debates/debates2025-09-04a conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-09-04)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-09-04a conversation_22

Edward Morello:What steps she is taking to help ensure that the UK upholds international law. \p Lucy Rigby: The hon. Member will appreciate that as a Law Officer I cannot talk about the specifics of legal advice to Government. However, he will be aware of paragraph 1.6 of the ministerial code that acknowledges   the overarching duty on all Ministers to comply with the law. That obligation is inherent in all the advice that the Law Officers give to Government. \p Edward Morello: By the end of September, more than 640,000 Gazans are projected to face catastrophic food insecurity, while the integrated food security phase classification predicts that a further 43,000 Palestinian children will be at severe risk of death from malnutrition by next year. The Government will have received legal advice regarding the famine in Gaza and Israel’s role in it. Will the Solicitor General commit to publishing any advice that the Government have received on whether breaches of international law have occurred in the conflict in Gaza? \p Lucy Rigby: The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot comment on any legal advice that may or may not have been given or, indeed, whether it has been sought. What I can confirm to him is twofold. First, the Government take their legal obligations extremely seriously. Secondly, the Government are very clear in our position that the horrors taking place in Gaza need to be brought to an end. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give the forthcoming business? \p Lucy Powell: The business for the week commencing 8 September will include:

Monday 8 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Tuesday 9 September—Second Reading of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

Wednesday 10 September—Remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 11 September—General debate on regional transport inequality, followed by general debate on suicide prevention. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 12 September—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 15 September includes:

Monday 15 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

Tuesday 16 September—Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill.

The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 16 September and return on Monday 13 October.

Hon. Members will also wish to note the written statement made this week confirming that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will deliver her Budget statement on Wednesday 26 November. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Leader of the House. \p Jesse Norman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you and everyone in this Chamber had a very good summer break, with just the right proportions of sun, sleep and family.

If I may, let me start with a double round of congratulations: first, to the Prime Minister on his 63rd birthday this week, putting him squarely in the prime of life; and secondly, to my brilliant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who has just been appointed to the giddy heights of shadow Deputy Leader of the House. That is the reshuffle that really matters. As befits a former lawyer at Freshfields, he will bring his forensic intellect to scrutinising the Government.

I had been planning to talk about the Government’s performance over the summer, taking into account the escalating union demands for pay, the rise in inflation, unemployment and gilt yields, and the record number of small boat crossings in the first half of the year. I think it is fair to say that the past few weeks have been a total shambles for the Government. Little wonder that the Prime Minister has undertaken yet another of his performative Government resets to distract the media and the general public. He insists that everything is  absolutely fine, which is doubtless why it is all being changed round yet again. They cannot blame these things on the previous Government, though doubtless the Leader of the House will try.

There can, however, be only one topic today, and that is tax. In the real world, it seems that those of us poor souls who actually do pay tax are about to be confronted with a massive tax-raising Budget, perhaps with a particular focus, it has been rumoured in the media—or kites have been flown—on property taxes. Last year, the Chancellor increased spending by £70 billion, funding half of that through taxes and half through increased borrowing.

Of course, it seems that the only person who will not be paying more tax is the Deputy Prime Minister. I like and rather admire the Deputy Prime Minister—uniquely among the Government, she at least has a policy of trying to reduce taxes. We just heard the Solicitor General talk about Government taking a strict line on fraud; I did not hear so much about taking a strict line on tax fraud—[Interruption.] Or potential tax fraud, but we now have a situation in which the Deputy Prime has tried to dodge paying £40,000 in tax on her third home after demanding that previous Ministers should resign over tax scandals. It appears that she failed even to look at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs guidance on the internet as to whether higher rate stamp duty was payable. That guidance is readily available and is straightforward. It is hard to imagine that any qualified tax adviser—let alone any individual seeking to question their own tax arrangements—would not have taken a look or know about it.

The Deputy Prime Minister signed a deed for what appears to be an off-the-shelf trust scheme from Shoosmiths, the solicitors. Was that crafted to avoid tax? We need to know more about what disclosures she made to the civil service about her three homes, what review was carried out and what advice she was offered. I hope the Prime Minister’s adviser will look at those issues, in addition to all the other issues he is looking at.

Does the Leader of the House believe that Cabinet Ministers—let alone the Deputy Prime Minister of this country—should be using schemes to dodge tax? Should the Secretary of State responsible for housing be flipping her own main residence to avoid paying tax due on it? Does she concede that there is the appearance of very serious impropriety about these proceedings? Does she see how difficult they have made the situation for her colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is planning to put a Budget in front of this House that will include tax-raising measures, many of which will likely be focused on property? Above all, Labour—and every Labour Member stood by this—made a solemn commitment to maintain the “highest standards” in office in its own general election manifesto. Does the Leader of the House accept that this conduct by the Deputy Prime Minister massively falls short of that, and that it discredits both the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole? \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Leader of the House. \p Lucy Powell: Welcome back to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the House staff. I join the shadow Leader of the House in wishing the Prime Minister a happy birthday for earlier this week.

This summer has been marked by some happy personal events here in the House—no, I am not talking about Taylor Swift’s engagement to Travis Kelce, although I am sure we will all want to wish them a happy engagement. We have our very own power couples: my hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who got married to each other over the summer recess. There are also my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), who married her long-term partner Ian, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who married Kristiam this recess.

The happy news does not stop there. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) had her beautiful baby daughter. I am thrilled for her and also for my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on the arrival of her new baby, too. There are new dads in the House as well: my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) and for York Outer (Mr Charters), so that is dispatches for this week. We are very much more a family-friendly Parliament these days, and I am determined that modernisation will continue that trend.

I join the shadow Leader of the House in welcoming the new shadow deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), to his place. I hope that he will still on occasion ask me some questions and invite me to his constituency from the Back Benches, which I am always happy to accept as he knows.

I am also pleased to announce that this first bumper Session of Parliament under the Labour Government will last until spring 2026. By any measure, our legislative programme in this first Session is highly ambitious, delivering on the promises that we made in our manifesto and shifting power and opportunity to working people. There are a few highlights, which I know that shadow Leader of the House is always happy to hear about. We are giving the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation, finally ending no-fault evictions, stopping water bosses’ bonuses, setting up Great British Energy to get bills down, bringing back rail into public ownership, saving British Steel jobs, seizing and crushing dangerous off-road vehicles, finally recriminalising shoplifting, ensuring that buses are affordable and serve their communities, and protecting our much-loved football clubs. We are taking on the vested interests that hold this country back, and we still have much more to do in the rest of this Session.

In contrast, the Conservatives really have shown on whose side they stand in this Session: on the side of landlords against the Renters’ Rights Bill; on the side of criminal gangs in voting against our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill; for the few, not the many, in education; and, as ever, dying in a ditch to save the hereditary peers in the other place. We know whose side they are on.

The shadow Leader of the House chose to have another go on the issue of tax and property, which was, I noticed, the subject of one of the Conservatives’ Opposition Day debates yesterday. They could not muster enough speakers for that debate to go the full three hours, so he is having another go today. I repeat that the  Deputy Prime Minister has given a full account of her family circumstances and living arrangements. She made it clear that she is now rectifying her mistake. She has referred herself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, who is now looking into it. I will not say any more on that matter because he is looking into it.

Suffice it to say that the Deputy Prime Minister is a huge, huge asset to this Government. She is an incredibly effective Minister and she has been delivering, whether on our record investment in social housing, the flagship Employment Rights Bill, the biggest settlement for local government in many years, major planning reforms to get more homes built, or the delivery of devolution and community empowerment, among much more. The Conservatives have a go at her because she is so bloody good at her job.

Yet again, the shadow Leader of the House comes here and talks about the economy and the Budget, but another year has gone by and we have still had no apology from him or his Front-Bench colleagues for the state they left the country’s finances in. Let us just remind ourselves about that. They left a huge black hole in public spending, high levels of debt and borrowing, and living standards that had, for the first time in history, fallen during a Parliament. He is always very selective in his use of statistics; he did not mention that the British economy has grown faster than all other G7 countries in the first half of this year, or that mortgages are now at a five-year low. After a decade and a half of poor productivity because of a lack of investment, we are now powering up this country and investing in the new jobs of the future around the country, with jobs coming every day. The Chancellor will set out the Budget in the usual way, but she has made clear that most of the speculation is quite honestly damaging rubbish.

Let us not forget that we are now coming up to the three-year anniversary of the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget. I think I remember that the shadow Leader of the House being the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at that Budget. When Governments lose confidence and take irresponsible decisions, the poorest in society pay the heaviest price when the economy crashes. We will take absolutely no lectures from the Conservatives.

The shadow Leader of the House wanted to talk about the performance of the Government over the summer, but he did not. Let us be honest: the Leader of the Opposition does not need a reset but a full-blown resuscitation—her party spent most of the summer checking whether she had a pulse or not. The truth is that her leadership, like the future of the Conservative party, is, quite frankly, at death’s door. \p Blair McDougall: The SNP-led Glasgow city council is proposing to introduce a car tax on East Renfrewshire motorists, so that every time my constituents enter Glasgow city, they would have to pay a fee. Could she make time for a debate on the enormous levels of waste by the SNP Government on things like Barlinnie Prison, which is 10 times over budget, or the ferries that went nowhere, so that we can tell the SNP to stop wasting our money and get out of the pockets of East Renfrewshire motorists? \p Lucy Powell: I know what an issue parking charges can be in city centres, such as my own. My hon. Friend is right: that would make a really good topic for a  debate. Let us have a look at the performance of the SNP Government in Scotland. They have had the biggest settlement ever in Scotland. What are they doing with that money, and how are they serving the people of Scotland? \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister told the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), that the situation in Gaza was “horrifying” and “a man-made famine”. We agree. More than 60,000 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed in the conflict. Just yesterday, five adults and a child were reported to have died of malnutrition, as a direct consequence of the Israeli Government’s man-made famine and illegal restrictions on aid entering the strip. It has been the deadliest war ever for journalists, with at least 192 killed by Israeli forces, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and 20 Israeli hostages are still thought to be alive and brutally held by Hamas terrorists.

Across the House, we have begged the Government to do more to help end the conflict, to save the lives of the hostages and Gaza’s civilians. Indeed, it is something that constituents write to me and undoubtedly all Members about on a daily basis, yet action has been excruciatingly slow. In July, the Prime Minister set a deadline for further action. He said that

“the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace”.

That deadline is fast approaching: the UN General Assembly convenes in less than a week. The House should surely have the right to debate and vote on this important step. Recognising that Parliament will break for conference recess in less than two weeks, will the Leader of the House grant a full debate in Government time before then to show the strength of support for the recognition of the state of Palestine in this House? \p Lucy Powell: I welcome the hon. Member back from summer recess and look forward to continuing to work with her on the many Committees on which we both sit. I thank her for raising that very important issue. Let us be under no illusions: the situation in Gaza is unimaginably bleak. It is truly horrific, and the horrifying images and accounts we are seeing daily are seared on all our minds as we go about our business. On top of everything else, after so many civilian deaths and so much destruction, we are now seeing a man-made and wholly avoidable famine and widespread starvation.

The Government are leading international efforts for a peace plan. That involves the release of hostages, a ceasefire and the huge humanitarian response needed to prevent further death and destruction. The recognition of Palestine as a state is an important step towards that, which is why the Prime Minister set out those plans as we approach the UNGA later this month.

I have personally long supported the recognition of Palestine, including last time Parliament was asked to give a view on the matter. On Monday, in a two-hour  statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary updated Members on the steps we are taking to recognise the state of Palestine and made clear that unless the Israeli Government take urgent steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commit to a long-term peace, we will make that assessment before the leaders meet at the UN in New York. We will, as ever, ensure that the House has a full opportunity to continue to discuss and scrutinise these very important decisions. \p Sharon Hodgson: In February, my constituent’s son, Paul Holborn, won the men’s section of the 777 world marathon challenge. That is seven marathons in seven continents in seven days. He topped that off by then running the north pole marathon in July, and achieving grand slam status. Paul is now preparing for his next challenge. He plans to climb Mount Kilimanjaro in January, and then to pull a sled for 293 miles across the Arctic frozen tundra in February. Throughout his journey, Paul has raised thousands for local charities, including £4,000 for Age UK in Sunderland. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Paul on his bravery and determination, and in wishing him the best of luck for his upcoming endeavours, where he will do not just the north-east proud, but the whole UK? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Paul on his extraordinary achievements. Quite honestly, I am exhausted just listening to what he is doing, let alone doing it myself. \p Bob Blackman: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for next week. She will know that 50 Back Benchers were frustrated on Monday that they were not able to debate transport inequalities. Obviously there were important statements—we understand that—but will she consider giving that debate protected time next week, so that all those who wish to contribute can do so, rather than being confined to about 30 seconds each if the debate is squeezed in next week?

In addition to business in the Chamber, there will be a debate on the hydrogen supply chain next Tuesday in Westminster Hall. On Thursday 11 September, there will be two debates: one on improving regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments, and one on consumer affairs. On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I ask for early notice of the business we will be allocated in the week when we come back after the conference season, so that we can allocate time for many of the debates that are waiting.

Next week the London underground network is likely to grind to a halt, as the trade unions are calling out individual sections throughout that week. The last time the unions went on strike, the Labour Mayor of London had to find £30 million to buy them off. The Transport Secretary has long experience, having been Deputy Mayor for Transport in London, but as far as I am aware, she has not uttered a single word about what will happen next week. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Transport Secretary to come to the House and let us know what will happen in London next week if the strike goes ahead? I know we have Transport questions next Thursday, but frankly that is too late. \p Lucy Powell: I welcome the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee back after recess, and thank him for announcing the forthcoming Backbench Business. I recognise the disruption to those who wanted to speak on Monday in the debate on transport inequality, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), and I am pleased that has been rescheduled for Thursday. I am happy to look at protecting time for that, so that Members can be confident about their contributions in what is obviously a well-subscribed debate.

On the tube strikes, nobody wants to see strike action in London. It is incredibly disruptive for commuters and businesses. As ever, the Government—and, I am sure, the Mayor of London—call on Transport for London and the unions to get back round the table so that those strikes do not go ahead next week. \p David Burton-Sampson: I am becoming increasingly concerned about the level of fraud facing individuals and businesses in the UK. Fraud accounts for over 40% of all crime, from online and push payment fraud, to phishing, vishing and smishing, to name just a few schemes. I have even seen examples of businesses in my constituency being hit by various Companies House scams. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to discuss how we can tackle these challenges moving forward? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise such issues. Fraud is increasingly prevalent across our country and economy. It is becoming increasingly sophisticated, especially given advances in technology such as AI. That is why the Government continue to focus on those issues. I think it would make a very good topic for a debate. \p Alison Griffiths: In a week when the Liberal Democrat-run Arun district council has been found to have the worst possible grading for its social housing provision—including more than half of its homes being without smoke alarms—it is alleged that two senior directors, including one responsible for housing, have left the council with redundancy payments totalling £350,000. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how best to hold the council to account in this place for the benefit of taxpayers in my constituency? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the issues that the hon. Lady has rightly raised on behalf of her constituents. I do not know about those specific allegations, but I assure her that we take standards in local government incredibly seriously, as we take standards across all our politics seriously. We will have further legislation at some stage in this Parliament. \p Bayo Alaba: This summer has been busy in Southend. Most importantly, this weekend we hosted City Jam, a jam-packed live street art festival. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending all the organisers who took part in producing such an incredible event, solidifying our flourishing cultural scene, from Lazydays festival and Summer in Nashville to Victory over Japan events in Rochford and Southend, and many more? Artworks  from the UK’s largest street art festival, City Jam, will line our streets for a few weeks yet. I invite the whole House to join me in admiring Southend’s culture, and perhaps we can arrange a large ministerial visit to Southend. \p Lucy Powell: That sounds like a great visit. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend had such a sunny summer packed full of events in his constituency. I am delighted to join him in congratulating all the organisers. \p Robbie Moore: Starting a family is a huge milestone for any couple but, crucially, it comes with a huge financial hit, as parents must scale back their working lives in order to care for their newborn. Ben Barnes in Keighley, the winner of best butcher across the whole of Yorkshire, has seen at first hand how, despite working extra hours, one of his employees is still worse off, because his partner is on maternity pay. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the merits of extending marriage allowance so that claimants can transfer a greater proportion of their personal allowance, in order to help young people take that crucial step of starting a family? \p Lucy Powell: Can I pass on my congratulations to that employee of local butcher Ben Barnes on the birth of his first child? I am really pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman advocate so strongly for stronger maternity and paternity leave and pay; that has not always been what we have heard from the Conservative party and some of his colleagues. We are committed to strengthening rights and supporting pay. Just this week, we brought in the free childcare package, which will be worth £7,500 a year to families that qualify, and we are extending that further. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on strengthening it in the coming months. \p Nusrat Ghani: More than 80 colleagues are bobbing. Unless Members are short in their contributions, they are denying others the opportunity to get in. \p Rachael Maskell: Many parameters of the fair funding review will address social injustices in our communities, but places like York will lose out significantly. It is already the lowest-funded unitary authority in the country, the Lib Dem council previously spent all the reserves and we cannot afford to make further cuts. Will the Leader of the House ensure that local authorities that are going to lose out under the fair funding review can meet the Minister and have discussions before the parameters are published? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issues around fair funding. I know this is a really important matter for a number of colleagues. She will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has ensured a record local government funding settlement, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right: the devil is in the detail and we need to ensure that funding follows need. I will certainly arrange for her to have a meeting with the Minister. \p Wendy Chamberlain: We all deal with Department for Work and Pensions casework through our teams, but in North East Fife we are  seeing a transition to universal credit that means that vulnerable constituents—often those with dyslexia or learning disabilities —are really struggling. They are not being offered the enhanced support journey, and all are suffering due to departments not communicating and miscalculations. Can we have a debate in Government time on this issue, which I am sure affects MPs from across the House? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the cases in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I am sure the issues will be familiar to other hon. Members, especially those representing constituencies in Scotland. I am happy to facilitate a response from the Minister, so that we can make sure that the necessary steps are in place to alleviate the situation. \p Paul Davies: Libraries are vital spaces for learning, inclusion and communities. As Lindley library in my constituency marks 150 years, we celebrate its role in enriching lives and preserving local heritage. I hope the Leader of the House will join me in wishing the library a happy birthday and every success for its open day next week. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can better support libraries, like the one in Lindley, to grow and adapt for future generations? \p Lucy Powell: Libraries are vital to our communities and high streets, and they provide people with access to knowledge and information, as they have done in decades gone by and will do in decades in the future. I support all my hon. Friend’s efforts to support Lindley library in his constituency. \p John Glen: A month ago, I met Oliver Robinson from the British Trout Association. The association has produced an excellent report on the trout farming industry in the UK, but Oliver is struggling to get engagement from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers. I tried to ask the Secretary of State about this in DEFRA questions earlier, but it would be much appreciated if the Leader of the House could make representations and try to set up that vital conversation. \p Lucy Powell: I am happy to help facilitate a conversation with the relevant Minister about trout farming. \p Marie Tidball: Under the Conservatives, 53% of buses were cut in my constituency, including the SL1 tram link bus, leaving many of my constituents unable to go to work or school in Sheffield. Thanks to our better buses Bill and the work done by our Labour mayor, Oliver Coppard, our buses are being brought back under public control. Will the Leader of the House advise me how I can work with Ministers, our Labour mayor and Sheffield city council in order to reinstate the vital SL1 tram link bus? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear that the SL1 route was scrapped under the previous Government. My hon. Friend makes a very strong case for our buses Bill and all the actions that we are taking to ensure that buses serve their local community, and are affordable and reliable. When such powers are used, we see a massive increase in the use of buses. \p Jamie Stone: As I have said many times in this place, at Dounreay we have a highly skilled workforce, a licensed nuclear site and a local population who support the nuclear industry. Rolls-Royce has told me that it is very interested in placing its prototype advanced modular reactor at Dounreay, and yet we know that the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh will block that with their planning powers. What advice does the Leader of the House have for me? Will she facilitate a meeting with Ministers to try to get rid of this roadblock? \p Lucy Powell: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate for jobs and businesses in his constituency. He knows that this Government are committed to new nuclear power and to the most ambitious nuclear programme in a generation. I am really sorry to hear that the SNP Government are, as ever, likely to set themselves against this new investment and against new job opportunities in Scotland. Frankly, that is a pattern that we are seeing time after time, and I join him in calling on them to look again. \p Adam Jogee: It was a very busy summer recess in Newcastle-under-Lyme, with 70 engagements in 34 days; my office was delighted to put me on the train on Monday. One of the highlights was attending the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Newcastle-under-Lyme branch of the Royal Air Forces Association. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the branch, its officers and its volunteers for the care and compassion that they show to our vets and their families, and send them a happy anniversary? \p Lucy Powell: As someone who follows my hon. Friend on social media, I know that he has had a very busy recess, as have many colleagues; I have looked on jealously at many of the visits that people have been doing over the summer recess. I join him in congratulating the Royal Air Forces Association branch in his constituency on all that it does. \p Mark Francois: I will be short, as I already am. Can we have a debate about delays in obtaining driving tests? There is a growing problem with unscrupulous operators using bots to sweep up months’ worth of tests then selling them back to very frustrated parents and students at a profit. The Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency seems to be in denial about this issue. Can we have a debate in Parliament and try to fix this problem? \p Lucy Powell: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is a very big presence with his short question. He raises a topic that I know we all get many emails and complaints about. The Secretary of State for Transport has given an update to the House on these issues, and we are delivering 10,000 additional driving tests. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about how bots and others are using technology to secure those tests, and I will ensure that he gets a full response. \p Michael Payne: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Tina Simpson and her team at the Loco Centre in Netherfield, as well as Nathan Kenney and Mapperley All Stars, for their brilliant work this summer in delivering the holiday activities  and food programme in Gedling? Will she also welcome its very much-needed extension for three years by this Labour Government? \p Nusrat Ghani: That was the hon. Member’s first business question. \p Lucy Powell: That was my hon. Friend’s first business question! I welcome him to the delights of business questions. They are normally followed by a compliment to me and an invitation to the constituency—I was waiting for that before I got up to reply. I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking Tina, Nathan and all those who provided such wonderful holiday facilities for children. \p Roger Gale: Regardless of the fact that there is no legal requirement on the Government of the United Kingdom to transfer ownership of the British Indian Ocean Territories to Mauritius, the Government have challenged the Opposition’s figures about the cost of that exercise. Before the debate on Tuesday, will the Government place in the Library of the House of Commons detailed estimates of the cost to the British taxpayer? \p Lucy Powell: As ever, alongside legislation we publish all the necessary documents, including the costings, which we have been transparent about. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that before the election his Government embarked on 11 rounds of negotiations; they knew that the Government needed to resolve this issue in order to protect our defence and security for generations to come. I am pleased that we have managed to get that deal across the line. \p Lee Pitcher: Last weekend, a group of volunteers launched a fundraising activity to put on a new annual show hosting a hoedown in Epworth. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the rootin’ tootin’ team the best of luck in whip-cracking away on future events to raise loot to put on the first Isle country show in the year-haw 2026? \p Lucy Powell: That is how it is done! My hon. Friend was once the master of Doncaster airport, and he is now the master of business question puns. I absolutely join him in wishing the team the best of luck. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Victoria Collins—follow that! \p Victoria Collins: I am afraid I cannot follow that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have a growing number of constituents who have reached out with concerns about cancer care, including one family in Berkhamsted in which the father, who has since sadly passed away, struggled to access consistent cancer care support and even found it hard to get hold of his consultant, while the mother-in-law, who lived elsewhere, had access to Macmillan nurses who made a world of difference. Will the Leader of the House help to secure a debate to address this postcode lottery in the national cancer plan? \p Lucy Powell: This is not the first time that we have heard at business questions about the postcode lottery that remains when it comes to cancer care, particularly children’s cancer care. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue, and I will raise it with the Secretary of State. We have announced extra funding and will publish the national cancer plan later this year, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to update us. \p Clive Efford: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend was as shocked as I was that a Member of this House went to another country and, in front of its Parliament, started to run this country down. What is the point of being elected to this place if Members are not prepared to bring these issues to the Floor of the House and have them debated? Will my right hon. Friend write to Members and remind them of the opportunities they have to raise these important issues so that we can scrutinise them in a proper way, rather than scuttle off to another country and act in a totally unpatriotic way? [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] \p Lucy Powell: Members ask, “Where are they?” I think Reform Members are busy doing each other’s ironing— I do not know whether people have seen that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For a Member of Parliament who claims to be acting in the British interest to go to another country to suggest that tariffs on this country are increased and that steps are taken to reduce job opportunities here is not just unpatriotic, but anti-British. \p Alberto Costa: Following on from that question, Reform-led Leicestershire county council and Harborough district council have made a series of highly controversial decisions impacting on the people of Lutterworth and the surrounding villages. Does the Leader of the House agree that Freedom of Information Act requests that are made by constituents to public bodies should be answered, and will she help organise a meeting between me and the relevant Minister to discuss the lack of answers from those public bodies? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. We have seen Members of this House from the Reform party going around the world savaging our rights to free speech in this country, yet the councils they run are not prepared to answer questions on free speech. They are blocking local newspapers from scrutinising their work and, as the hon. Gentleman says, they are not opening themselves up to freedom of information requests. I will ensure he gets a ministerial response. \p Rosie Wrighting: Over the summer recess, I volunteered with the junior Parkrun in Desborough. It was fantastic to see children excited about exercise, and to be there to celebrate Rose and Luna getting their half-marathon wristbands. I was especially struck by the dedication of the volunteers who make it possible every week in Desborough and Kettering and across the whole country. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Parkrun volunteers around the country, and provide time for a debate on community-led initiatives that promote physical activity? \p Lucy Powell: The Parkrun and junior Parkrun initiatives are fantastic at engaging people in daily activity to keep them healthy and at bringing them together, tackling other issues such as loneliness. I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the organisers for their involvement. \p David Mundell: Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Gretna Green in my constituency as not just the wedding capital of the UK, but the wedding capital of Europe? It is particularly popular with couples from the north-west, and obviously, any MP who is still looking to be wed would be made most welcome there. However, many of the rules and regulations around civil ceremonies are arcane and bureaucratic. While there must always be proper checks, surely simplicity, spontaneity, innovation and joy must also be important. As such, will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate on modernising marriage laws? \p Lucy Powell: I am not sure whether any of the couples I mentioned at the beginning of this questions session got married in Gretna Green—maybe they can declare it if they did—but we are all of course very familiar with it as the iconic place for weddings in this country. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about simplifying some of the bureaucracy and making sure we remember what marriage is all about. I will get in touch with the relevant Minister on his behalf and see what we can do. \p Liz Twist: Next Wednesday is World Suicide Prevention Day. People can be nervous of talking about suicide, but it affects so many people in our communities. This year, Samaritans is sharing this message:

