then refused to consider, to continue delivering aid because they were being attacked by Hamas operatives and gangs in Gaza. The second point, a point I raised some weeks ago here and it was when the government had decided to provide UNRWA with aid again and it was something like you may correctly, 43 or £48 million of British taxpayers money.

I question at the time was, how are you going to provide oversight to ensure that the money being spent by the taxpayer is not only in the UK, it's the UK that we are concerned about here, is actually going in the right direction? I haven't had a response about how the government will provide that oversight, so I would be very grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could perhaps share that information with us now in the House.

17:39

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I think the important thing to consider is how we are working with all agencies including the UN and organisations NGOs like the International committee for the red, International committee for the red, I think -- Red Cross, I think what we achieve is three very clear monitoring and assessment of that aid. I think we do, the situation is appalling in Gaza. We do note that there is a desperate need for support and we have made very clear ask, we said Israel must work with the United Nations and all partners to ensure the supply of humanitarian assistance to Gaza continues in all circumstances.

The enhanced levels of relief supplies getting into Gaza prior to Israel's current block on aid must be resumed. Aid must get to those who need it across all areas of Gaza. This includes providing access to essential civilian services. We are pleased to hear that the latest polio vaccination rollout reached 99th % of children targeted but we remain gravely concerned at the lack of adequate medical gear in Gaza. More types of medical gear in Gaza. More types of staff like tents and medical machinery must be Latin, to support the presumption of basic services in Gaza.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe that the situation is at all tolerable, it is intolerable and we need to act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Saw groups recently, did he see

17:41

Baroness Goudie (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Saw groups recently, did he see women peace groups and women? Also what is being done in terms of the aid to get paternal health is aid to get paternal health is desperate in Gaza and also help for children who have been damaged so badly and for babies who have been born without any support at all because there is not a hospital?

17:42

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

My noble friend is absolutely right in previous statements I have made clear that we are focused in terms of giving educational support and to women and girls. I took the opportunity in New York, the Commission on the Status of Women to focus on how actually in all the peace processes we can ensure that the women, peace and security strategy is fully adopted, it is absolutely vital that we recognise the urgent situation and particularly the impact on women and girls, particularly regnant women.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend is absolutely right. Address the question raised by

17:42

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Address the question raised by Lord Purvis. Do we believe that the Lord Purvis. Do we believe that the ceasefire is favourable? -- Save a ball. It looks dead, is it dead? Can it be resurrected? As I understand that it was a three stage ceasefire than the government of Israel decided not to move to the second stage on the agreed timetable, Hamas having turned down their alternative suggestion of elongating the stage suggestion of elongating the stage I.

That looks to me like a battlefield for a diplomatic negotiation, what are we saying to the Qataris? Do they think the ceasefire can be saved, do we think it can be saved, are we suggesting to them ways of saving it?

17:43

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Straight answer to the noble Lord is that we do believe it can be saved because we believe it is there to be implemented which is why we are making every effort to call on all parties to resume the negotiations. I'm not going to be hung up on each stage and the timing of that, what we do have is a very clear commitment and undertakings we are given and our efforts and focus is on ensuring they return to the negotiating table.

We are absolutely committed to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding is that the reason that the ceasefire has

17:44

Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)

- -

reason that the ceasefire has collapsed is because Hamas refused to release prisoners, hostages as has been, had been agreed and because of the continued refusal to release hostages Israel determined she had no choice but to go to Military Action Bill stop there is a history, time and time again of people breaking arrangements, breaking agreements or not honouring agreements that might be to mutual interest. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister might reflect on the offer that was made by a head almost -- to the Palestinian Authority to 96% of the land including the West Bank, the whole of East Jerusalem for Jerusalem to be an international city and proper land swap.

Which was

17:45

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

There are many reasons for any breakdown in any kinds of process, breakdown in any kinds of process, I am not going to focus on who is to blame. Our focus is to ensure that people return to the negotiating table. Because the only solution is that. I have heard the calls of the families of hostages who are actually making that call. Get back to the negotiating table and implement the ceasefire agreement. That is the voices in the Israel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that I hear. Motion to annul the local

17:46

Orders and regulations: Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025 - motions to annul and motion to regret

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion to annul the local authorities changes... Ordinary elections England Order 2024 five, debated in two other motions,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. I was going to pause for a moment to see how many people flooded out.

17:46

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

to see how many people flooded out. How nice to have you all here. I would like to thank the noble Lady the Minister for taking the time to discuss this and explain the government's thinking on this decision to postpone some elections for at least a year. The promise to reorganise local government was in the Labour Party's manifesto. The method used wasn't. This statutory instrument is not actually delivering a manifesto promise and actually this House is well within its rights to vote against the proposition.