“If you think someone might be suicidal, take action, interrupt their thoughts and show them you care.”

There are events taking place across Parliament next week, but will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging Members to participate in next Thursday’s debate on suicide prevention, which has been announced today by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is a passionate and long-standing campaigner around those issues, and she has raised them with me many times. I thank her for all the work she does raising the issues around suicide and suicide prevention. It is often an uncomfortable and difficult issue to talk about, and she leads from the front in making sure that people feel that they can do so. I certainly join her in encouraging Members to participate. \p Charlie Dewhirst: Charlie Dodds from Driffield in my constituency is just one year old and suffers from a rare mitochondrial condition. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to his parents, Harrison and Ellie, for the £35,000 they have raised for research into this condition? Will she commit Government time to a debate on NHS funding for rare conditions? \p Lucy Powell: I certainly join the hon. Member in congratulating and thanking the parents of Charlie—Harrison and Ellie—for their phenomenal fundraising efforts. Rare diseases such as the one he describes are so  difficult to tackle. That is why we need focus on them and extra funding and research, and I will ensure that he gets a full response. \p Liam Conlon: The Leader of the House might remember that back in March I informed the House about the search for funding and support for an incredible young man from Beckenham, Lucas De Gouveia. At just 14, he is already representing Great Britain in wheelchair tennis. I am delighted to update the House today that, working together, we have secured sponsorship for Lucas from companies including easyJet to help him with the additional costs of competing internationally. Together, we met the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), to raise the profile of wheelchair tennis and para-sport. Yesterday, Lucas won the quarter-final in the US Open wheelchair singles. He is the youngest competitor in the tournament. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Lawn Tennis Association and everyone who has supported Lucas, and wish him the very best of luck in the semi-final? \p Lucy Powell: What a wonderful story. I know that raising that issue in business questions helped the hon. Gentleman to secure that funding and that sponsorship, so that Lucas could go to the US Open and compete. What fantastic news that he won his quarter-final and will now be in the semi-finals. I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Lawn Tennis Association, easyJet and all those who have made it possible. \p Ellie Chowns: The Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action has caused a growing legal, political and policing crisis. A judicial review has been granted. The police are struggling to deal with the sheer volume of people being arrested, and the UK’s reputation has been seriously harmed. Does the Leader of the House recognise that this rushed proscription, and the cynical decision to bundle it together with two other clearly terrorist organisations, is bad politics and bad process? We should have a chance to revisit the decision, learn from this debacle and seriously consider the important human rights implications. \p Lucy Powell: There is an extremely high bar for proscribing any organisation, and that decision was not taken lightly. It was taken on very strong advice about the activities of Palestine Action. Those activities were increasingly severe and, with increasing frequency, incredibly damaging. That is not to say that people cannot peacefully protest in support of Palestine or in support of many other organisations that support the Palestinian cause. As I said earlier, I strongly support recognition of Palestine and support the Palestinian cause, but that is not to say that we should support organisations that seek to cause real problems in this country. \p James Frith: The return to school in Bury North has seen the Derby and the Elton high schools introduce smartphone bans. I congratulate the principals Helen Hubert and Jonathan Wilton on their leadership in doing so. Like many of my Labour colleagues, through my smartphone-free schools campaign I have heard from hundreds of parents, teachers and pupils. Their overwhelming view is that smartphone use  damages learning, concentration and behaviour while piling pressure on children to be permanently online. Will my right hon. Friend grant time to debate Government plans to help schools manage smartphones, so that every child can learn free from distraction and in a happier state? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend and a number of other colleagues for continuing to campaign on and raise these important issues. As parents and constituency MPs, we all see the damage that social media and unmitigated use of smartphones can cause to teenagers. He is absolutely right to highlight that schools already have the power to confiscate smartphones, and I am really pleased to hear that a couple of schools in his constituency have done so. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the guidance that we have issued, but I implore schools and parents to take a much more proactive approach in monitoring what children are up to on their smartphones. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. May I urge colleagues to keep their questions short, and the Leader of the House to keep her answers just as short? \p Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House will be aware of the outrage across the country regarding illegal immigration, asylum hotels and now the huge increase in the number of houses in multiple occupation. This is happening on a large scale in Romford, with a massive boom in HMOs. My constituents want to see an end to illegal immigration and the housing of asylum seekers in local hotels. However, transferring the problem to roads and neighbourhoods, and putting families and children at risk in residential streets, is not acceptable. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate on the Floor of the House on the need to adopt an urgent strategy to end the use of hotels and HMOs for this purpose? \p Lucy Powell: I share the frustration, concern and indeed anger in many parts about the huge use of asylum hotels, and now HMOs, in dealing with the asylum backlog, which was left by the hon. Gentleman’s party after it was in power. Indeed, I remember the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Justice Secretary going round the country opening these hotels and allowing this to happen. They left us with a huge backlog. We need to take all necessary steps to bring down illegal migration, deal with these issues and close the hotels. That is what we want to do, but as the hon. Gentleman says, we cannot just make the problem dissipate into other parts of the community. That is why we are working to tackle it. \p John Slinger: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whereas the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), was yet again in the United States—speaking perhaps a little too freely about freedom of speech in this country, and doing Britain down—this Government, led by the Prime Minister, were building Britain up, including through a very welcome £10 billion deal to supply Norway with five Type 26 frigates? Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the supply chain that will support it,  including BAE Systems in Scotland, which will build the ships, and GE Vernova in Rugby, which will supply the hybrid-electric propulsion systems, meaning quality jobs all across our great country? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend reminds us that the effects of the huge contract with Norway to build frigates in this country will be dissipated right through our economy and into constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s across the country. We should be celebrating the international agreements that we have, not going abroad and doing this country down. \p Munira Wilson: I was disappointed that the Leader of the House, when she was celebrating summer moments, did not mention our Lionesses’ amazing victory in defending their European title.

In a less positive moment over the summer, the Metropolitan police announced the closure of Twickenham police station’s front counter as part of plans to close half of London’s police counters and reduce hours at many others. This comes despite Sadiq Khan’s 2024 manifesto commitment to maintain a 24-hour police counter in every borough, and Richmond borough will now be left without one. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the Met police’s funding for the forthcoming year and beyond, especially as the closures come on the back of the slashing of the Royal Parks police and our school police liaison officers? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for reminding me about the brilliant Lionesses’ triumph in the Euros earlier in the summer. I take this opportunity to congratulate them on that.

The hon. Lady raises the important issue of neighbourhood policing. Community policing has been hugely diminished over the last 10 to 15 years, and we are determined to fix it. The nature of how policing is done has changed, but we are providing the funding and the additional police officers for community and neighbourhood policing to flourish in constituencies like hers. \p Julie Minns: Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your very successful ice cream-inspired tour of your constituency during the recess.

I recently met a constituent of mine, Lou, who was part of a group that developed Turning Point and Learning Disability England’s information pack on “Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation”. We know from LeDeR—learning disabilities mortality review—reports and other sources that too many learning disabled and autistic people die with a “do not resuscitate” order in place. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement on the actions that have been taken to ensure that learning disabled people and their families are fully involved in and fully informed of any DNR decision? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend rightly raises a really important issue, which she has explained better than I could, about the challenges of DNRs, particularly for vulnerable people, and I hope that those involved will have listened to her question. I will ensure that she gets a full ministerial response and that the issue is looked at. \p Andrew Snowden: In December 2021, part of the roof of Kirkham baths was blown off during storm conditions, leaving Kirkham and all the surrounding rural areas without access to public baths. Since the operator was unable to fund the repairs, Fylde council has recently stepped in to purchase the baths for £1 and is embarking on a project to refurbish them. I am very grateful that the Leader of the House has agreed to come to Fylde to have an ice cream and look at projects in the St Annes area. I know I would be testing her generosity too far if I invited her to Fylde for a swim together, so could we instead have a debate in Government time on how the £400 million of grassroots funding that the Government have announced can be used to support swimming baths in rural areas? \p Lucy Powell: I am very happy to have an ice cream, but I am not sure that the hon. Member’s constituents are quite ready to see me in a swimming costume just yet. I am pleased to hear that Kirkham baths has been saved and will now be refurbished. That is exactly why we have put the money into grassroots sport, but it is also why we have given local government such a big settlement, because things such as Kirkham baths are so important to our communities. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Apsana Begum. Take your time. \p Apsana Begum: In asking my question, I will update the House on the extraordinary situation that I continue to face in relation to my safety and security. It is just over a year since my ex-husband stood against me at the general election, after he was expelled from the Labour party last year for his treatment of me in a campaign of ongoing post-separation harassment and abuse—excuse me—with his stated aim of exposing who I really was and getting even with me. I continue to endure this on an ongoing basis, alongside the relentless attempts to unjustly remove me as an MP by a clique of his associates, who are still active and are seeking to stand for office at next year’s elections. The impact of all this is devastating and the wall of institutional gaslighting is incredibly chilling.

Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on domestic abuse and public life to enable us to explore the duty of care that should be placed on employers and political parties to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment in their roles, including those of us undertaking public service? I have been working with MPs from all political parties to call for this. Thank you. \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member once again for her bravery and her powerful testimony. I know many of us continue to be appalled by the experiences she has had over a number of years in the campaign brought by her abusive ex-husband and what he has tried to do in undermining her capacity to be an effective Member of Parliament, which she continues to be. I hear her calls today for the steps that need to be taken to ensure that this cannot happen again, and particularly that it cannot happen again to her. We have an elections Bill coming to the House soon, which will look at issues such as the suitability of candidates and their behaviour towards  other candidates, and I am sure there will be ample opportunity for us all to support her in raising some of these issues during the passage of that Bill. \p Wera Hobhouse: May I express my sympathy? No woman in this place will not feel deeply horrified and touched by what we have just heard.