It is always about elections and this is clearly not elections and this is clearly not the best. It is the worst of times. We have more cuts to services at the moment, then we have had for some time, they are already on their knees. We have counter attack going up again as people pay more for yes less. -- We have council tax going up. I plan to allow the current council to devise the next move towards reorganisation. People have a right to vote.

That is what being in a stop in the timetable is set out and understood by the general public actually changing that seems to be a little bit unprincipled. It is hard to think of anything more democratic than counselling elections, ahead of a significant change in local democracy. It is straight out of an authoritarian playbook. And then creating a devolved morality by counselling county council elections just seems a very odd, in fact non-sensible. It is undemocratic at the very least. This means that voters won't have their say on a new councillors for at least another year.

That means that they have so delay elections, do not actually have a mandate to do the reorganisation and that the government is asking it to do. Voters should be able to decide which councillors we should have the opportunity to plan for the new structure, local political parties ought to put it into the manifestoes of voters to see and vote for or against. There are a lot of people who could potentially vote, in May, in the postponed elections, who will now be denied the chance to protest, complain and let people who have got a different vision of how their area should be run.

I'm told by a councillor in East Devon I'm told by a councillor in E. Devon St, Council that the council has already begun acting in line with the proposed reorganisation, despite no public consultation taking place, due to an alleged lack of time, which is something we have heard from the government as well to stop decisions have therefore been delegated to unelected officers, raising clear concerns about democratic accountability as a statutory obligations under the localism act of 2011. In addition, the council admitted that neither councillors or the electorate have a clear understanding of how this organisation will work, or even what it will be.

And yet actions are being taken regardless. It seems that local authorities are already acting under the influence of centralised restructuring, before it has even been democratically validated. And also, is it really for the secretary of state to select which elections can go ahead and which can't? And doesn't have this set a dangerous precedent, to allow the Secretary of State to make these decisions? It is not a national emergency, like Kobe and, when we understand why elections were postponed -- Covid. Which justified the decision.

So now, do we accept, for whatever good reason, the government ranks that the Secretary of State can disrupt the election cycle. Delay elections to a convenient time. That is a more than authoritarian, that is almost like Trump. I do have to ask, is it legal? I did consult a member of the bar, earlier. He is not in his seat and he said it depends, which is, I think probably what I would have expected. This fatal motion would greenlight the postponed elections to go ahead.

But Labour have already tabled this for the last possible moment on the last possible date. So now the Government can say to us, well it is too late to go ahead. And then of course we are going to have mayoral elections in 2026 and I understand that the delayed elections will be held then. Perhaps call the noble Lady the Minister reassure me on that point that all delayed elections will be run next year. And then in the year 2027 there will be the new shadow principal authority elected and again, it is quite fast.

I understand that the government promised this and therefore the need to move fast, but really I'm very concerned about the democratic processes here. Can the noble Lady the Minister confirm that this means that some councils and some that some councils and some councillors could have been there is also the problem that this is not about devolution at all, but is about making it easier for government to liaise with fewer stakeholders. That is a maze. This is actually a sucking power upwards, it is not devolution at all -- Mayors.

It is about the Government making life easier for themselves and giving less, local people, less say in what happens in their local area. Strategic planning decisions will be taken out of the hands of people who know the area and given to the mayors. Who could take decisions against the interest of local residents. This is not a reason not to rush into elections. And I am concerned, whether or not there has been an assessment of whether this arrangement will actually save money.

Will it improve efficiency? Will it support social cohesion? Will it make local people have more access to knowledge and decision making? And if there is a report, if there is an assessment, I'm curious about who wrote that reporter when it was written? I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers. Clearly, I think what is happening is not democratic and on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that principle, alone, I actually do move my motion. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be in? I have a relevant but not a

17:53

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a relevant but not a direct interest, as a councillor and as a vice President of the Local Government Association. Elections are the bedrock of our democracy and should not, indeed must not be cancelled. 5.6 million people are being denied the right to vote, this may, in elections to 7 county councils and to unitary councils. The critical question is why has the Government agreed to such an antidemocratic measure? Now, the Secretary of State's justification is that the Government has what it is choosing to describe as an ambitious program of local government, reorganisation and devolution, which will see, eventually, the demise of councils, based on historic houses and the abolition of district councils.

In their place will be unitary councils, with a population of 500,000, making them a much larger than any of the London boroughs. Some, yet to be agreed combination of councils will then elect a single person, a, with considerable powers, for instance as we have already heard from the noble Baroness Jones, on a strategic planning, whether Mayor will be able to allocate land for development, without the agreement of residents. The nine councils with cancelled elections were assessed by the Secretary of State to be more prepared than most, in their reorganisation plans and that therefore, and I quote, "It would be an expensive and irresponsible waste of taxpayers money, to hold elections.