I will not invite the Leader of the House to visit Portals paper mill in my constituency, although she should because it is an amazing company that is 300 years old and manufactures security-grade paper. It produces passports for countries across the world, but absurdly not our own, which are produced by a French company abroad. May we have a statement from the Home Office on the security implications if future contracts do not require primary production and personalisation of UK passports to take place here in the UK? \p Lucy Powell: I think we all remember when the previous Government gave the contract for our passport production to a French company in the post-Brexit era. We all found it rather strange at the time. This Government are committed to buying British and to British procurement, and we will bring forward legislation and other means of ensuring that that can better happen. \p Warinder Juss: Over the summer recess, two older Sikh taxi drivers were attacked outside Wolverhampton train station, one of whom is a constituent of mine. Although I commend British Transport police for making arrests quickly, meeting me and acknowledging that the attacks were racially motivated, many people, including me, were shocked and horrified by the nature of the attacks, which have made the local community feel vulnerable, particularly in light of the far-right rhetoric that has recently been spreading. Will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister so that I can reassure my constituents that the Government treat hate crime with the utmost seriousness and will do all in their power to tackle racial prejudice and discrimination? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that awful case today. As he says, the Government take hate crime incredibly seriously. No one should ever be a victim of hatred because of their race or religion. We need to combat and stand up to rhetoric and campaigns that can make people feel insecure in their communities, and I look forward to working with him to that end. \p Ashley Fox: In December, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the Environment Agency’s failure to adequately dredge Somerset’s rivers and maintain our drainage network. The EA has now announced that it will withdraw entirely from main river maintenance in Somerset. My constituents are concerned that without proper maintenance we may see a repeat of the devastating 2013-14 floods. May I repeat my request to her to find Government time for a debate on the Environment Agency’s failure to fulfil its duties? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue again. It is not the first time that I have heard of problems in the Environment Agency and about its not following through on the commitments that it has  given. I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response, but we are determined that the Environment Agency and others should be held to account for the actions they take, and that they should take more responsibility for prevention. \p Andy McDonald: The passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 into law is a great achievement of the Government’s first year, and the completion of the Employment Rights Bill will be another. As we get into the business of taking the private rail franchises and their employees back into the public sector, it is vital that the transfer of undertakings process fully engages trade unions, fully protects employment rights and, as we bring in private franchises with varying terms, levels those up to a national gold standard. May we have a statement on how the Government are preparing for that transition? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is right to say that bringing rail back into public ownership and our Employment Rights Bill are flagship policies of this Government, and I am particularly proud of them. We will ensure that as we take rail back into public ownership, it is done in the best interests of passengers and ensures that staff are well looked after and do not take industrial action, as they did under the previous Government. \p Ann Davies: Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. After the insolvency of Allied Steel and Wire, money that workers paid into their pension schemes before April 1997 was not fully inflation-proofed through the financial assistance scheme. The previous Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the UK Government legislate to provide pre-1997 indexation. I have tabled two amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill to do exactly that. Can the Leader of the House allow Government time to update the House on actions to rectify that scandal and others, such as the British Coal staff superannuation scheme scandal? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for raising another important issue on behalf of her constituents. That Bill is currently on the Committee corridor; when it returns to this Chamber, she will be able to raise those important matters. In the meantime, I will ensure that she gets a ministerial response. \p Luke Charters: British passenger railway turns 200 this month, so let us give it the proper birthday present it deserves: European rail in the north. Can we have a debate on using disused High Speed 2 land for a Leeds to Lille line, which could transform the visitor economies in Leeds, Manchester, York and beyond? \p Lucy Powell: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming a new dad earlier this summer. I thank him once again for being such a brilliant champion for proper investment in our northern rail and connectivity, which is absolutely vital to the rebirth of our regions. \p Steffan Aquarone: Sea Palling in my constituency has little mobile signal, and its emergency sirens were removed 16 years ago. Ahead of the weekend’s  emergency alert test, I asked the Cabinet Office what it would do for communities such as Sea Palling. We went back and forth three times, and I am really frustrated that the answer was to knock on doors—in a rural, isolated community that is susceptible to rapid tidal flooding. Will the Leader of the House convey to the Cabinet Office the sense from people in Sea Palling that in communities such as theirs, the Government just do not get it? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the response the hon. Gentleman has had. We are working with telecommunications companies to reduce poor mobile signal—particularly in rural areas, which is not an easy task—and we have the shared rural network deal. However, I will ensure that he gets a better ministerial response to his questions. \p Gareth Snell: My constituents—like yours, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker—want to have ready access to cash and banking facilities, but when the Lloyds bank in Stoke town closes its doors later this year, the town will have no banking facilities. The Link assessment has determined that the three sub-post offices just under a mile from the town centre are sufficient to provide services. May we have a debate in Government time, or a statement from the relevant Minister, on the criteria for access to banking hubs so that, as the Government roll out more, we can ensure that they hit urban communities as well as rural ones? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which is raised with me all the time in business questions. I know that there is nothing more concerning to a local community than the closure of a bank or post office on the high street or in the town centre, knowing what that will mean for accessing cash. I will ensure that my she gets a full response about the roll-out of banking hubs. \p Christine Jardine: Over the summer, a constituent who is a mortgage adviser came to me with concerns about so-called conditional selling by estate agents, where prospective home buyers feel pressurised to take the estate agent’s in-house mortgage rather than risk losing out on a house. This practice breaches the Estate Agents Act 1979. It has been raised in investigations by the Financial Times and “Panorama”, which suggested that the practice is common. Could the Leader of the House point me to the Minister responsible so that we can have a discussion? Perhaps we could have a debate on this matter in Government time. \p Lucy Powell: I will certainly ensure that the hon. Lady gets a discussion with the relevant Minister on the issue of conditional selling, which sounds like something that should concern us all. \p Calvin Bailey: This Labour Government have committed £13 million to tackling food poverty, supported by an expansion of free school meals and a drive to get fresh produce from farms to families’ tables. After 14 years of Tory economic failure, too many families are still struggling and food banks remain indispensable. In Leyton and Wanstead, a  much-loved food bank, PL84U, recently faced eviction, but thanks to the swift action of Waltham Forest council, especially Councillors Grace Williams and Ahsan Khan, it has a new home—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) will be pleased to invite the Leader of the House to visit Saira and her team. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we support food banks and community aid to secure premises while this Government get on with the work to tackle the Tory failures that mean they must remain? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We need much shorter questions, please. \p Lucy Powell: Food poverty remains a huge blight on our country. This Government are absolutely committed to tackling it, which is why we have extended free breakfast clubs and introduced this huge expansion in free school meals, which is something I am sure we can all be proud of. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. \p Shockat Adam: In the month of August alone, across our country mosques as well as women, children and families have been subjected to unacceptable levels of Islamophobic abuse and attacks—from a young Muslim mother with her young child being abused in a park in Yorkshire for simply wearing a niqab, to a young autistic man in Manchester being threatened to have his throat slit and told to go to his mosque. Does the Leader of the House agree that some language and rhetoric used by some Members both in this Chamber and in some media outlets fuel this hatred on the streets? Given the ever-increasing number of attacks, will she remind Members of our responsibility in our use of language, and will she urge the Government to expediate the ongoing consultation and urgently adopt a robust definition of Islamophobia? \p Lucy Powell: The rise in Islamophobia, which we have all seen in our constituencies—I know I have seen it in mine—is absolutely unacceptable. Hate crime itself is unacceptable, and we need to call it out and root it out. We have the independent working group, which is soon to advise Ministers on the definition of Islamophobia, and we have a wider action plan to tackle the issues. The hon. Member is right to say that we should all be mindful of the language we use and the impact it might have. \p Melanie Ward: At the peak of summer this year, at the height of tourism season, beaches in Kinghorn and Burntisland were closed because sewage spills made the water unsafe to enter. My constituents have been let down by the SNP Government’s failure to invest in our sewerage network and by publicly owned Scottish Water, whose chief executive said—astonishingly—that concerns should not be overblown. Does the Leader of the House agree that clean water is the least that the people of Fife deserve, and will she make time for a debate on this subject? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear that the beaches in the hon. Member’s constituency have been closed. It is unacceptable that sewage has been flowing into the sea around her constituency. As she says, the Scottish  Government are responsible for Scottish Water. They should get their act together and follow what we have been doing in England. \p Vikki Slade: Yet again this summer the stunning Dorset heathlands in my constituency were devastated by a fire at Holt Heath. The National Fire Chiefs Council said that before this and the devastating North York moors fire, this year’s numbers were 668% higher than last year, and 33% higher than the highest year. I have written to all 17 fire services that came to our aid. We cannot carry on like this, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on emergency resilience against climate-related crises? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member is right to highlight that, as the climate changes rapidly, unfortunately we are going to see more wildfires in the summer and more flooding in the winter. We are funding a national resilience wildfire adviser and looking at how we can work with stakeholders and everybody else to tackle this issue and build our resilience. \p Dave Robertson: For 16 years, people in Burntwood in my constituency have had to visit their GP in portacabins in the car park of a leisure centre. The site was closed in March 2024, but there was no replacement and 5,000 patients were distributed to other surgeries. No one agreed with that decision, but we were told that all would be well because the Conservative-controlled county council would have a replacement built and ready to operate by the end of this year. That council failed, and now the Reform-controlled county council is failing too. It has not even submitted a planning application, and there is no chance that it will keep its promise to the people of Burntwood and open the centre this year. Will you join me in telling that council to get their thumb out and get this done? \p Nusrat Ghani: No, I will not be joining you. Obviously you mean the Leader of the House. \p Lucy Powell: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in telling Staffordshire county council—which I hear a lot of complaints about in business questions, I have to say—to get its act together and get this new GP surgery open so it can serve his constituents. \p Helen Morgan: The people of Whitchurch in my constituency will be quite pleased to see the response to my written question regarding the Access for All railway fund, which shows that £280 million has been allocated for the spending review period, but they will be really keen to know when we are getting step-free access at Whitchurch station. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport to outline how this money will be spent and, critically, where and when? If the Leader of the House would like to come to Whitchurch from her own constituency, she could experience the footbridge and lack of step-free access herself. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of step-free access at her local station—this issue is raised with me all the time at business questions. I am  sure that a debate on the topic would be very well subscribed, if she wanted one, but I will ensure that she gets a ministerial response. I am pleased to hear about her written question. \p Baggy Shanker: It was fantastic to see Derby buzzing over the summer when over three days 40,000 visitors were in the city visiting The Greatest Gathering as we brought together the world’s largest ever collection of historical and modern rolling stock. Will my right hon. Friend join me in acknowledging the huge effort made by volunteers not just from Derby but from all over the UK to pull off that spectacular event? Does she agree that, with the arrival of Great British Railways’ headquarters in Derby, we can build on this great heritage and look for a bright future in rail manufacturing? \p Lucy Powell: It might not be quite an Oasis concert, but I am sure that the railway gathering in Derby that my hon. Friend describes was a fantastic event to champion the rail industry in his constituency. I am really pleased that Great British Railways will be based in Derby so that we can continue to provide the jobs of the future. \p Charlotte Cane: Last Sunday I visited the River Snail, a chalk stream in my constituency, and was horrified to see not a river but a dried and cracked river bed. Our chalk streams, which are a really important part of our biodiversity, are under increasing threat from climate change. Could the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on how we will protect our precious chalk streams? \p Lucy Powell: I know how important chalk streams are to our biodiversity and to many of our rural communities. We will bring forward further plans about how we can secure our waterways in all their forms, and I will ensure that the hon. Member gets an update from the relevant Minister. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: Whether they are about the much needed eastern link road, the rail link to Milton Keynes or the many traffic hotspots, so many of the conversations I have with my residents come back to the same issue of our poor infrastructure and the impact it has on people’s quality of life. The Government’s announcement this week of £1.4 million of investment into transport funding for Buckinghamshire is therefore hugely welcome, opening up the potential to decrease congestion, improve pedestrian safety and much more. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming that funding? Will she urge Buckinghamshire council to use it to give Aylesbury the boost we need? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that extra funding for Buckinghamshire and in her calls for the council to use it wisely to decrease congestion and support commuters in her constituency. \p Claire Young: During recess, at an event to promote the new Avon and Somerset victim service, concerns were raised with me about the delay in publishing a new hate crime action plan for  England and Wales to replace the one that expired in 2020. Will the Leader of the House tell us when a new plan will be published? If not, will she agree to raise that with the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention as a matter of urgency? \p Lucy Powell: We are determined to tackle all forms of hatred and division and to take action on hate crime. It has been a topic for much discussion in our Crime and Policing Bill, but I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a ministerial response about the timeliness of the new action plan. \p Tracy Gilbert: Over the summer recess, I met the Shore collective: a group of hospitality businesses in my constituency that have come together—it includes Tapa, which recently won the best local restaurant award in The Scotsman’s 2025 scran awards. Many businesses like Tapa are struggling with rising energy and raw ingredient costs. Will the Leader of the House join me in going to Tapa—obviously—and congratulating it? Will she outline what work Ministers are doing together across the Government to support such businesses? \p Lucy Powell: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating that collective in her constituency, and I am always happy to get an invitation to a hospitality venue. I am well aware of the challenges for the hospitality sector relating to rising costs, access to staff, still dealing with covid repayments and so on. That is why the Government are supporting hospitality by taking action on business rates and on skills as well as in many other ways. I am sure that would make a good topic for a debate. \p Tessa Munt: The Environment Agency has issued notice of its permanent withdrawal from main river maintenance to riparian owners in Somerset and North Somerset. The Leader of the House and Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will recall the devastation caused by flooding in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Regular maintenance is essential to allow floodwater to escape from what is a man-made landscape in the Somerset levels and moors. Will she ask the DEFRA Secretary to insist that the Environment Agency rescinds its withdrawal notices until such a time as locally all the flood risk management groups, the internal drainage board, the South West Association of Drainage Authorities and every interested party has a chance at least to meet, discuss and plan a sustainable and funded solution for the future, and that, importantly, it carries on maintaining the main rivers in the meantime? Winter is coming, and rainfall with it. \p Lucy Powell: This is about the third complaint about the Environment Agency in today’s session, so perhaps colleagues should get together to try and get a broader debate on those issues. We have announced the largest programme on flooding in history, and we have our flood resilience taskforce, but the hon. Lady is right to say that all partners need to play their part. I will ensure she receives a proper response. \p Emma Foody: Over the course of the summer, like many in the House, I have had a chance to meet so many of the  volunteers across my constituency, from organisations such as North Tyneside Disability Forum, Seghill Food Hub, Rape Crisis Tyneside and Northumberland, Age UK and Forward Assist, every one of them improving and changing lives every single day. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking them, and may we have a debate in Government time to recognise the importance of volunteers and the difference that they make? \p Lucy Powell: I know how busy my hon. Friend has been over the recess, meeting many of her constituents and celebrating the volunteers and the communities that she represents. I join her in doing that this morning. \p Ben Maguire: Over the summer, elderly and frail constituents in villages across my North Cornwall constituency raised with me how difficult it is to travel to their nearest district hospital. They rely on infrequent public transport and can face journeys of more than three hours to Treliske, three and a half hours to Derriford and up to six hours to Barnstaple hospital. Will the Leader of the House please commit to a debate in Government time on establishing more district hospitals in areas, such as Bodmin, that really need them? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue about not only health services and where they are located, but access in constituencies such as his to affordable and reliable buses and transportation. This Government are tackling both of those after years of devastation in our health services and our buses. After 14 years of the Conservatives, I hope that his constituents will start to feel the benefit soon. \p Luke Myer: I pay tribute to the firefighters, farmers, volunteers and all the businesses, such as Woodsmith, that have come together to tackle the fires in North Yorkshire. Will the Leader of the House join me in giving thanks to everyone who has come out to tackle those blazes? What support can be provided to those who have come together to do so? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who have come together to tackle the wildfires in Yorkshire that we have all been hearing about. As our climate changes every day, we will see more wildfires and more flooding. That is why we have set up the national resilience wildfire adviser and will take further steps on that. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in the coming months. \p Clive Jones: Recently, I have had meetings with AI technology companies and medical professionals, seeing how AI can help speed up cancer diagnosis and make the NHS workforce much more efficient, ultimately saving lives. However, hospital systems and staff are not yet ready to start utilising new AI systems in diagnostics, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time so we can discuss a framework that hospital managers can adopt to implement AI diagnosis effectively and help save lives? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the huge opportunity that AI and technology present, especially in terms of diagnostics and healthcare services.  He is also right to highlight that the real challenge to that is adoption and diffusion through our health system. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is committed to delivering that by working across Government, and I am sure he will continue to keep the House updated. \p Christopher Bloore: I recently met Vicki Quarton from Touchstones child bereavement services in Cookhill in my constituency and heard about the incredible work that she and her team are doing to support young people who have lost a loved one—often a parent. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that local groups such as Touchstones get the support they need to continue to help children affected by loss, especially when so many fall victim to violence against women and girls? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Touchstones and all its work for bereaved children and especially those who are bereaved due to domestic violence. Its work is vital in supporting children through probably the most difficult time of their lives and I thank him for raising that. \p Tom Gordon: I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One of the issues concerning me is what scrutiny and accountability the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s new code of practice and guidance will have from this House. My understanding is that it will be laid before the House as a negative statutory instrument, meaning that unless the Leader of the Opposition pushes for time and scrutiny, there may be none. Will the Leader of the House outline what opportunities Members will get to scrutinise that guidance when it is published? \p Lucy Powell: I know the new guidance from the EHRC is of great interest to many Members across this House; it is something that I get many emails and correspondence about myself. A parliamentary process will sit alongside that, but I will absolutely ensure that there is appropriate time to debate and discuss these issues, which I know are important to the House. \p Gordon McKee: Local community councillors in Cathcart have long campaigned for step-free access to Cathcart train station. I welcome the investment in the spending review, but I would like to see some of that money come to Cathcart station. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on train station accessibility, and would she help facilitate a meeting with the Minister? \p Lucy Powell: Train station accessibility is an important issue to many Members. I am sure that if he joins together with some of the Opposition Members who have raised that issue with me today, it would attract the interest of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). \p Jim Shannon: I wish to raise concerning reports of an increase in Taliban crackdowns on women in Afghanistan. Those include widespread instances of violent beatings, arbitrary arrests for so-called non-compliance with extreme dress codes, total bans on  women’s education and the forced closure of women- led businesses. Will the Leader of the House urge the Minister responsible to make a statement outlining what concrete steps the Government are taking to ensure the lifting of restrictions on Afghan women and girls and their human rights? \p Lucy Powell: I welcome back the hon. Gentleman after the recess. He has not missed one of my business questions. I noticed that he has spoken the most in Parliament of any Member—apart from me, actually. I now have a new title, which is that I have spoken more than the hon. Member for Strangford—long may that continue. He raises an important issue around the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan, and this Government continue to condemn the appalling actions there. We will do all we can to ensure that our views are heard. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Churches across the country are struggling to manage their estates, with many buildings going up for sale. Last Sunday, I attended a service of union, with the Bo’ness Old Kirk and St Andrew’s parish church uniting to form the new Bo’ness parish church. While there can be sadness at leaving a church behind, there is much hope and faith as the parishioners move forward together. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the congregation and the ministers, wishing them the very best in this new chapter? \p Lucy Powell: I know how hard it is for people to see churches go in their area and to transition to going to a new church. She raises an important issue, and I will ensure that she gets a response. \p Sonia Kumar: The Sycamore adventure centre in Upper Gornal has been a lifeline for children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, for over 15 years. Yet despite pledging funding for it for five years in April in a public Q&A, the Conservative-led council is now forcing it to be privatised, with uncapped entry costs, reduced play areas and hours, and no proper consultation. Children face losing vital access to this centre. Does the Leader of the House share my outrage and will she grant time for a debate on protecting community assets? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of the action of her Conservative council in her area in relation to the Sycamore adventure centre. We had the Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill this week, and we will give more local communities like hers the power to take over such provision as she describes. \p Paul Foster: Last month, I joined the staff and students of Worden academy in Leyland as the GCSE results were announced. Ten years ago, that school faced a challenging future. This year, it just delivered its best ever set of GCSE results, giving those young people the best possible start in life. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending our heartfelt congratulations to the headmaster Mr Alan Hammersley, the chair of governors Mrs Maureen Woodall, and all its staff and students? They should be supremely proud of what they have all achieved. \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who got their GCSE results this summer, in his constituency and around the country, on all their hard work, particularly those at Worden academy. The headteacher and leadership team there have turned that school around and are getting fantastic results this year. \p Johanna Baxter: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Rabi Maharajan and his team at Dé Buddha restaurant in my constituency on their incredible achievement of “best dining experience” at the Scottish hospitality awards? I urge Members across the House to come and sample the excellent Nepalese cuisine at Dé Buddha in Johnstone. \p Lucy Powell: Dé Buddha sounds like a fantastic restaurant. I congratulate its staff on winning the “best dining experience” award. Maybe an invitation will follow. \p Andy MacNae: As the Leader of the House well knows, Rossendale is the only local authority area in the north without a commuter rail link. Rossendale council’s city-to-valley proposal would have finally addressed that by linking us up with Manchester. The idea was repeatedly shot down by the previous Government, but this Government’s increased regional transport fund means that we finally have a chance to get a fair hearing. However, challenges remain in getting the project delivered into the investment pipeline, particularly as it crosses local authority borders. Will she agree to a debate on how we can get vital projects such as Rossendale’s city-to-valley rail over the line? \p Lucy Powell: As ever, my hon. Friend raises the issue of connectivity and transport in his Rossendale and Darwen constituency. As a nearby MP, I know all too well the real need for a rail link between Rossendale, Darwen and Manchester, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that this Labour Government deliver on that. \p David Williams: Kidsgrove post office has been closed for over six months now, and residents have been left without vital services. The Post Office will not tell residents why it was closed so suddenly or when it may reopen. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Post Office must be more open with residents about what is happening? This has been going on for far too long. \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in that call. When post offices close, especially at short notice, it causes huge consternation in local communities. I call on him and other Members of Parliament to stand up against the Post Office on those decisions and get the best for their constituents. \p Andrew Pakes: I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House enjoys a tipple on occasion, so she will be pleased to know that the 46th Peterborough beer festival, which is entirely run by volunteers, was held last month. Over 21,000 visitors came to the festival this year, and over 58,000 pints of cask ale were served. I was pleased that Green Devil, by our very own Oakham Ales, was crowned the Campaign for Real Ale beer of the festival. Will she join me in  thanking Mike Lane for organising his 39th beer festival in the city, as well as all the other volunteers, and will she make time in the House for a debate on the importance of volunteers to such community festivals? \p Lucy Powell: In the interests of setting the record straight, I must say to the House that I am a complete lightweight these days and much prefer zero-alcohol beer over anything else. I am sure that there were some fantastic zero beers at the festival in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I join him in congratulating Mike Lane and all the others on serving 58,000 pints there. \p Shaun Davies: Over the summer, hundreds of Telford residents joined me in demanding that the Conservative police and crime commissioner scrap his 8 pm cap on police community support officers patrolling the streets of Telford. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the importance of neighbourhood policing so that we can send the commissioner a clear message: “The Government are providing you with money for community policing, so you should keep police officers and PCSOs on the streets of Telford”? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in that call. We want more neighbourhood police officers patrolling our streets, particularly at the times of day when crime is most likely to be committed and people want to feel safe. \p Tom Hayes: I recently met grassroots football teams, including King Park Dynamos, Generation Elite Academy, Queens Park ladies and the AFC Bournemouth community sports trust Minikickers. They want more football pitches in Bournemouth, and Kings park would be the perfect place, but the athletics track needs fixing, the master plan updating and the playground enhancing, and Kings park nursery should be brought into use again. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on access to grassroots sport? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in saying that Bournemouth needs more football pitches. That is why we are investing more in grassroots sport and have given more money to local government. It is vital that those sorts of facilities are there for communities and young people to keep healthy and fit. \p Anneliese Midgley: A book by investigative journalist Nick Davies is out today. It reveals the true scale of the deletion of millions of emails and evidence essential to Parliament, the police and the courts in uncovering the truth about phone hacking by Rupert Murdoch employees. Might we have a debate on the reality of two-tier justice—cover-up, corruption and contempt of law—in which oligarchs place themselves above scrutiny? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I am aware that that book is out today, but I have not had a chance to look at it. I am clear that Parliament needs to play its role in scrutinising those types of institutions, and any attempt to silence Members of Parliament is completely unacceptable. I look forward to working with her and other Members on taking that forward. \p Samantha Niblett: Residents of Overseal in my constituency woke up over the August bank holiday weekend to find a Traveller site being constructed behind their homes without planning permission and with complete disregard for due process, ignoring a stop order that had been secured by local councillor Amy Wheelton and officers of the council. That presents Derbyshire district council with a potentially costly and lengthy legal process, and denies local people any opportunity for consultation and comment. A member of my team has met residents, and I will meet them this weekend at my earliest opportunity. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the measures that we can take in this place to help constituents such as mine? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of the trouble that my hon. Friend is having in her constituency and of the challenges in supporting her council and police to take action. We keep powers under constant review to ensure they are effective in tackling unauthorised encampments. I will keep her updated on that. \p Euan Stainbank: Blooming Bairns, a group of community volunteers committed to seeing Falkirk town centre flourish, have put in a marathon effort in service of our community. Their planting on Newmarket Street, Vicar Street and the High Street has breathed new life into our town centre. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Blooming Bairns for their 1,900-plus hours of community volunteering and congratulate them on their recent one-year anniversary? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Blooming Bairns on their community work over the past year. \p Jonathan Brash: Yesterday the Tory Mayor of Tees Valley took to social media to claim falsely that Venator, a brilliant company operating in my constituency, had gone into administration, and that UK tax policy was to blame. I spoke to the company yesterday afternoon, and it made it clear that that is not true. The UK operation is solvent and healthy, and nothing that is happening to its international holding company has anything to do with UK tax policy. It is a strong and successful company, and we must work to secure its long-term future. These are people’s jobs; these are people’s lives. My constituents are not political footballs for Ben Houchen to kick around. Will the Leader of the House join me in correcting the record, offering our support to that brilliant Hartlepool company and its workforce, and encouraging the Mayor of Tees Valley to stop playing politics, grow up and apologise? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear that false claims have been made on social media. My hon. Friend has just outlined how irresponsible that can be and the devastating impact that it can have on jobs and investment in constituencies such as his. I am sure that Mayor Houchen has heard his question and will rectify the situation. \p Louise Jones: Having recently married—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!]— I have elected to change my surname. Despite having been warned in advance, I am horrified by the sheer number of bodies, organisations, Departments and agencies that I need to inform. Will the Leader of the House  update us on whether any consideration of digital ID will include making it far easier for people in my position, or who have changed their surname for other reasons, to do so quickly and easily? \p Lucy Powell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her marriage over recess. She looked absolutely beautiful and incredibly happy on her wedding day. I am sorry to hear of the multifaceted challenge that she faces in changing her name everywhere. I am sure that, were it to be developed, digital ID would address some of those issues. I am happy to ensure that those issues are looked into. \p Alison Hume: Firefighters tackling the huge blaze on the North York Moors faced incredibly difficult conditions, including exploding munitions from an old tank training base near RAF Fylingdales. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the bravery and service of North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service and thank other fire services across the country who are supporting us through national resilience? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. We all heard about the incident in my hon. Friend’s constituency and join her in thanking all those who worked with the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service and the volunteers who helped to get the situation under control for the bravery they showed. I think we do need more of a debate about future resilience in terms of wildfires. \p Sam Carling: In January, the sewer on Church Street in Northborough, a village in my constituency, collapsed. After several attempts by Anglian Water, it still has not been fixed eight months later. This means a risk of contamination, and because of road closures, it is causing huge potholes on surrounding roads. Householders on Church Street are even reporting cracks in their homes. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate in Parliament on significant infrastructure damage by water companies and the impact that that has on residents? \p Lucy Powell: Anglian Water needs to sort out the situation with the sewer in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I will raise that for him with Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. \p Lillian Jones: The SNP Government have awarded public contracts to China, Turkey and Poland to build Scottish ferries and buses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP Government should accept the offer from the UK Government to rewrite Scottish procurement rules—as they have previously in a range of other areas, including regulation around the sale of vapes and keeping ScotRail in public hands—and that those changes should get on to the statute book as soon as possible, to stop the disadvantaging of local firms, boost the Scottish economy and protect thousands of Scottish jobs? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. We are taking steps in England to ensure that local communities have more of a say over their local area—we invest in our high streets and local communities—and I implore the Scottish Government to do the same in Scotland. \p Chris Hinchliff: The current drafting of national planning policy is allowing developers to ride roughshod over local democracy, imposing completely inappropriate bolt-on estates to market towns such as Buntingford and Royston, while wholly failing to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need. It is difficult to imagine a system and state of affairs more likely to erode public support for the Government’s house building ambitions. Can we have a debate in Government time to ensure the presumption in favour of sustainable development achieves what it is intended to, rather than the current farce? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. We are unashamedly pro house building as a Government, but as he says, that does not mean we are pro developers getting away with poor developments. That is why communities need to continue to have a say in what they are doing. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in the House of Lords at the moment and will come back to this place soon for further debate. \p Claire Hughes: Wales’s oldest city, Bangor, celebrates its 1,500th anniversary this year. I would like to invite everyone to the Bangor day that I am holding in Parliament next week, to meet some of the people shaping the future of that amazing city; and I hope the Leader of the House will consider popping in for five minutes after business questions. \p Lucy Powell: There is no better champion for Bangor than my hon. Friend. It is a fantastic Welsh city. It is almost a Cinderella—a forgotten but brilliant city with huge potential and a great history. I would be delighted to pop along there sometime soon. \p Julia Buckley: In Shrewsbury, we are delighted to see the extra Government investment in our local police force, which has enabled us to reopen our town centre police hub this week. It is essential to keep our town centre safe and reduce response times. Can we have a debate on how important it is to have police hubs in the town centre in places like Shrewsbury? \p Lucy Powell: I am really pleased to hear that the police hub in Shrewsbury has reopened. That is exactly the kind of action we want to see. That is why we are investing so heavily in neighbourhood policing and we have our neighbourhood policing guarantee, and I look forward to hearing more about it in the future. \p Phil Brickell: My constituents in Horwich are gravely concerned about unsuitable family homes being repurposed into houses in multiple occupation with little transparency about who is being housed there and when. To my immense frustration as the local Member of Parliament, I often hear about such proposals on social media, which all too often runs rife with false information. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for a debate on why companies such as Serco do not proactively tell Members of this House where individuals, including asylum seekers, are being placed, so that instead of conjecture, the truth can prevail. \p Lucy Powell: I know it is of great concern to many Members across the House when they see properties becoming HMOs and they do not have any recourse over that, particularly where they see Government agencies such as Serco going in and undermining the needs of local communities. We are looking at this, and I will ensure the House is kept updated. \p Mark Sewards: Cody Townend and Zoe Ward are two mums from Leeds who tragically lost babies in different circumstances. Cody lost Macie-Mae earlier this year, and Zoe lost Bleu four years ago. They both went to the same funeral director who, to their horror, kept their babies’ bodies in her private home without their consent and did not treat them with the respect and dignity they deserved. The BBC revealed more shocking details about this case last week, which I will not repeat now. Given that the police found nothing actionable in either case because there is no regulation of the funeral industry, meaning that anyone—anyone—can be a funeral director, will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate in Government time on the need to regulate the funeral industry, so that no one has to experience what Cody and Zoe did ever again? \p Lucy Powell: This is a truly shocking case, and my thoughts are with Cody, Zoe and the many others who have experienced truly appalling actions like this. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the regulation of funeral directors; we have seen a number of shocking cases in recent months. I will ensure he gets a ministerial response, but I think this would make an incredibly important and powerful debate in this House. \p Josh Dean: I am wearing a ribbon to commemorate the life of Norma Symonds, a former Conservative councillor and town mayor of Bishop’s Stortford. Determined, courageous and kind, Norma dedicated her life to supporting those who needed help and serving our community, giving a voice to the voiceless. She set an example to the rest of us that, beyond parties and politics, what matters most is helping others. Will the Leader of the House, and indeed the whole House, join me in paying tribute to the life of a remarkable woman and sending best wishes to her family, friends and colleagues? \p Lucy Powell: What a powerful testimony that my hon. Friend has chosen to raise Norma Symonds, who was a former Conservative councillor in his constituency. She sounds like a remarkable woman, and I thank him for taking the opportunity to raise that today. \p Joe Morris: Next Saturday, Kielder is hosting the 75th annual leek show in the Kielder Tavern. We are all familiar with leaks in this place, but will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the stellar effort of the Kielder community, and can we have a debate in Government time on community initiatives—particularly in rural areas—which contribute so much to the culture of Northumberland and other rural counties? \p Lucy Powell: As ever, my hon. Friend raises important activities happening in his constituency. He is a powerful advocate for community empowerment in his constituency. I join him in thanking those behind such initiatives, which we will have ample opportunity to discuss in the coming months. \p Frank McNally: The infected blood scandal has had a devastating impact on families across the country, including my 82-year-old constituent Jean Campbell, who tragically lost her much-loved husband. Spouses who have lost those dearest to them have also, in many cases, lived restricted lives, yet they are still having to fight for compensation. I greatly welcome the announcement in July, but can my right hon. Friend secure time for a statement or debate, to provide reassurance to those like Jean that they will not have to wait years for compensation, particularly given the age of some of the victims of this scandal? \p Lucy Powell: The victims of this scandal, like Jean, have suffered terribly for many years, as my hon. Friend describes. I am sure he will agree that no amount of compensation can make up for that, but that is not to say we should not continue, as this Government have, to ensure compensation is delivered swiftly, fairly and substantively to people like Jean. He will be aware that the Minister for the Cabinet Office updated the House in July. He has been very forthcoming with his updates to the House, and I will make sure my hon. Friend and other colleagues are kept updated on this matter. \p Stephen Morgan: With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on this Government’s vital work to give every child the best start in life.