The bodies of that will not exist and where we do not know what will replace them. " However, in a meeting with the noble Baroness and the Minister, it became clear that the reason for elections and being cancelled is that the first step in consulting residents and interested parties had begun in February and would continue until eight Krul, during the election period. And this rightly, rightly was not acceptable. The option that does not seem to have been considered was to delay the elections, until June.

Now, that has occurred in the recent past, on more than two occasions. And that would accommodate, both the need to consult and to enable a new mandate to be given to the decision-makers. Furthermore, the cancelled elections will apparently take place, in 2026. When it is expected that there be elections for a new mea, for a councillor to the county councils which will still exist and to the district councils. That is the advice we have been given.

So, what happens then is that county councils and district councils will be making the decisions, on the geography of the new unitary authorities. And the new mandate, from the electorate is therefore absolutely essential. Before those decisions are made and not after. Which is what will happen, if these elections are cancelled. It would also have been the benefit of alerting, if we had elections, the benefit of alerting residents of the major changes being proposed and getting their views, direct, to councillors and to elect are those that they agree with and not those that they don't.

That wider discussion is obviously not seen to be desirable, by both the existing council leadership, calls for the cancellation of the elections and the government. It is this particular aspect of the discussion element of this discussion, that the secondary legislative committee, how much it has raised concerns and drawn them to the attention of the House. The first of these concerns is about the extent and depth of the opposition to cancellation of elections and the committee is highly critical of the Government, in that it has failed to provide a response to the issues raised.

So, can the noble Baroness the Minister provide a response, which should have been given, to the concerns raised by the secondary legislative committee, before this vote is taken. Now the Surrey County Council is the exception to the reasons that I have described. Because, the reason for their cancellation of election is due to the dire financial straits of some of its councils. One in particular, has debts of more than £1 billion. The Government is enabling at the county, which also is in debt to push through every organisation, against the will of the districts.

This is a democratic district. -- Disgrace. The honourable lady Baroness Morse gone, it is sufficient in its statement. It fails to mention the substantial burdens, which is the reorganisation devolution plans of the government. It is most unfortunate that the noble Baroness has enabled us to agree to a single motion to annul, which had been, something of a tentative agreement, last week. Now, if the noble Baroness puts a motion to the vote, we, on these benches will abstain.

In favour of voting for the more strongly and more comprehensive motion, in my name. The noble Baroness Scott and by Brooke has a regret motion. And I understand the intent. And recognise the concerns about democratic accountability. And that of the consultations process. However, we cannot fully support this motion, as it simply does not go far enough, in defence of democracy. Although the convention to which her parking adheres is not to support fatal adheres is not to support fatal motions.

That is not A1 that is absolute. As her party had voted, on several occasions in the past, including on a London elections, several of fatal motions, I should say, including one on London elections. I urge the noble Baroness to make an exception and support the Democracy delayed is democracy denied. I beg to move.

18:01

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

Can I declare my interest as the Vice President of the Local Government Association. I rise today to express deep concern over the Statutory Instrument which marks yet another step in the government's rush approach to local government restructuring. While we continue to support meaningful devolution that I -- enables local communities to thrive and prosper, we are concerned about the process being followed and the sweeping changes being imposed top-down on our local authorities. Quite simply, devolution should be locally led.

These measures are not. We believe that no counsel should be coerced or pressured into restructuring by a top-down diktat from Whitehall. It is wrong for the government to adopt a divide and rule approach to local government. But let me now turn to the effect of these measures. This Statutory Instrument is not just a procedural shift. It is a clear manifesto, manifestation of the government's top-down approach to restructuring local government. With little or no consideration for local consensus. We are particularly concerned about the unprecedented delays, up to three years, and the prospect of existing councillors serving up to a seven-year term.

The government's decision to bypass any public consultation on this significant failure, and I would ask the Minister why the public was not consulted on these changes and how the government can justify proceeding with such a major overhaul without meaningful engagement with the local communities first. In fact local communities first. In fact local Impacted by these decisions. The entire exercise has been rushed, rushed from the publication of the devolution white paper to a minimal feedback. Of only four weeks which included the Christmas break.

District councils were never properly consulted either and residents have not been asked for their views. Local government experts have warned that we are dealing with, and I quote, the worst white paper for local government in living memory. That is from the local authority pod cast of 26 January, 2025. One that treats local government with cavalier regard. Disregard. Well the noble Lady the Minister please respond to what I consider to be serious concerns? We have heard that this Statutory Instrument claims to postpone the May 2025 elections.

Yet this is far more than a postponement. We believe it is an outright cancellation for these councils, specifically the Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Thurrock and West Sussex, all under the guise of the devolution priority program. Can the noble Baroness the Minister provide a clear timetable for these new elections, including county elections, unitary elections, district elections and mayoral elections, taking into account While I am on the subject of boundary changes, the long-term implication of such changes are a matter of great concern.

As we move forward with the creation of new authorities and the restructuring of local government, the local government boundaries commission role will be crucial in determining how these changes are entered. Will the Minister please outline the timetable for these boundary We need to know when the local government boundary commission will begin its review, how long it will take to finalise the new boundaries for the affected councils, and if she can't answer today please would she write to me with all of these details? Can the Minister also provide any assurance that the local government boundaries commission recommendations will be made public well in advance, allowing local councils, residents and other stakeholders to fully engage with and review the proposed changes before they were finalised as has always been the case? Without clear communication and ample time for consultation we risk the lack of transparency and fairness in redrawing of the boundaries.

Given the concerns I have raised today, some noble Lords may be wondering why I have not tabled a regret motion. I have tabled a regret motion I beg your pardon, and not a fatal motion full stop like Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Pinnock. As the official position, it is long-standing convention under successive governments of all colours and recognised by the major parties at least since the 1950s about the constitutional relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. It is the responsibility of the House of Lords to scrutinise, and where appropriate revise legislation.

Ultimately respect the will of the elected house. But that does not distract from the concerns I have raised today. While we will once worked collaboratively with local government to ensure these changes are beneficial for our communities and the current protest -- process has been rushed and lacked the necessary consideration of local views and needs of local communities. We urge the government to please pause, reconsider the pace of these changes, and offer a clearer, more structured plan that involves local authorities and their residents in shaping the future of what is there local government.

If the fatal motions for, I shall be testing the opinion of the House on my regret motion. my regret motion.

18:07

Lord Bach (Labour)

- -

I support this government plans for devolution. For years and years the local government has needed to be changed. That is a fact, and no government has attempted to do that for many years. Changing local government is not an easy task and requires political parties and of course local authorities and the government itself to look further than just a short-term political advantage. So that England can enjoy a modern and effective local government system that has real power and influence and takes some of the power away from the centre.

This takes time, and I commend government approach. I think that the matter that is before the House today is of importance, but I really don't think it's an attack on the principles of democracy, and I think those that say it is mistaken. I want to make one further point before I sit down and that's this. The government has proposals that had to be put in by 21 March last week and they want time, they need time to consider them and come up with views on proposals themselves I think by the end of the year.

It's one of those I want to talk about. I want the government to consider when it makes its proposals that if acted on will put right what I consider to be a serious mistake or accident that occurred many many decades ago in the 1970s in England. Some noble Lords will remember the dividing up of English cities into metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Very sensibly, many cities had their boundaries increased so that they could accord with the reality.

Could have the space and the geographical diversity to offer their residents all that the city should, including space for new housing, for Greenspace is and facilities of all kinds. Examples of metropolitan cities where proper, properly extended included Leeds, included Bradford, included Sheffield. However the nonmetropolitan cities were not so lucky. Their boundaries remain precisely the same in many cases boundaries that are now over 100 years old. This has led to city boundaries sometimes being totally artificial.

Absolutely nowhere with areas to build up housing, and any reasonable person using their common sense can see how ridiculous some of the boundaries are for cities at the present time. I should add that I have in the past both a Police and Crime Commissioner in an area that had unitary authorities, County Council and district councils as well. And have been a local councillor both in a city and in a district. I'm going to use the example briefly of Leicester as a classic example of a nonmetropolitan city at that time that suffered, as did others, from the ridiculous decisions taken in the 1970s.

It cannot, boundaries are general --... Is present boundaries are genuinely ridiculous, it is one of the most tightly constrained cities in the whole of the United Kingdom. It's bodies remain largely on change, it's boundaries have remained largely unchanged for 100 years. It has no chance of delivering the extra housing for example that is vitally needed. The population disparity is enormous, prepared to the cities that I refer to that are lucky enough to have their boundaries extended.

The figures speak for themselves. In Sheffield the population per square kilometre is 1.2 thousand people. In Leicester, the population per square kilometre is 5,000 people. That is totally wrong and I make these points in this debate when we are discussing of course whether this motion should go through not. Because the government will have to make its decision on issues like this when it comes to the right time to make those decisions I want to give the government a chance to make the right decision as far as cities are concerned and as for as other parts of local government are concerned.

That's why I think the government tonight deserves our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support. There are times when it's entirely appropriate to postpone entirely appropriate to postpone elections, such times include during wartime emergencies. We postponed wartime emergencies. We postponed general elections throughout the course of the Second World War. We also postponed local elections also postponed local elections following the outbreak of the COVID pandemic in 2020. But there are at present no such extreme circumstances, hence I believe no democratic justification for the postponement of the right of people to choose their local representatives according to the timetable previously agreed by both Houses of Parliament.

I mentioned

18:14

Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)

- -

both Houses of Parliament in this context because this House is in a unique position in relation to the postponement of elections. Whilst postponement of elections. Whilst all other legislation can be subject to the Parliament acts, no government majority in the House of government majority in the House of Commons can force the postponement of a general election without the of a general election without the specific consent of the House of specific consent of the House of That constitutional protection is to prevent the abuse of power, by and party with the majority in the other place changing the rules of the democratic engagement.