Within months of taking office we published our plan for change, a promise to improve the lives of working people and break down barriers to opportunity for people in this country. That plan set a target that a record proportion of children will start school ready to learn. Why? Because the foundations of the stronger society that we want to build must be laid down from the very beginning of children’s lives. In July, we published our “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, setting out how we will achieve that target, and the Government’s vision for the future of the early education and childcare sector.

We have heard the calls of families and providers. Education begins long before primary school, and this step change will give our children the focus and priorities that they deserve during their critical early years. We will help our youngest children by increasing the availability of childcare, improving the quality of early education and boosting support for families, building on the best of Sure Start by rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority in England. Taken together, those three approaches will make the difference to families and set up children for success in education and in life. It is yet another example of this Government working, with promises made, and promises kept.

We promised to make childcare more affordable for parents and more accessible across the country. Today we are delivering on that promise, with hundreds of thousands of parents now getting 30 hours of funded childcare each week, from when their child turns nine months until they start school. For too long, families have struggled to get childcare places that match their individual needs, and provision has been either unavailable or unaffordable. The least well-off parts of our country often have far fewer childcare places per person than the most affluent, but wide provision of high-quality childcare and early education makes a huge difference to many lives. It helps parents by giving them the flexibility to balance work and family life, and it helps businesses and the economy by helping parents return to work and growing the childcare sector and employment.

This marks a fundamental shift in how we support families right from the start: reducing costs, increasing choice, and helping parents to balance work with family. Those making full use of the offer will save, on average, around £7,500 a year. For Victoria in Gloucester, the 30 hours is helping her to balance being a single mother and an educator. She works five days a week, and the extended Government-funded childcare hours will save her around £600 a month. They also mean that she can continue her career. As Victoria says:

“This roll-out is a significant step forward in women’s rights and workplace participation.”

We are on track to reach over half a million children who will benefit from the scheme this term, already exceeding initial estimates for delivery, and the roll-out is a major step forward in our ambition to give every child the best start in life. We know that that ambition is  shared by our brilliant and dedicated early years and childminder staff who work hard day in, day out to make it possible for families. Private, voluntary and independent nurseries, as well as childminders, have helped the Government to reach this important milestone, and they have grown their capacity in response to increased demand for childcare places. More providers are delivering the entitlements, with the number up by 5,800 private providers.

The sector plays a vital role in supporting families and nurturing young children, so we must ensure that its provision is available where it is most needed. That is why we are also delivering tens of thousands more childcare places via new and expanded school-based nurseries. Schools have reported that 110 nurseries from phase 1 of the programme opened this week at the start of term, and they are providing 2,500 places for families in parts of the country where provision is needed. Those nurseries join a diverse childcare market that offers families different choices to meet their needs. School-based nurseries can strengthen ties between parents and schools, and ease the transition into reception. For families with children of different ages, they offer easier drop-offs and pick-ups. School-based nurseries also play a key role in inclusion by caring for proportionally more young children with special educational needs and operating in disadvantaged areas. We have already funded around 300 new and expanded school-based nurseries, and thanks to the hard work of schools, they are on track to deliver up to 6,000 new nursery places.

We are laying the foundations of success for tens of thousands of young children, and today I am proud to tell the House that we are launching phase 2 of the school-based nurseries programme. Backed by £45 million, it will deliver 300 more new or expanded school-based nurseries. It will focus on disadvantaged areas where places are needed, and where they can make a big impact. We will build on the success of the first phase of the programme, and as before, schools can apply to establish new nurseries in partnership with private, voluntary and independent providers and childminders.

Last week I had the pleasure of visiting Cinnamon Brow Church of England primary school in Warrington. It had collaborated with an existing local private nursery to refurbish an unused mobile unit, creating a new nursery on the school site. I was so pleased and impressed by the partnership between everyone involved. It is a great example of how schools can work with established nurseries to expand childcare provision and break down barriers to opportunity.

The programme is already making a difference to families in 66 local authorities, and we are looking ahead to further grow provision for future generations. Phase 3 of the school-based nurseries programme will launch in early 2026, and will focus on meeting the long-term needs of local communities. Local authorities will be invited to develop multi-year funding proposals, in collaboration with schools and childcare providers. Backed by over £400 million, the programme will deliver on our manifesto commitment to parents of more places in school-based nurseries, and more affordable childcare for parents.

Families know that childcare needs do not stop when children start school. That is why we recently extended the holiday activities and food programme, investing over £600 million in young people’s futures. The programme  provides nutritious meals and enriching activities for children from lower-income households, it helps to close the development gap between those children and their peers, and it eases the financial pressure on parents during the school holidays. The holiday activities and food programme has already reached half a million children in the past year, and during that time it has saved families over £300 each. It is another part of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity, so that every child can get the best start in life.

Our “best start in life” strategy sets out how we will support this country’s children to thrive as they grow up. Alongside the £9 billion that this Government will be investing in early years, we will spend nearly £1.5 billion over the next three years to strengthen the childcare sector and revitalise family services. By expanding funded childcare and growing provision where it is needed via school-based nurseries, more children will arrive in reception ready to learn and succeed in education. The measures I have set out today reflect this Government’s deep commitment to ensuring that every family can access high-quality childcare and early education, and that all children can reach a good level of development and start school ready to learn. That will help families to save money, earn more and give children the best possible start in life. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Education Minister. \p Saqib Bhatti: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and it is a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box for the very first time as shadow Education Minister.

Education is the greatest enabler of success and opportunity in this country. All Members of the House regularly visit our local schools, colleges and universities, and we see at first hand the power of a good education. Britain has some exceptionally talented young people. I look forward to working constructively with the Minister to help drive up educational standards across the country, so that those young people can get the very best start in life. Of course, when we were in government, we were ranked fourth in the world for reading, and top in the western world for maths.

It is fantastic news that, from this week, parents will benefit from 30 hours of funded childcare a week for children aged from nine months to four years. I am proud that this Conservative plan—our policy—is having its final roll-out to provide childcare for working parents, which is what they need and deserve. This Conservative policy will save parents £7,500 a year per child. I also welcome the extension of the holiday activities and food programme, after its long-term future has remained unclear for many months.

It is fantastic to see how enthusiastic the Education Minister is about the plan. I remind the House that only two years ago when we announced our childcare policies—the policies that are having their final roll-out announced now—the Secretary of State for Education herself labelled our childcare plans “broken” and a “total mess”. Only one year ago, she refused to commit to rolling out our childcare plan altogether, so I am grateful for the change  of heart and that she has put party politics aside to deliver the support that working parents need. Our children should always come first.

We welcome the expansion of childcare, but the announcements mean little when the industry itself is crumbling as a result of the actions taken by this Labour Government, most notably the damaging jobs tax. Earlier this week, 27 leading organisations representing children, parents and childcare providers wrote to the Education Secretary calling for urgent action following the hike in national insurance contributions. Without such action, the sector has warned that it will not be able to provide the final roll-out of childcare, with one in 10 childcare providers saying that they will face closure within the next two years without help, leaving the sector at risk of collapse.

The Early Education and Childcare Coalition stated that the hike in national insurance has created a “perfect storm”, leaving many providers in a position where offering childcare is simply unviable. Instead of listening to the experts and organisations tasked with looking after our children, the Department’s shameful response was to label the claims as lies and “utter nonsense”. How disrespectful to parents, children and the childcare sector. What is utter nonsense is the fact that the Minister expects childcare providers to absorb the national insurance increases without the financial support needed, while keeping fees the same. We need to be clear: it is not just the sector that will be punished because of the Minister’s lack of coherent planning; hard-working parents and their children across the country will suffer too.

Will the Minister outline what engagement he has had with the sector to ensure that providers are not forced to shut their doors or reduce the hours they provide? Will he finally admit how damaging the jobs tax has been to the childcare sector, and what the impact and costs will be? Will he update the House on the impact of the jobs tax on childcare provision, and how he will continue to monitor its impact?

On the detail of the Minister’s announcement, will he clarify how the Department is identifying the most disadvantaged areas, and how he plans to make the biggest impact? Will he put parents up and down the country at ease and confirm that the Chancellor will not fill her £50 billion black hole with the education budget? While we welcome the expansion of childcare, the reality is that Labour’s decisions are making childcare less accessible and more expensive.

The Education Secretary says she is standing up for hard-working parents, but they are the ones who will suffer as a result of this Labour Government—our children will suffer, too. It is time for her to stop making broken promises and to ensure that early years provision is her No. 1 priority. \p Stephen Morgan: I start by welcoming the shadow Minister to his place on the Opposition Front Bench, but it is shocking that even now the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to recognise the significance of Labour’s childcare expansion, nor can they celebrate the new school-based nurseries that make more affordable childcare places available across the country. Despite the Conservatives’ scaremongering, nine in 10 parents have one of their first choice childcare places. This Labour Government inherited a pledge without a plan  but, once again, we are delivering for families, giving parents more choice and setting children up with the best start in life.

The people of this country are well aware of what happens when Conservative Members make pledges ahead of elections, such as 40 new hospitals or levelling up, and of the reality that Liz Truss crashed pensions and mortgages. What did Conservative Members do? They cheered her on. Let me spell it out to them and tell them a truth that the British public were keen to ensure that the Conservatives heard at the election last year: when they will not even take the blame for the things that they did, they certainly will not get the credit for the things that they did not do. Over 14 years, they dismantled the support for families. More than 1,000 Sure Start centres, which boosted early learning, provided healthcare and built communities, were ripped away from communities across our country. It is no wonder that the Conservatives do not want to admit that what we are rebuilding, they destroyed.

This Government are delivering on our promise of change: thousands of new nursery places, expanded childcare hours, Best Start breakfast clubs in every primary school across our country and support throughout the school holidays. Labour is delivering on our promises to parents. We are saving families thousands of pounds, giving parents work choices and improving children’s life chances. That is what the country expects and that is what I am proud this Labour Government are delivering. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Education Committee. \p Helen Hayes: I welcome the Minister’s statement: the expansion of funded childcare hours this week; the future expansion of school-based nurseries; and confirmation of a further three years of funding for the holiday activities and food programme.

My Committee is today launching an inquiry on the early years. We will examine in detail the Government’s work in this area, looking at the sustainability of the workforce, families’ access to services across the country and the quality of outcomes for children. May I therefore ask the Minister what additional work he believes is needed to ensure that children in families who are not in work—who often have the most to gain from high-quality early years education—are not left behind by the expansion of funded hours for working families? How confident is he that the significant problems in recruitment and retention of early years practitioners will be addressed to secure the workforce needed to deliver on the Government’s commitments?

Finally, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to everyone in my constituency and across the country who has spent the past six weeks running holiday activities and food programmes? I know they are utterly exhausted this week, but they should know that their hard work has helped to tackle poverty and disadvantage, and to provide vital opportunities that keep children and young people safe and help them to thrive. \p Stephen Morgan: The Chair of the Select Committee is a real champion for maintained nurseries across the country, and I know that she shares the Government’s  vision of ensuring that every child gets the best start in life and has the chance to succeed and thrive. As she knows, we set out our vision for early education in our landmark strategy in July. I look forward to receiving formal notice of her Committee’s inquiry and to working with her and the Committee in a constructive manner, putting the needs of children and young people first. I pay tribute to all those who worked over the summer to deliver for children and young people. As a former playworker, I see the huge value of the HAF programme. I commend all those who work so hard over the summer holidays. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: High-quality early years education is the best possible investment we can make in our future. Whether we are serious about tackling the SEND crisis or the attainment gap, or are simply concerned to give every child the best start in life, proper investment in the early years is one of the strongest levers we have.

We all know that for far too long the previous Conservative Government neglected the early years sector, leaving a legacy of sky-high fees and childcare deserts in their wake, particularly in disadvantaged areas. We Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of more school-based nurseries, alongside the extension of funded childcare hours—but let us not forget the deep problems facing the private and voluntary sector. Without addressing the massive financial strain on those nurseries and childcare providers, we can never hope to deliver for families. Their survival is absolutely central to supporting families up and down the country to thrive.