There may be many reasons why this government does not want there to be a many local elections, in May. There may be many reasons why some Conservative administrations do not want elections in May either. But fearing electoral consequences should not take away people's right to vote. Without it, people will not then have a say on issues, such as the effective abolition of the many local councils and the replacements, by new authorities covering a far wider areas and with great power, vested in a single person.

I am sometimes asked what is my view of local government, in this country? I believe that we should try it. I am grateful to Professor Travers at the London School of Economics for pointing out to me that there are at present about 18,000 councillors in the UK. A figure soon to be reduced significantly. Whilst in France, there are 36,000 councils, or there are 36,000 councils, or communes. The UK is often slated as the most centralised government in the Western world.

Notwithstanding the post 1999 constitutional settlements. So, do we in the chamber have the right to say no to this? Well, my Lords, I believe that powers across both houses have a general elections. There are more recent precedents concerning other levels of elections. My noble friend Baroness Kidron referred to elections of 2000. When a then elections of 2000. When a then Labour government decided it wanted to bring in the London Mayor and assembly elections, but without the provision of a cabinet selection addressed, in the traditional way.

This House then, with the support of Conservative peers considered this to be a significant abuse of power. And those elections were not allowed to take place, until we had change the rules, to make them fairer. The noble Baroness, Baroness Scott of Bybrook referred to the precedents for saying no, for fatal motions, in the circumstances. I will remind her and her colleagues of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whose report on statutory instruments in 2015 said that since 1968 a convention has existed that the House of Lords should not reject statutory instruments, or should do so only rarely.

While My Lords that occasion, in the year 2,000 was one of those rare occasions, when I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Several fatal motions have also been carved out by this House and other occasions. I consider this to be an appropriate occasion for this House to say that governments should not be allowed to postpone elections, at the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minute, in this fashion. In the sense, I am a member of

18:18

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the sense, I am a member of the secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee, who drew this statutory instrument or dirt to the attention of the House. Primarily because we thought the Explanatory Memorandum was inadequate and didn't answer a number of the questions that have been raised. I do not recall us discussing whether democracy was in danger, in the committee. I, two points seem to me to be relevant. First, 18 councils sought a postponement of the elections.

18 councils. It came bottom-up, from the councils. It wasn't a postponement imposed by government. They were put postponement is sought by the democratically elected representatives of the people. Secondly, OK, only nine of the 18 secured government agreement to the postponement of their elections. So the statutory instrument concerns only nine. So clearly, if this is the rights of the people being denied, by the wicked government, by the child Tesco's of the Frontbench.

Clearly we are looking for the Trotskyites that run the councils of East Sussex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Thurrock and West Warwick. -- West Thurrock. I do think we need to maintain a sense of perspective and I will vote against both of the fatal motions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am pleased to follow the Lord, but can I just point out to him that politicians don't want elections politicians don't want elections when they know they are going to lose. And politicians like elections when they know they are going to when they know they are going to win. And the facts behind this decision is that despite the curves decision is that despite the curves conservatives regret motion, most of the councils which are postponed in elections, are Conservative elections, are Conservative controlled.

They know that they had a very good year in 2021, a very good year, exceptional year and they lost control of most of those councils this year. Also, sadly with Labour in government they no that their vote is going to be difficult to get out and they have concerns about how well they are going to do. We know we do quite well. It is also not true, I think that the top-down model that the Conservatives were talking about, the reorganisation of the government, I think for what they were going for.

I think their main motivation is that they lose against the results in 2021. In my area there are no elections in Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire and I understand that the Government once in their reorganisation, but I think the Government could have either postponed the consultation a little bit, by a month or two, or they could have arranged the election to be held in June, a month or two later, after the consultation. I

18:22

Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

will give the example of my own will give the example of my own council of Hampshire. We have got council of Hampshire. We have got big financial problems in Hampshire. The Conservative run county council has a deficit coming up the hundred and 83 million, next year. They wanted to put council tax up by 15%. wanted to put council tax up by 15%. wanted to put council tax up by 15%. They asked the government to put council tax up by 15%. A lot of those problems go back to the government, because they do not provide money.

That is the reality provide money. That is the reality for Hampshire. We are going to end up in Hampshire, as a result of having no elections, with a flag and county council, which is and I would say is unrepresented, having to impose pretty severe cuts in services, when they know they probably won't exist in three or Probably come in our patch will have no elections until 27 or 28, unless the Government promises we are going to have county elections next year is up if we're going to have county elections next year, we might as well have had them this year.