The Government’s jobs tax, I am afraid, has only added fuel to the fire. The financial pressures of underfunded hours, the national insurance contributions rise, and inflation have left many providers on the brink. Indeed, some nurseries are already telling parents that they may be unable to sign the new contract due to financial pressures. Earlier this week, in a letter published by the Early Years Alliance, a survey of more than 800 providers found that 44% could not meet demand this September, while one in six has already cut funded places. That is coupled with a crisis in recruitment and training of staff in the sector; if the providers and the staff are not there, how can the Minister expect his expansion to deliver for parents up and down the country?

Will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing the funding rates, so that they reflect the real cost of delivering high-quality early education? At the same time, will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we extend and fully fund parental rights so that families up and down the country have a real choice between whether they want to stay at home for a longer period in the early months, or go out to work full time? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming our expansion of childcare. I note again that nine in 10 parents received one of their first choice childcare places. We are determined that our childcare expansion will deliver safe, quality care for children. I know that the whole House agrees that the safety and wellbeing of children is of paramount importance. That is why alongside  this expansion, which will support hard-working families, we are increasing the frequency of Ofsted inspections and enhancing recruitment checks to prevent unsuitable individuals from working with children, alongside new whistleblowing requirements. The strengthened safeguarding requirements have been added to the statutory framework from this month, giving parents greater confidence that as we expand childcare access, it will be of high quality.

The hon. Lady makes a number of points about the challenges faced by the sector. The number of people working in the sector has increased by 18,000, and as I mentioned in my statement, there are now 5,800 new private providers delivering the entitlement. We will review funding distribution later in this academic year. I welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the hon. Lady on these issues, as we continue to increase access to high-quality education across our country. I look forward to meeting her in due course. \p Stella Creasy: I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the impact of this policy on equality. He will know that this Monday was Mums’ Equal Pay Day. Mums earn 33% less than dads, so from 1 September, mums in this country basically work for free. Affordable childcare is critical to closing that gap. As new organisation Growth Spurt points out, a third of women who are not in work at the moment say that it is caring responsibilities that stop them from working. Will the Minister meet me and Growth Spurt to look at how we can get jobcentres, which do not routinely tell parents about tax-free childcare and the funded hours process, to help in this respect, so that together we can end the motherhood penalty? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is a real champion for mothers, and I commend her for all her hard work in this place over the years. In our “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, published in July, we set out that we plan to make the process simpler for parents, and we will be working across Government to ensure that issues are addressed so that all children are able to access the entitlement offer. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss these issues further. \p Damian Hinds: There were five major expansions of early years education and childcare entitlement under the last Government; what the Minister has announced today would have been our sixth. But since we formed this policy, the new Government have made a massive increase in the tax on jobs. When will Ministers next publish their assessment of the economics of running a nursery and of how they ensure that there will continue to be adequate supply of high-quality places, in places like Alton, Petersfield and Horndean? \p Stephen Morgan: As I mentioned earlier, we inherited a pledge without a plan. I commend the hard work of early years providers and local authorities to deliver this key milestone for working families across the country this week. This year alone, we plan to provide over £8 billion for early years entitlement, rising to £9 billion next year. We announced the largest ever increase in the early years pupil premium, and a £75 million early years expansion grant has delivered support to the sector to increase the places and workforce that was needed. On top of that, we will review funding rates during the course of the next academic year. \p Mark Sewards: Listening to the Conservative Front Bench spokesperson, one would think that everything was fine and rosy in education before the previous election, and that everything would have been fine if only the Conservatives had been given one more chance. Compare and contrast that with what we have delivered in our first year in Government: 30 hours of free childcare, actually funded; free breakfast clubs; cheaper school uniforms on the way; best start family hubs; and of course— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Mr Sewards, do you have an actual question? If so, go for it! \p Mark Sewards: Will the Minister join me in encouraging parents in my constituency of Leeds South West and Morley to take advantage of everything this Government have done to make the lives of parents and children easier? \p Stephen Morgan: Well, I thank my hon. Friend for that very good question! It was a real privilege to visit his constituency and to see the brilliant work that childcare providers are doing in his patch, ensuring that every child gets the best start in life. He is a real voice on these issues, and will be working closely with me and the team to deliver further change for our country. \p Julian Lewis: After that tough question, may I ask an easy one? Can the Minister explain to the House what the funding level is for the new places, and in particular whether it fully compensates for an average £18,000 increase in the bills that nurseries have to face as a result in the rise in national insurance contributions? \p Stephen Morgan: As I mentioned earlier, £8 billion will be spent on the entitlement offer this year, increasing to £9 billion next year. The core funding rates do include forecasts around earnings, inflation and increases to the national living wage, but as I mentioned, we will review the funding distribution in due course and will consult on that formally. \p Darren Paffey: I thank the Minister for his statement. As schools and early years providers start the new term across Southampton this week, we have two new nurseries—at St Mary’s Church of England primary school and at Valentine primary school—which will add to that provision thanks to the investment of this Labour Government. That is going to make an enormous difference to families in an area where one in four children are growing up in low-income families. Will the Minister join me in thanking everyone working across all Southampton early years settings to give children the best start in life, and in urging parents to ensure that they take this support and all the other support that has been mentioned that is also being delivered by this Government? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend from along the south coast for his question. I know that Portsmouth football club are very much looking forward to playing Southampton this season. We promised to make childcare more affordable and we are delivering on that. I pay tribute to him and the work that he did in local government,  and is now doing in this place, to ensure that childcare is more affordable and accessible for children in his constituency. \p Caroline Voaden: I welcome the Government’s commitment to and recognition of the importance of early years provision, and the support for school-based nurseries, like the new Little Thinkers at Kings Ash academy and the nursery at Furzeham primary school. However, like others, I am deeply concerned about recruitment in the sector. Daisy and Rainbow Childcare said to me this morning:

“Our biggest difficulty is managing the drop off in funding as the child gets older, while negotiating a 37% increase in ENICs, ongoing increases in minimum wages and a rate for three and four-year-olds that has never kept pace. Is it any wonder that practitioners are voting with their feet and leaving the sector to take their skills elsewhere? We’ve been advertising for a qualified practitioner now for three months with zero applications.”

Will the Minister explain what the Government are going to do to ensure that recruitment in the sector is maintained? \p Stephen Morgan: The early years workforce is at the heart of our Government’s mission to give every child the best start in life. I mentioned earlier that we have seen an uplift in the number of people working in the sector by 18,000 this year. Our best start in life strategy set out a range of measures that we will take to encourage more people to work in the sector. I am proud that we have the “Do Something Big” campaign—a real effort to increase the number of people working in the sector—which is making a real difference across our country. \p David Williams: Back in the early 2000s, I worked for Labour’s incredible Sure Start children’s centres in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. With Labour back in office, we have the roll-out of breakfast clubs at Greenways and Milton primary academies, a new school-based nursery at Smallthorne, extended family hubs and extended funded places. Does the Minister agree that it is only with a Labour Government that families really get on and that young people get the best start in life? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend has just reminded us of the value of voting Labour at the last election, and why it is so important to have people like him speaking up for working families across the country. As he mentioned, the childcare entitlement, the investment in free breakfast clubs and making more children eligible for free school meals can make a real difference and help to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. \p Greg Smith: Today is my youngest child’s first day at school, so may I put on record my thanks to Chearsley and Haddenham Under Fives for providing exceptional early years education to both my sons, Charlie and Rupert, over recent decades? I mean years—it feels like decades!

There is much to genuinely welcome from the expansion of the childcare revolution that the Minister has outlined today, which was started by the previous Government. However, coalface reports from providers like the Big Top Nursery, which has sites in Waddesdon and Berryfields  in my constituency, say that Government funding only just covers or does not quite cover the full cost of them providing the exceptional care and education that they do. The double whammy of the national insurance jobs tax increase makes that all the more difficult, so may I urge the Minister, who has met me before to discuss this subject, to really look at the true cost of providing exceptional education to children in Mid Buckinghamshire, and make the case to the Treasury that the funding needs to be higher? \p Stephen Morgan: I wish the hon. Gentleman’s children good luck as they start school this week. As I mentioned earlier, in this financial year alone we plan to provide more than £8 billion for early years entitlement—an increase of more than 30% compared with the last financial year. We have also announced the largest increase in the early years pupil premium since its introduction, which is a significant boost, and investment in targeted support for the most disadvantaged in our communities. As I mentioned earlier, we will review funding rates in due course, and I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss these issues. \p Sam Rushworth: While the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is off in America encouraging them to ruin the livelihoods of families in Bishop Auckland, I am really pleased that this Government are saving my constituents thousands of pounds in childcare, but this is not just about childcare. We know that the ages of nought to five are the most important in deciding a person’s outcomes later in life, which includes the interventions in the Best Start family hubs. The previous Government closed 13 Sure Start centres in my constituency; this Government are making a good start, but we will still only really have one hub. Will the Minister meet me to discuss some of our goals locally to open a couple more centres and see how we can support that best start for children in our area? \p Stephen Morgan: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. The 1,000 Best Start family hubs that we have been rolling out across the country will make a huge difference, ensuring that every child gets the best start in life, alongside the parent hub that we launched earlier this week, which will provide practical support to parents on breastfeeding, access to childcare and other issues. I note that no Reform Members are in the House today, and I know the public will note that too. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: I thank the Minister for his statement. Maintained nurseries such as Chichester nursery school provide bespoke support for children, especially those with special educational needs and disabilities, but less than 400 maintained nurseries remain open. Will he outline what steps he is taking to ensure long-term financial stability for those nurseries so that they can keep the lights on and continue supporting the children they care for in their critical early years? \p Stephen Morgan: We aim to ensure that every child with developmental differences and special educational needs is supported at the start of their life. The hon. Lady will know that we will publish a White Paper on those issues later this year. I commend the work of  maintained nurseries; they provide a unique role in communities across the country, and I hope they have a bright future ahead of them in the light of the ambitions we set out in the “best start in life” strategy in July. \p Dave Robertson: I thank the Minister for all the work he has done in bringing us so far, so quickly. I have three school nurseries opening in my constituency this year, which will mean dozens of families and scores of children being given the very best start. Can he advise me on how best I can remind those parents that while we hear platitudes from Opposition parties, they have either voted against or failed to support all the measures we are taking to fund this provision? The Minister mentioned a plan without a pledge; it is this Government who are delivering on a plan for that pledge. \p Stephen Morgan: I can tell from my hon. Friend’s question how passionate he is about these issues. This Government want to break down the barriers to opportunity to ensure that every child succeeds and thrives. I have already set out a number of measures that we are undertaking to deliver that, and I really look forward to working with him to ensure that every child in his constituency gets the best start in life, whatever their background. \p Tom Gordon: I welcome the positive step towards providing affordable childcare. Coppice Valley primary school in my constituency is part of phase 1 of the scheme that the Minister outlined. However, it worries me that what he has outlined might come at the expense of private and voluntary sector providers, which deliver the majority of early years places. The new early years funding contract is putting huge strain on such providers, which are having to pass the unaffordable costs on to parents. The Minister has said that there will be a review of the funding in due course, but can he give us some more specific dates and timelines? Nurseries and parents cannot afford this issue in the meantime. \p Stephen Morgan: It is really important that early years education is delivered in a way that is fair and affordable for parents. As a key part of the strategy we published earlier this year, I am very pleased that there are schools in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that will deliver the school-based nursery programme. As I mentioned in my statement, I visited one in Warrington last week that was a really good partnership between the school and a private provider. I really encourage him to look at that model to see how that could work in his constituency. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I remind Members that we are finishing this statement at 1.30 pm. Can we keep questions very succinct? \p Rachael Maskell: This September, Poppleton Road primary school will be opening its nursery for the little people of York, lifting families out of poverty and giving them the best start. Will the Minister say how he will evaluate this programme? It is really important that we are able to prove the case that the investment in early years makes a difference to people’s life chances. \p Stephen Morgan: We will in due course set out more details on how we will evaluate the programme, but we have already learned lessons from the first phase on how we want to receive and evaluate applications. I really encourage the hon. Member to meet me to look at the detail, and I am very happy to discuss these issues further. \p Siân Berry: The work I did this year with Mandu Reid, the former leader of the Women’s Equality party, found a continuing crisis among the providers of childcare. Our call was for broader investment in pay, conditions and training, to mitigate national insurance contribution burdens and to take real action on morale. How will the £45 million announced today really help those existing childcare workers who are right on the verge of leaving the sector? \p Stephen Morgan: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the valuable role that childminders play in the childcare we are delivering across our country. We have seen the number of childminders halve in recent years, which is why we are investing in their workforce. They are key to our plan for change, and we are committed to working with the sector to deliver the changes that we set out at the election. \p Gareth Snell: I think the whole House can welcome the investment that has been announced today. We know that going through early education makes young people more ready for school, and closing the school readiness gap also closes the attainment gap later on in education settings. When I visit primary schools across Stoke-on-Trent Central, the one thing they tell me is that they are bursting at the seams—they are full. Will the Minister set out what conversations he has had, either inside the Department or between his Department and the Treasury, about identifying the capital funding necessary to ensure that schools have the high-quality physical spaces in which these nurseries will be based? \p Stephen Morgan: I know my hon. Friend is a real champion for encouraging children to learn and to engage in their local community, and I have met him to discuss the work we are doing on literacy, and I am very happy to take away the points he raises. We are investing in the school-based nursery programme and in school capital funding. If he has particular examples that he wants me to follow up on in the Department, I am very happy to do so. \p Lincoln Jopp: I visited a nursery in Staines in my constituency, and the head there reported to me that, because of the charging regime and what they can and cannot charge for, every Saturday morning she ends up doing many hours of work on education, health and care plans, for which she cannot pass on the cost. Does the Minister recognise that phenomenon? If so, is it widespread? \p Stephen Morgan: The hon. Member makes a number of points with regard to charging. It is worth saying that we updated the statutory guidance on Government-funded entitlement so that it gives additional information to parents on what they can and cannot be charged for. That is about bringing transparency to the system so that parents can access more information on what they  can and cannot expect, and it confirms the ruling from the High Court judgment earlier this year on what providers can and cannot charge for. I mentioned earlier that we are reviewing the broken SEND system that we inherited from the Conservatives. We are getting on and delivering a system that is fairer and ensures that confidence and trust is rebuilt with parents. \p Matt Rodda: I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement today. Will he say a little more about the wide range of potential benefits to families, to children, in terms of their educational development, and to the wider economy as a result of helping parents to get back to work? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is a real champion on these issues in his constituency. What we are announcing today will give more choice and convenience to parents, helping to cut the double drop-off and making daily life easier for them. More families will save money with funded childcare worth up to £7,500 a year, and more children will start school ready to learn, with high-quality early years provision in their communities. \p James MacCleary: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for early education and childcare, I speak frequently to representatives of the private and voluntary childcare sector, who tell me that they are in crisis. Staffing shortages and an unsustainable funding model mean that they do not know how they will deliver the very laudable aims outlined in the Government’s statement. Does the Minister understand that those aims are unachievable without the support of the private and voluntary sector? Will he agree to attend a meeting of our APPG to hear directly from key voices in the sector? \p Stephen Morgan: I know that the hon. Member will have listened closely to my statement. I commend the hard work of the sector across the country in delivering the milestone that we have met today—an increase in those providing the entitlement offer by 5,800 and an uplift in the workforce of 18,000. We will be spending £9 billion on early education next year, and I am really keen to continue my work with the sector to bring about the change that people voted for at the election last year. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: As a mother who at one point had three children under four and had to take time out of the workplace, I welcome the great strides made by this Labour Government to support parents and children. In Scotland, parents have access to 1,140 funded hours, but for too many parents—particularly those who want to work in the hospitality, retail and care sectors—that just does not work, due to the inflexible nature of those hours. Will the Minister commit to learning the lessons from Scotland and consider flexible hours going forward? \p Judith Cummins: I remind Members that a lot of people want to get in. Please keep your questions short. \p Stephen Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Of course, these issues are devolved, but I look forward to hearing her thoughts and views on them. I encourage  her to write to me, and I can certainly raise her points with the relevant teams across the Department and across Government. \p Vikki Slade: I know that Ministers are probably sick of hearing about national insurance increases and my repeated calls for business rates exemptions, as they have in Scotland. However, the strain of costs is leading to practices that are affecting families—for example, a nursery chain in my constituency that has numerous branches only allows families to take their funded hours in the afternoons, forcing them to pay for the mornings that they actually need. Those families are now worse off than when they had fewer hours. What is the Minister going to do to help such families? \p Stephen Morgan: I have mentioned the investment that we are putting into early education—£8 billion this year and £9 billion next year. We have announced the largest ever increase in the early years pupil premium, and case studies from across the country are demonstrating the difference that this programme is making. However, as I mentioned, we want to make the process simpler for parents and learn lessons from the past, and we will set that out in due course as part of our wider reform agenda. \p Luke Akehurst: I am looking forward to visiting Bloemfontein primary school in my constituency, where a new school-based nursery is about to open. Can the Minister outline what the measures announced today will mean for hard-working parents in North Durham who are trying to juggle work and family life? \p Stephen Morgan: As I mentioned earlier, there will be more choice and convenience for parents, helping to cut the double drop-off at school and making daily life easier. More families will save money through funded childcare worth up to £7,500 a year, and more children will start school ready to learn. It is a huge programme of work that I know will make a huge difference in my hon. Friend’s constituency. \p David Chadwick: I wish to declare that I have two young children under the age of four. While the expansion of free childcare is welcome news for parents in England, does the Minister recognise that families in Wales are being left at a serious disadvantage because his colleagues in Cardiff Bay have refused to match that offer, leaving Welsh families with the least generous childcare provision in Britain? Will he join me in urging the Welsh Labour Government to stop holding Welsh families back, and to commit instead to delivering 30 hours of Government-funded childcare from nine months to four years old, which is something the Welsh Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for? \p Stephen Morgan: As the hon. Member will know, these are devolved matters and it would therefore be appropriate for him to put his question to Wales Office colleagues. We are a Government who are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity, and we will be setting out a UK-wide child poverty strategy later this year, to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. \p Michael Payne: Our amazing schools play a central role in giving every child the best possible start in life. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Mrs Toner and her entire team at the Good Shepherd Catholic primary academy on their recent and incredibly well-deserved outstanding Ofsted report? \p Stephen Morgan: That is fantastic news to hear. My hon. Friend regularly engages with schools and nurseries across his constituency to make sure he is aware of the issues and challenges they are facing, and he works really closely with those schools and nurseries to ensure that we bring about the change that people voted for last July. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: Nursery fees are crippling, running to thousands of pounds per child per month after the expansion of funded hours. Parents are making reproductive choices solely on the basis of the cost of childcare—is it any wonder that the total fertility rate in this country has plummeted? Does the Minister consider this to be “job done”, or will he commit to radically reducing the cost of childcare? \p Stephen Morgan: This is absolutely not “job done”—it is the start of the next journey of change, to make sure that every child gets the best start in life. We want to make life easier for parents across the country. The things I am announcing today will make a difference, but there is more for this Government to do. \p Natasha Irons: I welcome this Government’s commitment to breaking down barriers to opportunity, as well as their investment in Fairchildes and Monks Orchard primary schools in my constituency so that they can expand their nursery provision. Can the Minister outline the role that school-based nurseries play in Labour’s Best Start strategy, and will he join me in urging parents in Croydon East to visit beststartinlife.gov.uk to see the support that is available to them thanks to this Labour Government? \p Stephen Morgan: I know that my hon. Friend is really passionate about these issues and wanting to make life so much easier for families in her constituency. School-based nurseries will help drive quality in early education and ensure good-quality access for parents. I mentioned the double drop-off that many parents face; accessing a school-based nursery and then dropping off their older child at primary school is a much simpler and more convenient approach. I am very happy to follow up on my hon. Friend’s points to ensure that this scheme is a success in her constituency. \p Tom Morrison: I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with my constituents John and Katie, who are running a campaign to make our nurseries safer following the tragic death of their daughter Gigi. A key part of that campaign is introducing safer sleeping guidance in our nurseries, and I understand that the Government are considering plans to update the early years framework on that. Can the Minister give me an idea of the timeline by which those plans will come before Parliament? It is vital that we make our nurseries safer with that safe sleeping guidance. \p Stephen Morgan: I thank the hon. Member for his question and for his engagement on these extremely important issues. I pay tribute to the family he represents.  I have met with them personally to understand the changes they are keen to see. The safety of our youngest children is of the utmost importance to my Department. I am keen to continue to engage with the hon. Member as we hear the family’s concerns and bring about the change that they expect. \p Shaun Davies: I was delighted to hear recently from headteacher Mrs Solomon and school legend Lynne Purcell, who are excited about rolling out their school-based nursery this week and the difference it will make to communities across Telford. I have also spoken to Mrs McQuiggin and school business manager Sarah Nicholls at Lawley primary school, which serves Telford, about the difference that their breakfast club is making to parents and children. Minister, when can we have some more in Telford? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend likes to lobby me on these issues, and I pay tribute to his hard work in delivering for his constituency. I also thank those who work in nurseries and schools across his constituency, who we have worked really hard to rebuild the relationship with after the failures of the previous Government. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his very positive statement. He works very closely with the Minister in Northern Ireland, who announced back in May a package of measures worth some £55 million for the same purpose. The uptake has been huge, and has demonstrated the need for working families to receive help and for children to have support. However, more grandparents are having to work later in life, which means that childcare is at a premium. Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss that problem with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to share ideas and help all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to work together? \p Stephen Morgan: The hon. Member will know that I have prioritised getting to know the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland in order to discuss these issues, and I am really pleased that the Northern Ireland Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), is sat next to me. I will continue to engage with the Government in Northern Ireland on the issues of workforce and sufficiency, and where we can, I am very keen to support the community in dealing with the challenges they face. \p Jim Dickson: The latest figures show that Dartford has seen the second largest rise in families with children of any area in the country, so my constituents will hugely welcome the additional free childcare hours and the new school nurseries that will result from this week’s announcement. Does the Minister agree that not only will these changes give Dartford children the best start in life, they will help Dartford parents get into and sustain work? \p Stephen Morgan: Today’s milestone moment is delivering real change for families across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are really pleased by the milestone we have met today, but there is much more to come to make sure we break down the barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of the country. \p Luke Charters: “Paw Patrol” lunchbox in hand, my son Robin started at a new preschool yesterday, and I can tell the House that I am so proud of him. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the staff at York’s preschools and nurseries for their work in expanding free childcare? \p Stephen Morgan: As a relatively new dad, my hon. Friend has been a real champion on these issues in this House, and it was a real pleasure to meet him earlier this year to discuss some of the issues he faces. I pay tribute to those who work in the early years sector in his constituency—they are working day in, day out to ensure every child gets the best start in life. \p Peter Swallow: I welcome today’s announcement that this Government are again expanding school-based nurseries. That programme is already benefiting my constituents with the expansion of Uplands school nursery in Sandhurst. This summer, I also had the real pleasure of visiting Horseshoe Lake in Sandhurst to meet children trying out sailing and paddleboarding through the holiday activities and food programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £600 million expansion of that programme demonstrates this Government’s commitment to every child? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting the HAF programme in his constituency, where he saw first-hand what a brilliant scheme it is, providing healthy meals, enriching activities and Government-funded childcare places for children from low-income families. That is exactly what this Labour Government want to invest in, and we are. \p Sonia Kumar: I warmly welcome the statement. Families in Dudley are now benefiting from 30 hours of Government-funded childcare, including new places in school-based nurseries such as at Beechwood Church of England primary school in St Thomas’s, one of the most deprived wards in the borough. Can the Minister set out how this expansion, alongside more support for parents and investment in early years staff, will help children to start school ready to learn and succeed in the future? \p Stephen Morgan: It was a real privilege to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see at first hand the hard work she is undertaking with school staff and nursery settings. She is absolutely right: our investment in early years will make a huge difference to children’s lives by allowing them to socialise and to develop the skills they need to succeed in life, as well as delivering real benefits for parents across the country, saving them on average £7,500 a year. \p Steve Race: In just one year, up to 2,970 more children will receive free school meals in Exeter. We have received capital investment for Newtown and St Gabriel’s primary schools. Three primary schools in my constituency—Whipton Barton junior and infants and St Sidwell’s—are in the roll-out of breakfast clubs. This week, we have a new school-based nursery at Exwick Heights primary school. Can the Minister set out how that all helps us to achieve our aim to reduce child poverty in Exeter and across the country? \p Stephen Morgan: This Government have a clear mission to break down the barriers to opportunity and to remove the stain of child poverty on our society. That is why I was so pleased to announce in the House earlier this year that the down payment on the child poverty strategy will lift 100,000 children out of poverty and ensure that half a million more children can access free school meals from September next year. \p Deirdre Costigan: Children and parents at Allenby primary school in my constituency of Ealing Southall are already set to benefit from a newly modernised and expanded nursery as a result of funding from this Labour Government. Can I pass on directly to the Minister the thanks of Mr Hickman, the headteacher, who said that the investment is a fantastic opportunity that the local community is truly grateful for? Does the Minister agree that today’s announcement of 300 more nurseries in schools like Allenby will save thousands of families money on childcare and help them to manage the challenging job of parenting and working? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank Mr Hickman for that feedback. We are absolutely committed to delivering on our commitment to create tens of thousands more places through new and expanded school-based nurseries, backed by more than £400 million of investment. That will help more families access Government-funded childcare and ensure that every child gets the best start in life. \p Christopher Bloore: Over the summer, thanks to this Labour Government, empty classrooms and underutilised spaces have been turned into high-quality, school-based nursery provision at Matchborough first school in Redditch in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s focus on the early years can and will make the biggest difference to children’s lives in my constituency? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Phase 2 of the school-based nursery programme, with a stronger focus on supporting families in disadvantaged areas, will make a huge difference. From 22 September this year, schools can apply for up to £150,000 from a £45 million fund, enabling at least another 300 school-based nurseries across the country. \p Jessica Toale: I recently visited Leaps and Bounds nursery in Winton, and it was clear that the women who work there strive to create a safe and enriching environment for all the young people, so that they are ready to start school when they go. Can the Minister tell me how this Labour Government are making early years education—this critical time in a young person’s life—more accessible and affordable for parents in Bournemouth West? \p Stephen Morgan: My sister has worked in the early years sector for 30 years, and the early years workforce are at the heart of our Government’s plan for change to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible for families. This week, a key milestone has been met, but there is more to do, and I look forward to  working with my hon. Friend to make sure that every child, whatever their background, can succeed and thrive through good-quality early education. \p Laurence Turner: It is so gratifying to see the school-based nursery programme going from an idea to a reality. I place on record an appreciation of the positive role that the trade union movement, and in particular the GMB, has played in nurturing that idea in response to the problem of falling rolls. Will the Minister please set out a bit more information for schools in my constituency that may wish to apply for phase 2 funding on the steps they should take next? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank all those who have contributed to the key milestone that has been met today. My hon. Friend mentioned the valuable role of trade unions, and I agree with him. Today, we are launching phase 2 of the school-based nurseries programme, with a stronger focus on supporting families in disadvantaged areas. The application window for schools to apply will open on 22 September, and I know he will be keen to encourage schools in his constituency to apply for this exciting opportunity. \p Jonathan Davies: Sure Start was one of the proudest legacies of the last Labour Government. We must be grateful to Tessa Jowell for her contribution in making that happen. I am pleased that we are recapturing the spirit of Sure Start through such initiatives as free breakfast clubs, including at Morley primary school in my constituency. Can the Minister say a little more about what today’s announcement will mean for parents and children in Mid Derbyshire? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is right to flag the significance of free breakfast clubs in primary schools, which we are rolling out across every primary school in the country. That is on top of what we have delivered today with our funded childcare, with 30 hours of support each week. That will save parents on average £7,500 a year. We are a Government who take seriously support for children and families across the country, easing some of the pressures they face, but also ensuring that every child gets the best start in life. \p Antonia Bance: I am so glad to see the extension of the holiday activities and food programme. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of Jo Haydon and all the staff and volunteers at the 4 Community Trust in Hateley Heath—one of the areas of highest child poverty in my constituency—and their delivery of the HAF programme this year? \p Stephen Morgan: I pay tribute to all those who have helped deliver the holiday activities and food programme in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We have had 5 million days delivered this year alone.   That is a huge investment in our children’s futures and making sure they have access to good-quality enrichment activities, hot food and opportunities that they might not ordinarily get at school or at home. \p John Slinger: I attended the inaugural meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on play this week, chaired ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), and heard more about the importance of play. I am glad that is referenced several times in the Government’s excellent strategy. Have the Government looked at the approach taken by Finland in ensuring that play forms a central part of early education—specifically play facilitated by educational professionals aimed at preparing children for learning? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend will know that our landmark strategy sets out our first steps towards delivering a decade of national renewal and strengthening family services. We are always keen to learn from other countries, because in order to achieve our ambitions as a country, we need to learn from elsewhere. He will know the value I place, as a former playworker, on play provision, and I am happy to discuss these issues further with him. \p Judith Cummins: Finally, I call Chris Vince. \p Christopher Vince: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are still a national treasure to me. I thank the Minister for his important statement, which will make a huge difference to young people and families in my constituency. Over recess, I held a roundtable for parents of SEND children in Harlow. The No. 1 thing that they said would support their children was early intervention to ensure they have the best possible start in life, which will support them in schools and later in employment. Will the Minister guarantee that this early intervention—this proactive approach to childcare and education—will be a golden thread that runs through this Labour Government? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his proactivity in bringing parents together to hear their thoughts and views. We are a Government who are listening to what parents tell us, and we want to act to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. He is absolutely right that investing in early education and supporting early intervention around any additional needs that children have are vital in ensuring that every child gets the best possible outcomes and life chances. I know that he will continue to work with us to make sure that happens in his constituency and across the country. \p Judith Cummins: That concludes the statement. I thank the Minister and Members for helping each other out and keeping questions and answers succinct. \p Judith Cummins: I call Clive Lewis on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct, to rectify a failure to declare. \p Clive Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when making spoken contributions on 8 March 2023, 14 November 2023 and 16 June 2025. When I made these contributions, I inadvertently failed to declare an interest: I am the chair of the British Caribbean Association. This was a breach of the rules, and I apologise to the House for this error.