There are three conclusions, one is that it is better to have elections this year, then wait for possible elections, in a 27 or 28. And I think the government should declare, are we going to have elections next year? If there is a reorganisation are we going to have further are we going to have further They will have been in power, in the county council for seven or eight years, by the time we get around having elections. The second thing that is really important, for God's sake, we must sort out the finances of these councils.

Southampton, Labour-controlled and Hampshire, Conservative controlled, which are in a deep, deep trouble, frankly. If those problems are handed over to reorganise Hampshire, local governments organisation, it won't We do need reform, but we also don't actually benefit that reform, by getting a postponement of the elections. Unless at the financial situation is sorted, reorganisation, in my county of Hampshire will not get off on the right foot and what will happen is we will have all the local authorities, in that area, all blaming each other, for the fact that it is not going well and trying to push the financial deficits onto each other, it will be a disaster.

Just let me give you a bit of hope, which I hope by having elections, we might have seen. Southampton and Hampshire and Farnborough, in the 1930s, they were the Silicon Valley of the United Kingdom. We had a very successful aviation industry with the invention of the Spitfire, we had Farnborough, also a big centre of a research and Southampton was one of the main ports to America. The Blitz and the war led to a lot of those industries are moving north into the cell.

What we need in our county is a well funded series of military authorities and a layer that will lead us back to that The government wants. We are not going to do it if we start off with unrepresentative councils because elections have been suspended. And which they are, unrepresented. The county council is hugely unrepresented now. They had an exceptionally good year in 2021. It is going to be six or seven years, there are going to have different power, through this period.

They will be leading some of the discussions on reorganisation in Hampshire and that is the problem. We want to start with representative councils and do not postpone the election.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a funny thing when the unelected House of Lords has had to regret the cancellation of elections. Democracy is at the elections. Democracy is at the foundation's bone stone countries foundation's bone stone countries built. I accept that general built. I accept that general elections are far more important than most, but local elections aren't any less valuable for shaping aren't any less valuable for shaping the local doorstep issues that people value, the most in the towns, villages and cities.

I am a counsellor, and a veteran of many local elections. I know, more than most that councillors are on their toes and councils and reinvigorate those councils. Elections have been council before, I except under the Local Government Act 2003 special circumstances like David and foot in mouth, exceptional circumstances. Mostly, in cases of national emergency, where all elections in all areas are cancelled. That is not the case it was up we are not cancelling elections in an emergency. The Local Government Act 2003 is engaged.

This is a case of devolution. Local government reorganisation, were last-minute, the Minister and the other place, can give no assurance that the process would be complete, even in this Parliament. By 2029. Time is clearly not of the essence. So what When the Secretary of State wishes to move the local government deckchairs, around the deck, Parliament has determined the process to be followed, in a bespoke legislation, section 7 of the local government public involvement in housing at, he that, rather 2007. It

18:27

Lord Fuller (Conservative)

- -

lays out in excruciating detail the particular processes, strategy chess That That must That must be That must be engaged, That must be engaged, before elections can be cancelled in local government reorganisation. I'm grateful to the library of all the research that has been done on this research that has been done on this was that the government says it is following the precedent set in 2021, in Somerset, Cumbria and Yorkshire were reorganised. They are wrong and were reorganised. They are wrong and I will explain why.

Back in 2021, the process started in October, 27 months out from the proposed elections. Back then, all principal authorities, and other interested parties were invited. To make proposals. Those proposals resulted in a number that came forward and members of Parliament and the public were fully engaged. Later that February, the government expressed a preference and a will to find a timetable to stop the ordered the council elections, following the process established by the Labour government, in 2007. So let us This time the majority of the cohort of principal authorities were excluded from the discussions, as of the noble Lady will know, only by 30 of the 200, or so principal councils were affected by the proposals, were engaged.

Before the Secretary of State made her decisions was that how does she justify that? Invitations were circulated to those of 30 or so councillors, mostly the county councils, to endorse the concept of a mayoral devolution, with carrots at the degreed that they would cancel their elections correct ragged councillors. There was no public consultation does not consider for a moment the conflict of interest of asking the councils are facing elections whether they would like to cancel those elections, without asking the other principal authorities what they thought of the idea.

Still less what the public felt. In January 18 of the councillors wrote to say I would like to dispense with those elections, in exchange for a connivance on the mayoral statement. An early LTR. Reminded of my noble friend, Lord Pickles was analogue in his place, he told me, as young council leader, you do not trust the folks, do not go into politics. In February, when the Secretary of State said that eight of them got lucky, if that is an appropriate, nine of them rather, if that is an appropriate phrase for denying electors their democratic right was that it was announced that the elections will be cancelled.

You have to feel for the 10 that were sucked into asking the cancellation but got the mayor anyway. The government has wilfully conflated two separate or linked ideas, devolution and the creation of an Real and LDR and the abolition of councils. -- Mayors. They were told that the population size for the new councils would be at least not put 5 million. We know that figure is between 350 and 500,000, but the possibility that the half a million number may just be the average, within a territory.