I would also like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling written parliamentary questions to the Home Office on 1 February 2024 and 5 March 2025, and when tabling a written question to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on 17 July 2024. When I tabled these questions, I inadvertently failed to declare an interest: I am the chair of the British Caribbean Association. This was in breach of the rules, and I apologise to the House for this error. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue. \p Judith Cummins: The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) has tabled a motion for debate on a matter of privilege, which Mr Speaker has agreed should take precedence today. \p Simon Hoare: I beg to move,

That—

(1) There be laid before this House the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration proposed to be laid under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 concerning the steps taken by the Charity Commission to implement recommendations contained in two reports issued by the Commissioner in respect of “Miss A” and “Mr U”;

(2) The matter of the actions of the Charity Commission in bringing legal proceedings that would prevent the laying of a report before this House be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this request. The House will be delighted to know that on the first week back after a longish summer recess, the five hours allocated for this debate will not be taken up—I will only take four hours and 50 minutes. [Laughter.] No, do not worry. I know the House wants to get on to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

The motion before the House is, I hope, clear. I believe it will command support across all parties in the House, but I think it is important to put on the record why it has been tabled. We have too often allowed the privileges of this House and our parliamentary process to be slightly nibbled and chipped away at, and sometimes we have been reluctant to defend robustly those privileges, which are important for Parliament to function as our constituents expect. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who chairs both the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges, is alongside me this afternoon.

The House of Commons’ role used to be described as the “grand inquest of the nation”. It meant that one of our great functions was to consider and debate everything that we thought mattered. In a famous case, one of the Law Lords recognised the key importance of

“the need to ensure that the legislature can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors, with access to all relevant information”.

This is a case about the ability of the House to receive information, which the House has always taken very seriously. “Erskine May” has an entire section on obstructing witnesses and others. It states boldly:

“Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.”

The circumstances here are slightly different, because this is about a prospective case against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I have tabled the motion for two reasons, which I shall set out briefly, but they are explained in the motion itself.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, also known as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, is technically an officer of the House—a Crown appointment appointed by resolution of the House. They have a duty to respond to complaints from all our constituents, where there is validity in doing so, in coming to reports, making observations and suggestions, and submitting those reports to Parliament.

As referenced in the motion, there is the case of “Miss A” and “Mr U”. I have no idea who Miss A and Mr U are, and I have no idea what complaints about the Charity Commission were set out before the commissioner, but the Charity Commission has clearly taken umbrage or offence at what the PHSO has been seeking to do. The Charity Commission is bringing legal proceedings deliberately to prevent the laying of two reports before this House. That completely undermines the linkage between the ombudsman and this place, and, as I said at the start, it undermines our opportunity and decisions to look at any information that we deem to be of importance, or that matters to us, in order to allow us to advance policy.

The motion is a very simple one. If approved, it will compel the commissioner to lay before the House the reports that they have undertaken with regard to the complaints of Miss A and Mr U. I have tabled the motion as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is responsible for the PHSO. We will look at those reports and advise accordingly, if necessary. I make no prior judgment of whether the PHSO or the Charity Commission has got it right in this instance, because we have not seen the reports. However, it fundamentally undermines the rights and privileges of this place, and all of us as Members, when we are prevented from seeing reports that have been produced following due diligence and proper investigation and inquiry by a statutory body and the ombudsman, who is a servant of the House. Because there is concern, which I share, that the Charity Commission has acted perversely in bringing legal proceedings that would prevent the laying of the reports, the second part of the motion seeks to refer that action to the Committee of Privileges so that it can take a look.

In the general scheme of things, this may seem a very small element of parliamentary life, but the courts have hitherto always taken the standpoint that Parliament can and should see what it wants and needs to see, and that the courts should take no role in interfering with or obstructing that channel of communication. We are all familiar with Mr Speaker giving advice from the Chair about the sub judice rule, for example, but it does not mean that we cannot talk about things. We do so knowing full well that privilege entails both rights and responsibilities.

I hope the House is with us on this matter, which is important. It is time for us to robustly reassert our rights under the idea of privilege and having access to information. I remain to be convinced that the Charity Commission has acted advisedly in bringing the action. Even yesterday, the commission tried to put pressure on me to withdraw the motion, believing still that it is in the right. I decided not to do so, and I think it is an abuse of the commission to ask us to do that.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will undertake an inquiry on arm’s length bodies, of which the commission is part, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have privately raised with me concerns about decisions that the commission is taking. It is appearing to do so in a slightly abstract or perverse way, without any degree of accountability. That matter is separate from this motion, but it is important for all our arm’s length bodies, and particularly the Charity Commission, to understand that this House will not be bullied by arm’s   length bodies seeking recourse to the courts to stop us doing our job properly, efficiently and professionally on behalf of all our constituents. \p Alex Burghart: It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I thank him for being so generous in leaving so much time for others to speak. We absolutely support the motion that he has brought before the House. We are deeply concerned that anyone, least of all a public body, should be seeking to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration from laying reports before this House. As my hon. Friend has set out with admirable clarity, we have a long-standing and absolute right to be able to gather and examine relevant information for our inquiries and our work. The linkage between the ombudsman and the House is well-established and long-standing, and nothing should impede it. Legal proceedings should not be seeking to prevent the laying of a report before this House, so we strongly support that this House should reassert its ancient right to request and require papers and evidence. \p Georgia Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this matter, as well as for speaking so powerfully and so concisely on the issue, and to Mr Speaker for granting a debate on this important principle. The Government recognise and value the critical role that Parliament plays in scrutinising our work. Should the House agree to the motion, the Government will await the work of the Committee of Privileges with interest.

Question put and agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 15 October 2024 (House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Programme): \p UNKNOWN: (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 8, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. \p UNKNOWN: (3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments

King’s consent signified. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 4 to 7 and 9. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: This House sent the second Chamber a Bill that had a simple and direct objective outlined in this Government’s manifesto, but I have to report to the House that something very strange has happened since then. People said that the Conservatives were in some sort of hibernation since the general election, but it would appear they have found an issue that has awakened them from their slumber. On the order of their Whips, some hundreds of Conservative politicians, finally mustering the strength to make their mark in Parliament and ready to take action for what the 2025 Conservative party believes in, have found their crusade. What is it? Keeping hereditary Lords in the jobs they accessed by accident of birth. I have to say that it is a tale as old as time—the Tories blocking progress. Who knew it? \p Christopher Vince: This is an opportune moment for me to mention my summer reading list and the first Labour Government in 1924. Even at that time, there was talk about reform of the House of Lords, so this is very much a tale as old as time itself. In fact, looking back in historical Hansard, it goes much further back than 1924, so is it not good that this Labour Government are finally getting on with dealing with it? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether we go back to 1924 or even further back—and I will during my speech—we find Conservatives in this House protecting their friends born into positions of power. This Bill will finally remove such an archaic right. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —he is overseas at the moment, I understand—wants to send people, certainly in Wales, back down the coalmines, the Leader of the Opposition is stuck in the politics of the past.

Before I turn to the amendments sent back from the other place, I want to draw attention to comments made by the noble Lord Strathclyde. He said of this Bill that

“inevitably, there will be repercussions. They”—

the Government—

“are storing up huge problems for themselves.”

The Conservatives have not only complained that the Government are removing hereditary peers while offering “nothing in return”; more sinisterly, they have threatened  to use delaying tactics on this Government’s agenda. We only have to look at their behaviour in debates in the upper House, to see that they have been trying to hold the Government hostage on the Football Governance Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill—all to protect the hereditary principle. We know that the Conservative party is in no fit state to take action on very much, but where is their energy being directed at present? It is being directed at the self-preservation of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. That is unacceptable and, frankly, it deserves to be highlighted.

As I say, the Bill has returned to the House amended by the other place. Most of the amendments serve to undermine the core purpose of the Bill, or go well beyond the Bill’s intended remit. Lords amendment 1 has to be read with its consequential amendment—Lords amendment 8. It seeks to end the system of hereditary peer by-elections while retaining the current cohort of hereditary peers. The Government cannot endorse those amendments, which fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the Bill. The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Lords amendment 1 would allow existing hereditary peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That therefore blocks an immediate reform. \p Ashley Fox: The Minister will be aware that the reason hereditaries still sit in the House of Lords was the deal done in 1999. The promise made by the then Labour Government was that hereditaries would remain until the House of Lords was properly reformed. The Minister is aware that he is removing the hereditaries but giving no assurance about when full reform of the House of Lords will take place. What assurance can he give this Chamber about when the Government will make proper proposals to reform the upper Chamber? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: As the Leader of the House of Lords has set out in the other place, immediately this Bill is on the statute book a Select Committee will be created to look at those issues of retirement and participation. The hon. Gentleman is talking about politics as they stood in 1999. This Government were elected on a manifesto that delivered 411 MPs in 2024, and this Government are following that manifesto.

Across both this House and the other place, there has been broad consensus that the hereditary route to the House of Lords should end. I also make it clear, as Ministers have from this Dispatch Box and Labour peers have in the other place, that this is not a judgment on individuals. It is not a judgment on the work and contribution of individual hereditary peers; it is a judgment on the principle. Let me also say that there is no barrier to any hereditary peers—in the case of the Conservative party, through a party list—being nominated as life peers, should the Leader of the Opposition, for example, wish to do that. \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned the very long period of time that his party has been anxious for and agitating about reform of the House of Lords. Is the creation of a future Select Committee really the sum of all that anger  and agitation? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has said, we could have seen a full picture of a modernised, reformed and accountable House of Lords that works to deliver bicameral scrutiny, but we do not have that. The Minister is asking us to vest hope in the creation of a Select Committee, with no timeframe attached to when it would report and no promise of future legislation. Surely, he must be as disappointed and unhappy with that situation as I am. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is great to see that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that House of Lords reform is not going far enough. If he wants to talk about the 20th century and the length of time that his party was in power, I would say that it had every opportunity to bring about full reform of the House of Lords. Not only did the Conservatives bring about minimal reform, at best, but they blocked every attempt at major reform. It is difficult, therefore, to take their 2025 position seriously.