The 30 councils that connived were misled and led into the process, on a false You do not speak the election of one by cancelling elections to the other and that exposes the dishonesty of the government's approach and they wished of a actions as we now find ourselves debating this on 24 March. The notice of election must be made tomorrow. You have to abide by the way the Government has run down on this, the Secretary of State said the rationale for cancelling this year's elections hinged on the fact that it would pointless to have elections for councils which could just be abolished one year later.

The next year and that timetable there will still be two years to go to 2028, so unless those elections are cancelled on that basis, councils would as the Noble Lord has said an unprecedented seven year turn in what universe is that acceptable? I do want to ask the Noble Lady what assurances can she give on the record about cancelling next year Alls as well? And by her reasoning there may be a better justification to cancel them rather than cancelling now. At least the public would have a chance to have their say on the devolution opportunity and before that plans for Dundee.

If that is the real plan. When all is said and done we have ended up in a situation with a Secretary of State that has picked and chosen the elections she would like to avoid. And then there only in those areas where advantage has been expedient for Labour, there is to be no reorganisation in London or failed authority piling up rubbish in the streets or in Manchester. There are more councillors within the M25 and all the county councils of England. And Labour is using all of this to create a eminent structural movement bias in the way the country is governed extends its war on the countryside.

Now the Noble Lady has previously reported to a PWC report that suggests all of this will make an significant savings and that is not how it has worked out in Somerset I am approaching the local pension Government scheme this morning and I can tell the House for the first time that PWC report makes no allowance for the pension stream process of all of these reorganisations. And, astonishingly I watering pension costs that would allow senior local officials to take retirement on a full pension by 55 or 57 on efficiency rates.

I heard today that additional pensions could easily be half £1 million person. In its haste that Government is sleepwalking into a lean pound pension straight blackhole entirely of its unmaking and of course most importantly it will not save any any. The counties and districts of the most efficient and local parts of Government will be merged within a new remote area is being applied on top of towns and parishes were unconstrained on revenue raising relented but Government is moving too quickly and local people will pay for this devolution slight of hand that will see us moving from three chipper layers from three expansion -- expensive layers.

I am not against local Government reorganisation, but the Government needs to remember that all of the orders must pass through this place and once bitten the House would be twice shy. I would like to support the fatal motion and had it been more promptly there would have been strong reasons as the Noble Lord has said to do so but I am conscious about the conditions of the House and, importantly and practically for elections must be called tomorrow. It is too late to cancel them now.

Not just for parties to get their candidates in this but also the officials who would need to the officials who would need to the village halls in order. I will support the regret emotion. My biggest regret, of course, is that it was for the most part my Conservative council colleagues who have turned into the biggest losers. I conniving with Labour on their own destruction whilst allowing the Labour Party to pick and choose the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elections it does not want to fight. I support the spirit of all three of these motions and I especially commend Ernest Jones of Wiveliscombe commend Ernest Jones of Wiveliscombe and Baroness Pinnock for making their emotions fatal motions. I was

18:35

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

their emotions fatal motions. I was interested to hear the Noble Lord reassure us and tell us effectively not to worry our pretty little heads and to stop panicking. He did not use that language. I have. It was an interesting that the opposite benches on the opposite side there was quite a lot of laughter. And there is a sort of sense of what is all the fossil about? I would like to suggest that this is not a game, and for voters it really matters.

There's a lot at stake here. Not least the reputation of the democratic process. For the last week or so, Government Ministers have talked about a fictional drama as though it is factual evidence, concluding that the Netflix series should inform policy on countering the radicalisation of young boys. Maybe the Government might accept my factual, if anecdotal, evidence, of how the cancellation of counsel elections is fuelling the radicalisation of young people to become cynical about democracy. I was recently even talk to a student group about the importance of democratic engagement to a free society and I was taken aback by just how cynical they were.

The majority of them said democracy is a charm. That was the popular sentiment. I was even more surprised when their evidence centred on councils. Not something that the young generally chat about. But one of them summed it up when he said they cancel that Romanian presidential elections and banned the popular candidate from standing and now our Government has cancelled counsel elections because they are scared that austerity label will get given. Whether we like it or not, and I argued against the slightly conspiratorial take, by the way, you can see why they might draw that conclusion.

Because those young cynics, there is a lot of anger about this issue. Five and half million people feel that they have had their votes cancelled and they feel cheated. It has been discussed in workplaces, in the pub, on phoneins and on social media. People will say things like there are challenging parties doing well in the polls that they do not want to see how they get on. And there is a certain volatility around politics at that moment and people want to make their views felt.

People are frustrated about for example just when voters are missing council tax rises and then horrible cuts in both council services then they do not get a chance to comment locally. In rural areas where family farms are so worried about recent policies, so worried that their likelihoods are going to be destroyed they do not get a chance to vote, so we have been told that these are only being postponed for one year, but a lot can happen in one year because in less than one year some devastating policies have been brought in by the Government that people might have a view on and that will be true as well, so I would rather people were given one year even if they then had to have the election again than to just say don't you worry, you will get a vote eventually.

Local matters, issues matter to people. If you were listening this morning to the discussions on the media about the rats as large as cats and that strike in Birmingham and people passionately talking about what is happening in their local area, I just think you have to understand that people want their voices and their views to count and many feel robbed by this decision and they do not want to be fobbed off by technical excuses about the importance of devolution and somebody at the top making the decision that will give more democracy sometime.

They're basically been told that voters access to the ballot box should be trumped by a policy reorganisation. It also is the noble Baroness Jones suggests it does seem to make a mockery of the notion that these devolution changes will bring more accountability. And the lack of consultation mentioned by Baroness Scott of Byford is especially egregious. But although I have a lot to say about devolution now I will not do it now, these devolutionary forms and their shortcomings, now was not the time to do think the wrong for the Government to at least not know that people feel this is a contemptuous disregard for voters aspirations to assert their rightful right to vote for to vote out politicians as they choose, as they expected to.

They are disappointed and many people are actually looking for a once unparliamentary TV to see which way we go today. Utah thought that was going to happen, but there you go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a counsellor in central Bedfordshire

18:40

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

counsellor in central Bedfordshire for participating in this process was advised to speak in support of the regret motion from another friend, Baroness Scott of my book. As chairman of the Local Government Association, I campaigned vigorously for greater devolution and I still very supportive of devolution. I also led a unitary council for 10 years and can testify to the benefits of military councils. However, if we are to genuinely have devolution in well-run services it needs to be local lead with real powers, local accountability.

We cannot treat local Government as little more than a delivery arm of central Government, tied in regulation, budget controls, with central target and central funding pots. When this country saw the biggest improvements in health, education, social, infrastructure, education, social, infrastructure, and so forth, this was all locally led. If you go back to the turn of the 21st century, local Government was truly empowered. Delivering education,, social care, social support infrastructure even gas supplies and water. And being genuinely financially independent stopover the last century, central Government has steadily eroded the role of Government, placing more controls and reduced its financial freedom is well increasing burdens on local councils.

Now, I am a believer in form should follow function. We should see real devolution, allowing genuine financial independence from central Government, Everage wrote out roll in meta element, community, education, particularly skills and getting people back to work enabling every area to flourish with real levelling up. This is what the Government should have started with. Because locally we could have then answered the question of what would be appropriate structures to deliver this. We would also significantly reduce the local argument is that prize and objectives that have been clear to all.

Instead, we have top- down reorganisation. Government has been clear it intends to use its large majority in The Other Place to foster unitary as Asian and have mirrors across the country. A clear message that funding will be tight, so you will have to make significant savings which Government expects to be delivered by unit as Asian. It is understandable in these circumstances many councils have concluded it is better to participate in order to have some control of their destiny and potentially some meagre rewards rather than being done to by Government dictate.

I have sympathy for those councils who due to the need to meet Government imposed timetables asked for a delay in their elections, but it need to be this way. Government code and should have worked with local Government. It should have brought forward real proposals for real devolution with a clear timetable in respect of the democratic process. Should have proposals to local Government such as social care and SEND. And how by addressing these success incentives and creating genuine local place- based working these could have been addressed you cannot look at local Government reorganisation without looking at for instance the healthcare system and how that works.

But no. This Government is favourite in position over cooperation. Avoiding the difficult decisions and not delivering real devolution and that is why I will be supporting my Noble Friend Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott's motion of regret. That has a really interesting debate and I want to start by saying I understand and I have listened to I understand and I have listened to the concerns around the chamber. The Government has been very clear on Government has been very clear on our manifesto commitment to widen devolution to more areas. We have

18:44

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

19:15

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

19:16

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

19:17

Division Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this motion The question is that this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have voted They have voted to They have voted to content, They have voted to content, 63,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted to content, 63, not content, 163, so the not not content, 163, so the not Local authorities changes to years of ordinary elections. Motion of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of ordinary elections. Motion of regret, Baroness Scott of Bybrook. I have listened very carefully to the noble Baroness the Minister and I thank her for her answers but I believe there are still many, many unanswered questions on the subject. Both local government but also for the communities that local the communities that local government serve. I wish to test the opinion of the House Margaret motion.

19:21

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now

19:22

Division

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that this The question is that this motion DEFRA DEFRA they DEFRA they have DEFRA they have voted DEFRA they have voted contents DEFRA they have voted contents 139, not contents 152, so the not not contents 152, so the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I move I move that I move that the I move that the House I move that the House do I move that the House do now adjourn.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page