The point about the Select Committee is that we have had on the one hand accusations that the Government are acting in a party political way and, on the other, requests for the Government to do things cross-party. That is precisely what the Select Committee will do: it will give the opportunity to consider issues such as retirement age and participation. The debate in the upper House covered those matters across different parties. The Select Committee will be established within three months of Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman asked about deadlines, and I can tell him that the Committee will issue its findings by next summer. \p Peter Swallow: I, for one, am perplexed. We have heard Opposition Members say that they want us to go faster and further in reforming the House of Lords, and we have heard them chuntering about the divine right of whoever and whatever in that place. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition seem to be rather confused about this, which perhaps stands as testament to the ability of the Leader of the Opposition to lead her party? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The word “confused” sums up the Opposition, whether on this Bill or any other. \p Julian Lewis: I do not purport to speak on behalf of my party, but rather as an individual who has long had an interest in the positive role that the Lords play in revising legislation, which any elected and strongly whipped House would not be able to do. The Minister partly anticipated the point I want to make, when he mentioned the ability to appoint some of what would otherwise be outgoing hereditary peers to life peerages. That may be a way forward for people of good will to pursue, but given the quite high number of people who find themselves in quite responsible positions in the Lords, what sort of numbers does he have in mind to allow the parties that will lose a large number of hereditary peers to appoint as life peers? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The right hon. Gentleman always makes an individual contribution, to his great credit, not only in this debate but in others. I will not be drawn on numbers, which are always a matter for the  Prime Minister and the usual channels. As in every Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition of whatever party will have the opportunity to nominate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will make a persuasive case to her about some Members of the upper House. \p Julian Lewis: I do not expect the Minister to be specific about numbers, but can he at least tell the House whether he accepts the principle that a considerably larger one-off tranche would be needed to cater for this unique situation? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: There will be the usual periods in this Parliament when there will be an opportunity, and I repeat that there is no barrier to someone who serves as a hereditary peer being appointed as a life peer. \p Jessica Toale: Opposition Members seem to want lots of reassurances for the people who feel they are born to rule. Can the Minister tell me what reassurances the Government can give my constituents and young people in Kinson and West Howe that they will have equal right to be part of this legislative body? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She speaks powerfully about her constituents, and I want my constituents in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran to be able to aspire to be Members of Parliament, including in the upper House, and that places are not reserved for people through accident of birth—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister chunters from a sedentary position. If he is in favour of the hereditary position, let him tell us, instead of hiding behind the smokescreen of pretending he is in favour of full reform. Let us hear him say from the Dispatch Box that he believes in the hereditary principle, if he does.

We have said from the outset that we wanted this Bill on the statute book before turning to the next phase of reform. Delaying this legislation means delaying the establishment of the Select Committee and delaying further reforms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned, the reality is that since we last reformed the Lords, the outside world has changed. Our Parliament should always be a place where talents are recognised and merit counts. It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold veto power over the will of the people. \p Christopher Vince: Does the Minister recognise the irony that, given these issues were discussed in 1924, we are probably now discussing the hereditary peers who are the grandchildren of the hereditary peers they were talking about getting rid of 100 years ago? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is right. One would think that the 1924 debate about bloodlines and pedigree as a basis for participation would no longer have any advocates, but it appears that a number of such advocates are left, a century later.

From the Parliament Act 1911 to the House of Lords Act 1999, the history of Lords reform is littered with examples of individual Members straining every sinew and making every different argument to try to resist reform. In 1911, Lord Curzon coined the term “the  ditchers”—the Unionist peers who were to fight into the last ditch over the then Parliament Bill and whose efforts have acted as an effective block on further change. Today’s ditchers all sit on the Opposition Benches— \p Paul Holmes: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will give way to hear from one of the 2025 ditchers. \p Paul Holmes: I guarantee to the Minister that, as a council estate boy from Lewisham, I am not someone who ever thought that my bloodline would get into the House of Lords—[Interruption.] One day!

I want to challenge the Minister about the points he has made about future reform. His party has a majority of 170, and we know that it won the general election. Why is he claiming that we are trying to block reform, which is completely untrue, while the Government are so lacking in ambition and do not have the courage or political will to bring a full package of reform to the House, which the Opposition might well support? What we are asking is why he is tinkering at the edges and then attacking us for not being in favour of reform, when he has refused to bring reform in the first place. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s bloodline getting to the House of Lords, I am sure it is only a matter of time before we see that.

In terms of the antics of the Opposition, I do not know whether the Conservative parliamentary party in the Commons speaks to peers, but it should talk to them about their behaviour on the Bill and other Bills that they have blocked and blocked and blocked. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently spending time to come up with credible policies—no one will believe that the Conservative party is in favour of wholesale reform of the House of Lords.

It has been more than 25 years since Parliament agreed to end the hereditary route, with a supposedly temporary arrangement to retain 92 hereditary peers. It is almost 200 years since the Great Reform Act 1832, which took away the hold of the great aristocratic families, opening up the franchise and taking their presence in electoral politics from monopoly to anomaly. Nonetheless, the hereditary principle remains in our Parliament: sometimes as symbol of tradition, sometimes as obstacle to real reform—as Conservative peers have recently demonstrated.

There is a real opportunity today for the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has protested several times about newly found passion for wholesale Lords reform— \p Alex Burghart: No I haven’t. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am glad to hear that—there is the real voice of the Conservative party.

We have also therefore heard a lot of protestations that there is no attempt from the Conservative party to block this—we will see in the voting Lobby in due course whether the Conservatives actually seek to block  further progress again. We talk about history and nostalgia, but this has in a real sense been used in the upper House to block Bills with a democratic mandate since last year. \p Pete Wishart: For the completeness of history, it is 115 years since the Labour party promised to abolish the House of Lords, and I think we will be waiting another 100 before it even gets close to that. The Minister is absolutely right that the public cannot stand the hereditaries—it is something they are bitterly opposed to—but they are also opposed to prime ministerial patronage. It is almost as unpopular as the House of Lords. Now, 57 new peers have gone into the House of Lords since Labour came to power, and The Guardian has reported that dozens more are set to follow. Are we just going to be replacing the old nobility with new Labour nobility? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Absolutely not, because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a Member of Parliament who enjoys the confidence of this House. That is entirely different from the situation of having places in the House of Lords on the basis of an accident of birth.

I should say, though, because I do not want to just criticise the Conservative party today, that I do appreciate that should the hereditary Lords finally be given leave, the title of “the most ancient and outdated relic” will then be awarded to the modern-day Conservative party, so I guess self-preservation is the Conservatives’ real motive. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) spoke about our majority—we will not allow the Conservative party to block this change. \p Edward Leigh: If the hereditary principle is so wrong, where does that leave the principle of an hereditary monarchy, which has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: We have a modern constitutional monarchy that enjoys very wide popular support. It is a completely different matter. I do not think a monarch has blocked an Act of Parliament since Queen Anne in 1714, so I would say that the monarchy plays a very different role in our constitution from that of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

The Government are determined to deliver this reform to rectify this historic wrong and move us closer to a fairer, more equitable Parliament. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendments 1 and 8.

I do need to deal with other amendments now. Lords amendment 2 would prohibit future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of the House of Lords. I understand the strength of feeling expressed in the debate on this amendment in the other place, and I should make it clear that I am proud of the work of all Ministers across Government—I know that ministerial colleagues in the other place work incredibly hard. In this House, both Ministers and shadow Ministers are able to focus on our departmental portfolio—with the honourable exception of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, as far as I can make out, seems to be about a third of the shadow Cabinet with his various roles. In fairness, he carries out his public  duties, as ever, with great dedication. In fact, the situation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster finds himself in is quite regular in the House of Lords, where Front Benchers cover a number of different portfolios, which they do with skill and dedication.

However, I have to say that although I understand the motive behind this amendment, it would do little to address the problem it seeks to resolve. It would not result in all current Lords Ministers receiving a salary, and would instead mean that the number of Lords Ministers would in future be reduced. Ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, which sets a maximum of 109 ministerial posts across both Houses, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons—paid or unpaid—to 95. The reality is that any meaningful change to the number of Ministers or ministerial salaries would have to amend that legislation.

It is for the Prime Minister of the day to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers in line with those legislative limits. The amendment would therefore have the effect of placing a further restriction on that prerogative power and reducing the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the best people to serve in their Government. The Bill should clearly not be used as a vehicle to address changes to those Acts, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 3 would create a new form of statutory life peerage and seeks to create a two-tier peerage system that distinguishes between the honour of a peerage and membership of the House of Lords. Under this system, individuals could receive the title of a peerage but not be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords. \p Joshua Reynolds: I wonder whether the Minister could help me out, because I feel that I might be having a dream about some strange alternative reality where the hill that the modern Conservative party is prepared to die on is giving unelected peers who are no longer peers the name and title Lord, as if that is the most important issue of the day in 2025. Can he help me—is that actually what is happening? Am I awake or not at this point? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I can help the hon. Gentleman out on one issue: I can reassure him that he is most definitely awake; this is most definitely reality. Where I am afraid I will fail is in explaining the priorities on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to that. \p Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister genuinely for giving way again; he is courteous and gentlemanly in doing so. I promise that this will be my last intervention. Could I just ask him about the difference between the problems he is discussing and what the Bill will enact, where a hereditary peer is not given membership of the House of Lords, but is still given the title and privilege of being a peer of the realm? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Quite simply, the amendment is trying to create the title as an honour without the actual membership. That is the difference. I had an  exchange earlier about there being no barriers to life peerage; that is not saying no barrier to the title. The life peerage, if granted, obviously confers both the title and the participation. That is the difference between the two.

On the point about the amendment being unnecessary, as my noble Friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent stated in the other place—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Family connections exist on the Government Benches, as well. The UK already has an extensive and long-standing honours system, which recognises and promotes the outstanding contributions made by individuals the length and breadth of the country and from all sections of society.

As has been said, being appointed as a peer is an honour, but it also brings the responsibility to contribute to the work of the second Chamber. The Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement to ensure that all peers contribute to the work of the other place—an approach that has received widespread support from peers. I certainly do not think that creating another layer to that system to provide for the statutory creation of non-sitting peers is in keeping with the mood of either House. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 3.

I turn finally to an issue on which I hope there will be cross-party consensus, which is resignation by power of attorney. Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 would allow the House of Lords to set out arrangements for resignation from the other place where a peer lacks capacity, including when someone is acting under a lasting power of attorney. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, it became clear that there was considerable support to address in legislation the long-standing concern that Members who lack capacity were unable to resign from the House of Lords, and the Government have listened and acted. Following discussions with peers across the House of Lords, the Leader of the House of Lords brought forward these amendments to address the matter. What they make clear is that a notice to resign from the other place may be given and signed by a person acting on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity, providing that it is done in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.

The amendments relating to resignation would come into force on Royal Assent to ensure that families who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of a parliamentary Session to do so. It seeks to provide certainty to peers who have raised this issue. It is a solution that has received unanimous cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will confirm the support for that amendment.

This a short and focused Bill. It delivers on a manifesto commitment to immediately remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is not personal, and nor is it a comment on the contribution that hereditary peers have made. The Government are grateful for their service in the other place, and I stress again that there are no bars on them returning as life peers if their party leaders wish to nominate them. However, the time has now come to deliver this immediate reform, so that we can move on to further reform of the other place, as set out in our manifesto, and deliver on what was promised in July last year. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. \p Alex Burghart: It is a pleasure to debate this historic piece of legislation on an historic day; my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) reminds me that it is the 1,100th anniversary of Athelstan being crowned King at Kingston, and I know there are a great many celebrations going on there today. The monarchy lives on—even if His Majesty’s Government are making changes to our ancient Parliament.

The Paymaster General accused the Conservatives of having been in hibernation, but it must be the Paymaster General who has been in hibernation, for he seems to have forgotten the fact that we are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the disastrous decisions that his Government have made—against the enormous damage that his party has done to our country in the short months it has been in power, and the worst Budget that we have seen in a very long time, which has caused 30-year borrowing to be at a higher rate than it ever was under the previous Government, or indeed the Government before. It is a truly terrible state of affairs, and economic experts say that we are heading towards an economic crash. It is already costing jobs in the constituencies of all the hon. Gentlemen across the Chamber every month. It is a serious issue—one that this Opposition called out at the Budget and will continue to call out. I hope that the Government see sense before disaster strikes.

Before I move on to the specifics of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to the quality of debate, first in this Chamber at the outset of the legislation and then the sheer quality of debate in the Lords. It reflects just how significant our upper House is to our constitution in its ability to strengthen legislation through scrutiny. I particularly want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who has done so much to hold the Government to account as they have pushed these measures through. The Paymaster General has talked about the Conservatives seeking to block legislation in the Lords. I am absolutely delighted that we have been trying to block their terrible legislation, and I am very pleased that the Lords have sent the Bill back with a number of improving amendments that speak of the decent scrutiny that is being done in the other place.

I agree with the Paymaster General at the outset that we accept the Government’s concession on powers of attorney. It is a sensible change, and I am glad that there is at least one issue on which we can find agreement. We are pleased that during the course of the debate the Labour party has made a number of significant and historic clarifications to its positions. It seems finally that the Labour party has agreed that an elected upper House would be a bad idea. I personally welcome that; I think an elected upper Chamber would totally disrupt the balance of our constitution. It would take away from the primacy of this House and often lead to constitutional deadlock. It has taken the Labour party about 100 years to reach that conclusion, but I welcome it joining the side of right.

I am also very pleased that Gordon Brown’s disastrous plans for constitutional reform, which were published during the last Parliament, have been done away with. They would have caused utter mayhem had they been pushed through by this Government, so I commend those on the Front Bench for kicking Gordon Brown’s terrible ideas into touch.

I was pleased to see that the Government have reneged on their manifesto commitment to kick out peers who are over 80. It was a terrible idea, and I am very pleased that they have seen good sense. There are a lot of excellent peers who are over 80, such as Lord Dubs and, by the end of this Parliament, Lord Blunkett, Lord Clarke, and Lord Heseltine—people who have added to the richness of the House, who bring their experience and who should not be barred on the grounds of age. I congratulate the Labour Government on having admitted their terrible mistake.

I turn now to Lords amendment 1. The House of Lords has, understandably, introduced an amendment that would keep the existing hereditary peers in place. We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) how the Labour party has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s that was going to keep a small number of hereditary peers in place until such a time as it brought forward a comprehensive constitutional reform package, which this clearly is not. \p Mark Ferguson: This is a fascinating return to the ’90s—like much about the Conservative party—but I think the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has missed the fact that there was an election last year in which the Labour party clearly won a mandate to deliver the removal of hereditary peers. What may or may not have been discussed in the 1990s is for the birds. There was an election. We won that election. We said we were going to do this. Let’s get on with it. \p Alex Burghart: I fully accept that the Labour party has changed its mind, but in doing so it has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s. Let us be clear about what is happening. The Labour Government are now seeking to remove a whole group of public servants who have done nothing wrong— \p Mark Ferguson: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Alex Burghart: Sit down. Those public servants are in the Lords because the last Labour Government put them there as part of the deal that it struck on long-term constitutional change. \p Gareth Snell: I obviously declare an interest as my wife is a Member of the House of Lords—and a salaried Minister, for good fortune. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recognises that the Labour party won an election but is talking about deals that go back further. Does he not realise that he risks undermining the Salisbury-Addison convention, which says that manifesto commitments should pass through the other place without hindrance? I know that the hon. Gentleman aspires to be back in government one day. Does he not recognise that by doing down that convention, he risks his own future legislative programme should the Conservatives ever get back into power in future? \p Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman will understand that this legislation is not being blocked but improved. That is what Parliament does, and that is how the  process of scrutiny works. He will see very clearly that the amendments make significant improvements to the faulty legislation that his party brought forward. \p Gareth Snell: I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his indulgence. He says that Lords amendment 1 makes a significant improvement to the Bill. Why, then, when it was brought forward in the other place by Lord Grocott as a private Member’s Bill and in this place by David, now Lord, Hanson, did the Conservatives block it and say that it was a terrible idea? \p Alex Burghart: I do not recall us saying that it was a terrible idea. I distinctly remember many Conservative peers speaking in favour of it actually, but that is part of the joy of the independence of the upper House, which, as I will shortly explain, risks being undermined by this legislation.

What the Government are now trying to do is remove a group of public servants who have done nothing wrong and who have simply served their country and continue to do so. The reason they are being removed is very clear: the Government cannot rely on their votes. Consequently, they are attempting to take a group of opponents out of Parliament by Act of Parliament. This is simply Cromwellian. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is a second Cromwell. Cromwell was a great man—a “brave, bad man” as Clarendon said—while the Prime Minister is just a man.

I do not believe that the Government have Cromwellian intent. They are doing something clumsy and foolish, but—I mean this seriously—what they are doing will set a precedent. I do not believe it is a route that the Paymaster General would follow, but the people who come after him may be much more like Cromwell than he. [Interruption.] There is laughter from behind the Paymaster General, but I want us to think seriously about what future Parliaments might look like. If the precedent is set that political opponents can be removed by Act of Parliament, someone in the future, even if maybe not tomorrow, in two years or in 10 years, will point back to this—I guarantee it. It does not need to happen this way.

We have a group of people already in the House of Lords and already doing a job. Take Viscount Stansgate, who is an excellent Member of the House of Lords and Deputy Speaker. As I am sure hon. Members know, there are 65 hereditary peers who sit on parliamentary Committees, so this change will be enormously and unnecessarily disruptive to the working of the House. It would be much better to leave them in place and let them do their jobs. \p Paul Holmes: On that point, I think of peers such as Patrick Courtown, the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, who has served in the other House since 1975 in a number of ministerial capacities. That is because of where he was born, but there is a risk in seeing Members laugh about rich and privileged hereditary peers. This is not “Downton Abbey” any more, and many of these people have given their life to this Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that should the Government get their way this afternoon, there needs to be an urgent conversation about support for those hereditary peers who may suffer after losing their positions in the other House? The Minister raises his eyebrows, but many peers in that  House are not stately home owners but people who have given their life and position to this Parliament, and they will need support going forward. \p Alex Burghart: I am interested in my hon. Friend’s excellent point, and I hope the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks.

What we will see is the removal of a group of public servants to make way for Labour placemen and Labour stooges—a huge act of patronage. I do not think anybody here believes that will improve scrutiny. It is just a numbers game. It is simply an attempt to give the Government a more compliant majority in the House of Lords, which they do not need. The Government will be able to get their business through the House of Lords anyway, so this is an unnecessary change that, despite the comments of the Paymaster General, belittles the contribution of the peers who already sit. It belittles their service, and it does not need to be done.

I turn to Lords amendment 2, on pay. I was interested by the Paymaster General’s response and listened closely to the detail he set out. There is an important principle here. We ask people to serve as Ministers of the Crown, and I think most of our constituents would agree that those Ministers should be paid. Members of the House of Lords are on no salary. They can collect their £361 a day if they turn up, but let us assume that one such Member is an unpaid Minister in the Home Office. They will find that on many working days they will be expected to travel—perhaps to Northern Ireland, Scotland or the north of England—and they will not be able to collect their allowance. On top of that, for taking on that important, unpaid job, they will also, for understandable reasons, have to give up their outside interests.

That means simply that many people in the House of Lords can afford to take ministerial jobs only if they are already of considerable means. I just do not think that the Paymaster General, in his heart of hearts, wants to see the perpetuation of that. If he does not agree with the Lords amendment, will he confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward comprehensive plans on that?

I will correct the Paymaster General on one small point of fact. He said that if Ministers in the House of Lords were paid, we would need to reduce the number of Ministers in the House of Lords as only a certain number of Ministers can be paid. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: rose— \p Alex Burghart: I will let the Paymaster General intervene if he wants to provide clarity on that technical point. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is a consequence of the interaction between the existing statute and this statute. I was not arguing for that; I was saying that that would be the effect of the Lords amendment. \p Alex Burghart: With the amendment, what the Government could do is reduce the number of paid Ministers in the Commons and have more paid Ministers in the Lords. That would be possible under the Lords amendment. \p Dave Robertson: Does the shadow Minister honestly think that I could go back to my constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages and say that by supporting the amendment, as he is  encouraging me to do, there would be more Ministers from the other place and fewer from the Commons? How does he think that would go down on a doorstep? I have been punched in the face, and it is not great. \p Alex Burghart: I am not sure whether his voters would be that impressed by the Ministers in the Commons at the moment, to be honest. The point of principle still stands: if somebody is a Minister of the Crown, it is perfectly reasonable that they should be paid for doing that job. I would be interested to know what the Government’s plans are to right that wrong.

Finally, on Lords amendment 3, which covers a new status of peers, it was unfortunate to hear some hon. Members belittle the idea, including the sleepy, dreamy hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) from the Liberal Democrats. [Hon. Members: “Dreamy?”] I appreciate how that came out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish—[Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: If the shadow Minister wishes to correct the record, please, feel free. [Laughter.] \p Alex Burghart: Well, I don’t know—he looks like he has made an effort today, and he is looking at me in a particular sort of way.

There is a suggestion that everyone is busting a gut to create a new status of peerage when it is unnecessary. Let us put it this way. I think a lot of people in our country recognise that getting a peerage is one of the highest recognitions for service to the country, but there are also a good many people whom I came across when I was a Minister dealing with the honours process who are either late in age—in their 80s or 90s—or infirm and would not want to commit to serving on the red Benches because of that. It seems a bit silly that such a small change should deny them the opportunity of recognition, which costs no one anything but enables us to reward good people who have done the right things by their country. \p Jonathan Davies: Does the shadow Minister think that the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle and the Order of the British Empire are not sufficient to recognise such people? The House of Lords should be a working Chamber shaping our public life. \p Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—there are other types of honour—but we already have peers who have stood down, and they get to keep their titles. They are called Members of the Lords but do not sit in the Lords, so the disjuncture already exists. [Interruption.] Would the Paymaster General mind passing me the water? I have got a terrible throat.

We already have peerages that work the other way round. We are suggesting that it ought to be possible for somebody who is perhaps in advanced years or not well to accept a peerage without feeling that they are under an obligation to go and sit on the red Benches. That is a perfectly reasonable request. \p Gareth Snell: rose— \p Alex Burghart: Go on—one more time. \p Gareth Snell: I thank the shadow Minister for giving way to me for a third time. I presume what he is suggesting is more about the title and the style than about a seat in the legislature. He will know that under the 2011 royal warrant that granted the justices of the Supreme Court the style and title of Lord, that did not come with any connection whatsoever to the legislature. So there is a way of doing what he suggests that does not require the Lords amendment: it can be done via royal warrant through an Order in Council. \p Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman is very well informed, and he is exactly right. This amendment, as was discussed in the Lords, would add clarity to the process and mean that it would become more routine than occasional. In that, however, he is entirely right.

I will conclude by saying that good amendments have been sent back by their Lordships; amendments that improve this Bill in more ways than one and which would keep the considerable skill and expertise of the hereditary peers on the red Benches for a little time longer. They would not prevent the Labour Government from bringing in more peers if they wanted to and they also raise important questions about ministerial pay and how we use our titles. I am very pleased that we have reached common ground on the issue of advocate powers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. \p Jonathan Davies: Lords amendment 1 seeks to gradually reduce to zero the number of excepted hereditary peers in the other place by ending the elections by which they are replaced. Our rich constitutional democracy has benefited from centuries of gradual evolution, and our democracy has thrived because power is not concentrated in the hands of too few people, which has mitigated the risk of overreach. Even though frustrations are frequently expressed, our parliamentary system is rightly admired around the world.

Several current excepted hereditary peers reside in my constituency. Along with other excepted hereditary peers, they make a valuable contribution and are motivated by public service. When I stood for election to this place and promised I would campaign for local jobs, I was not thinking about the hereditary peers of Mid Derbyshire necessarily, but here we are today.

Reform of the House of Lords has been on the agenda for a very long time and there is broad consensus that it should happen. Indeed, it is telling that the last Conservative Government did not seek to undo the reforms made by the previous Labour Government in 1999. From its origins in the 11th century, the House of Lords has undergone numerous changes, including a period when the Lords Spiritual were removed between xx-xxxx-xxxx and 1661 and the 11 years during which the other place was abolished altogether, from xx-xxxx-xxxx until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. More changes followed, including when legislation was passed in 1958 to create life peerages for people with specific skills and expertise to enhance our democratic processes, and that included admitting women for the first time. That spirit of reform was furthered by the last Labour Government in 1999 when the number of hereditary peers was limited to 92, freeing seats for people with a range of different experiences and expertise, regardless of their lineage.

The principle of the reforms the Government are pushing through today is not necessarily controversial, and Lords amendment 1 does not seek to block the principle of ending the involvement of excepted hereditary peers. Instead, it asks for the conclusion of their participation to be undertaken more gradually, and I believe there is some small merit in what that amendment seeks to do.

I have been lucky to work with some exceptional excepted hereditary peers on joint Committees and all-party parliamentary groups. To end their involvement at the end of the Session, rather than perhaps at the end of the Parliament, risks destabilising some of the good work that is ongoing through some of those parliamentary vehicles. Will the Minister therefore explain in his summing up whether he has considered different ways of managing that transition? For instance, we could seek to end the involvement of the excepted hereditary peers at the end of this Parliament, rather than just ahead of the next King’s speech. That might ensure that the professional relationships we have fostered with our colleagues in the other place, and the pieces of work we conduct together with them, continue to be fruitful, concluding with a natural cadence at the end of the Parliament.

Although I know the Bill has been tightly drafted to deal with the role of excepted hereditary peers only, the Government have plans for wider constitutional reform of the House of Lords, which may come before us at a later stage. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a participation requirement. It is not right that people should use the other place as a social club or a facility that they can use. It is a working Chamber, and people should be in there doing the job to which they have been appointed.

The Government have also said that they seek to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Even though it is key that the other place represents the rich social and geographical diversity of the United Kingdom, it is also essential that the House of Commons remains the principal forum where issues are considered through the lens of locality. The House of Lords, certainly since the introduction of life peerages in the 1950s, has been a vehicle to include the voices and perspectives of experts across a wide range of fields, rather than a focus on locality. I encourage my colleagues to reflect before introducing such a fundamental change to that relationship.

The manifesto that the Government and I were elected on includes a commitment to introducing mandatory retirement from the House of Lords at the age of 80. I would welcome clarification from the Dispatch Box as to whether that remains the case. Although it is necessary to get more younger voices into the House of Lords to enhance its ability to represent and serve the nation, the proposal that peers should retire at 80 would mean we would lose the contributions of Lord Kinnock, who is 83, Lord Dubs, who is 92, and Baroness Beckett, who was given a peerage by this Government aged 81.

A peer may reach their 80th birthday while working on a piece of essential legislation or leading a Committee. The House could therefore benefit from further clarity, if we are to pursue this, about how a mandatory retirement age could affect disruption to business and risk losing essential knowledge and expertise. Will the Minister also share any information, either in his summing up or  in the very near future, about how the Government’s plans for constitutional reform sees the future of the Lords Spiritual, one of whom is also my constituent, in any further shake up of the other place?

My advice to the Government, as they rightly seek to make the House of Lords more representative and effective, is that they should tread carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Our precious democracy deserves no less. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a first step to giving the House of Lords a greater democratic mandate and entrenching its valuable role within the constitution and legislature of the United Kingdom. Our democracy relies on a Parliament that equally represents all citizens of the United Kingdom, and that is why the abolition of hereditary privilege in our second Chamber is a long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats. We have called for this reform for decades and are pleased that the Government are taking steps to address this issue.

For too long, Parliament’s second Chamber has lacked the democratic mandate that would give it real impact within our legislature. Inherited membership of the Lords only weakens our democratic institutions and decreases public trust in our system. Furthermore, it reinforces the gender imbalance in the second Chamber. As I noted in previous debates on this bill, not a single one of the hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords are women. Actually, I am taking a quick look around and I think I am the only woman here, so it falls to me—[Interruption.] That is apart from Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg your pardon. It falls to me to underline how important the democratic role of women in both our Houses of Parliament is.

I also note that this reform is not about invalidating our traditions, nor discrediting the contributions of many hereditary peers over previous decades. It is about improving democracy and restoring public trust in politics by making Parliament more representative. Many hereditary peers have expertise and skills that they have given to our political system and to our legislative process.

As I turn to today’s Lords amendments, it is disappointing yet perhaps unsurprising that after years of delays and resistance from successive Conservative Governments, they continue to resist meaningful electoral reform. Their proposed amendments would only water down the Bill or waste further time prolonging the existence of a flawed system.

I therefore wish to speak against Lords amendment 1, which would dilute the Bill and continue the system of hereditary peers. Instead of meaningful reform, it opts for an underwhelming ban on by-elections for hereditary peerages. In practice, that would have the effect of leaving all current hereditary peers in place indefinitely, thus continuing this antique system for many years to come. For years, cross-party efforts have attempted to end the by-election system for hereditary peers, despite successive Conservative Governments resisting this vital reform. Now there is an opportunity to end the entire system of hereditary peerages, and the Conservatives once again continue to resist change.

The Bill and the amendments being considered today highlight that the will of Parliament is to end the hereditary system in the Lords. There has been enough delay; it is time to be decisive and to end hereditary peerages in entirety, here and now. We have the will, the power and the means to end this anomaly before us today. There is no need for the amendment.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 2. As outlined by Lord True, 14 Conservative Government-appointed unsalaried Ministers and Whips were in the Lords at the end of the previous Parliament, and Commons Library research confirms that since 2015 there have been at least 30 unsalaried Ministers and Whips in the Lords. Today, the very same party that appointed them seeks to champion the end of such appointments, as if they had not had the power to effect this change themselves on many occasions over the past decade.

I draw Members’ attention to the points eloquently raised by my excellent colleague the Lord Wallace of Saltaire in the other place regarding potential anomalies that the amendment could allow. I want to focus on Lord True, who, in introducing the amendment in the other place, said that it would not apply to any existing Member but only to future ministerial appointments in the Lords. Given that all hereditary peers are current Members of the Lords, I fail to understand what relevance the amendment has to the legislation in front of us. Unusually, I happen to agree with Lord True that all Ministers should be properly remunerated, but I struggle to understand why a piece of legislation that aims to scrap the principle of hereditary peers is the appropriate vehicle to enshrine that point. The Lord True spoke movingly of his shame and anger at being unable to provide remuneration to his fellow Conservatives during the last Parliament—I am not sure I completely sympathise. Remuneration of Lords Ministers is an issue for another occasion.

Liberal Democrats believe that the solution to the issue of democratic accountability and proper remuneration of our Ministers does not lie in this poorly drafted amendment. Instead, we must push for wholesale reform of the House of Lords and our democratic system more widely, including devolving powers so that the decisions that affect people’s lives are made closer to the places where they are put into effect. We therefore urge Members to reject the amendment and instead work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce proper reform of the House of Lords and give it the democratic mandate it needs.

I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 3. When the Bill came to the House, it represented an opportunity for a first step towards meaningful reform of the second Chamber. That is why I originally tabled new clause 7, which would have committed the Government to future legislation on reforming the second Chamber, and new clause 8, which would have increased transparency in the second Chamber by strengthening the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. However, the Conservatives have demonstrated no interest in strengthening or improving our democratic and legislative institutions. Instead, their amendment creates yet another type of peerage. It is an unnecessary amendment that does nothing to strengthen democracy or transparency.

Since Lords amendment 3 before us specifically calls for a new type of peerage, it follows that it is not relevant to legislation that specifically and exclusively deals with  the legacy of hereditary peers. If the Conservatives have proposals that could meaningfully improve our second Chamber, they should support Liberal Democrat calls for further reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to their support for our calls to change the opaque appointment process for peers and to reduce the inflated size of our second Chamber. If the Government could update us today on their proposals for legislation for further reform of the House of Lords, then the Conservatives could put forward their proposals for new categories of peerages. This House should look to be ambitious on political reform of the second Chamber. They should not look to expand a democratically flawed system with time-wasting amendments. The Liberal Democrats will therefore be voting to reject this amendment.

We welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, which are modest but important changes that will improve how the House of Lords functions. The amendments aim to support those peers who may lack capacity to fulfil their duties. Lasting power of attorney has been effective in supporting individuals’ freedoms and dignity, and it is only right that peers are not excluded from those freedoms. We welcome those amendments and will support their introduction into this legislation.

Returning to the Bill as a whole, Liberal Democrats welcome its aims. However, we are concerned that by passing this Bill, the Government will believe that their efforts can end here. Let me be clear: this Bill is a welcome step towards a better democracy, but it should not be the final step. The 2017 Burns report recommended a decrease in the size of our second Chamber, which the Liberal Democrats support. The process of prime ministerial appointments entrenches patronage and elitism within our politics, and the Liberal Democrats support moving away from that system. Labour’s own manifesto committed to a retirement age for peers—another change that we would support.

There continue to be so many opportunities to improve the functioning of our democratic institutions. The Government should now look into those further measures, including what is the most overdue and important change when it comes to the Lords: finally giving it a proper democratic mandate.

I urge hon. and right hon. Members to oppose Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which would water down the Bill. The Liberal Democrats will support this once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix part of our broken political system and use it to strengthen democracy in our Parliament and begin rebuilding trust in our politics. \p Shaun Davies: Lords amendment 1 flies in the face of the intention of the Government and this House to immediately reform the House of Lords by removing the last 91 peers who sit in Parliament based solely on their bloodline entitlement.

I start with the premise that the last 91 hereditary peers sit in the other place as a result of a compromise in 1999, when more than 660 hereditary peers were removed. I take the view that the other place, and indeed this Parliament, is no less effective as a result. The very architect of that compromise, the Marquess of Salisbury, said himself that the arrangement was supposed to last for around six months. The final 91 have had an effective notice period of 26 years already—a notice period that any worker in the real economy would no doubt welcome. It is now time to complete this reform.

For those seeking to support the amendment, I ask, “Where have you been?” One of my predecessors as MP for Telford, my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Grocott has continued to campaign on this issue for decades and has been vindicated at long last. He proposed exactly the measure outlined in the amendment—ending the by-elections to phase out hereditary peers—in four private Members’ Bills over the last 26 years. Each and every Bill was blocked by Conservative peers and Conservative Governments, so I do not believe that this amendment has been tabled in good faith. Instead, the Opposition are clutching at straws to prevent progress because they fear change.

In a recent speech on the Bill, the noble Lord Grocott used the word “gestating” to describe the reforms he tried to introduce over the last 30 years or so. That is the right word: the opponents of these changes knew in the 1990s that they had lost the argument and that the best they could do was to slow down the inevitable—bog down reforms with procedure and compromise. I agree with Lord Grocott that almost 30 years of gestation is far too long for anyone.

This Government’s decision to finally lance the boil and remove the remaining hereditary peers is long overdue, but it should be no surprise whatsoever that we face exactly the same kind of resistance now that our predecessors faced 26 years ago. First, the Conservatives try to defeat the Bill; when that fails, they try to compromise. Back then, it was, “Well, just keep a few hereditary peers. Phase them out so the change isn’t too sudden.” Now they say, “You must keep the hereditary peers. Phase them out so the change isn’t too sudden.” Somehow what was only ever intended as an interim solution is being replaced by another interim solution. We have had 26 years to phase out the hereditary peers, and they are still there.

Frankly, the 92 remaining hereditary peers have had 26 years of borrowed time. In fact, we have heard from a Tory hereditary peer about the “repercussions” for this Bill—a threat that they will use obstruction and delay to get what they want. If that sounds familiar to the House, that is because in 1998 that was exactly the same threat made to the then Government and the then Parliament. The Marquess of Salisbury said:

“My whole tactic was to make their flesh creep”.

We must resist this fearmongering, these underhand tactics, this opposition at all costs to the democratic process.

Those who have tabled Lords amendment 1 might say, “Well, unlike the last compromise, this one will eventually see hereditary peers leave the other place.” But when? They have already delayed the inevitable by 25 years. Will we have to wait another 25, 26 or 30 years? The youngest sitting hereditary peer is just 39 years of age. I wish him a long and happy life—of course, I do—and if he survives to the age of the oldest sitting hereditary peer, which is 93, that would be another 54 years until the end of the interim solution that was agreed 26 years ago. That is 11 general elections from now. A Telford constituent born the day the Bill becomes law—the day we started phasing out hereditary peers—would be 80 years old by the time the last hereditary peer retired. That is enough time for that constituent to have retired from this House themselves. \p Gareth Snell: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. The work that Lord Grocott did on this in the other place is commendable, but it was sadly blocked time and again by the Conservatives. On my hon. Friend’s point about the youngest hereditary peer and the number of general elections that may have passed before he will have seen himself out, by no longer being a Member of the House of Lords he would regain his right to vote and stand in general elections, so if he wished to return to Parliament, there would be plenty of places in this House that he could try for. \p Shaun Davies: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A point that has been made by other Members, including from the Opposition Benches, is that there is nothing stopping the Leader of the Opposition putting forward any hereditary peers for life peerages. \p Paul Holmes: The hon. Gentleman says that the Leader of the Opposition could give those peerages, but he will be aware that that is organised through the usual channels, in conjunction with the Prime Minister and members of the governing party. We would be a lot more comfortable talking about the replacement of hereditary peers if the Minister had come with any clarity on the conditions that may be set going forward, but we have had none of that. I challenge the Minister to say that hereditary peers can be put in as life peers. We would like some more information on what we are getting. \p Shaun Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. This is about priorities and choices. The Leader of the Opposition will be able to nominate people this year and next year—and maybe the year after, if she is still in place. She can make a decision on whether to put forward a hereditary peer or someone else during that spell. \p Gareth Snell: I am sorry to intervene again, but this is an important point. Since the general election, there have been 21 nominees to the other place. That would have counted for half the entire hereditary peerage group of the Conservative party, had the Leader of the Opposition taken the opportunity to promote them to life peerages. By not doing so, the Conservatives have chosen to keep those hereditary peers out. \p Shaun Davies: The Leader of the Opposition has a number of tough choices ahead of her, and those choices will no doubt be executed using her good political judgment.

To conclude, to right hon. and hon. Members from different sides of the Chamber who say that we need more reform of Parliament, the House of Lords, the constitution and the way in which the country works, I say—as a moderniser and the MP for an area for which the current system does not work—that I could not agree more. But this modest change—this slender Bill—has taken around 10 hours in this place and 40 in the other place, with more than 180 amendments tabled, so imagine how a larger and more far-reaching Bill would be treated. As the Minister has stated, many Members from across the political spectrum in the other place have called for a cross-party approach, and that is exactly what the Government are doing through the establishment of a Select Committee.

Let me close on this thought. We have heard for many decades the promise of future reforms. I support and will vote with the Government today on the basis that those future reforms will come through. I hope that the Government will be true to their word, and constituents like mine, who have seen themselves locked out of this place for far too long, will have the opportunity to serve it. \p Edward Leigh: Well, here we are again. The House of Commons and the House of Lords love debating reform of the Lords—we have been doing it for over 120 years. But we have made a bit of progress: at least, after all this time, we seem finally to have killed off the idea that the House of Lords should be elected. That is a great step forward, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in realising that that would just replicate the sort of system that they have in Washington and make it virtually impossible to have coherent government. I say well done; I think that we should give credit where it is due. The poor old Liberals have been dreaming about reform with elections for 100 years, but I am afraid that it is not going to happen.

I will, though, take issue with the Minister for being a bit cruel about the Conservative party when he accused us of having been relentlessly negative for all these years. He seems to have forgotten that in the 1920s—we have heard about 1924—the Conservative party led the debate on making the House of Lords a genuine Parliament of the Commonwealth, and very innovative ideas were coming out of the Conservative party. He blames the Conservatives for endlessly blocking reform, but it was actually the unholy alliance of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell during the Wilson years that blocked the last real attempt at House of Lords reform. \p Phil Brickell: The Father of the House mentions Conservative party policy in the 1920s and 1960s. Maybe he can recall better than me, but I do not believe there was any mention of House of Lords reform in the Conservative party general election manifesto last year. Will he illuminate the House on Conservative policy on reforming the other place? \p Edward Leigh: Our policy is very sensible: gradual evolution and reform. That is what the Conservative party is all about.

This is an historic day, and it is a rather sad one. After the Crown, the House of Lords is the most ancient part of Parliament, and the hereditary peers are the most ancient part of the House of Lords Chamber. One can laugh at history and say, “This is all old hat,” but history is important. This all evolved from the Magnum Concilium, or Great Council, of England. The coming together of England into a single realm was through the witans assembled by the King, comprising nobles and prelates. Bishops, abbots, ealdormen and thegns came from across the land. It was not just their privilege but their feudal duty—it was all about duty—to give the King counsel and consent.

It slowly evolved so that some peers sat in Parliament by their office, such as the Bishop of Lincoln, or by their hereditary title, such as the Earl of Arundel. I repeat this point: I cannot understand the contempt  and hatred for people just because they have their office by virtue of heredity. The hereditary peers are the only people in the House of Lords who are actually elected by anybody. \p Kevin Bonavia: This is not about individuals; it is about the principle. Does the Father of the House agree that it is the principle we should be talking about today, not the individuals, however good they may be at serving in the other place? \p Edward Leigh: Frankly, I do not agree with that principle. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, this will leave the monarchy wholly exposed as the only person who holds his office by reason of hereditary principle. \p Mark Ferguson: Will the Father of the House give way? \p Edward Leigh: I will make a bit of progress.

I know the Minister will say that the monarchy is popular—which it is—and that it does not have political power, but it has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer. I do not think we should accept that the hereditary principle is entirely wrong. Even if we accept that and say it is quite wrong that somebody should be called an hereditary peer, which I suspect is a lot of the problem, why do we not just make all the existing hereditary peers—who, as we have heard, are not stately home owners; they are dedicated public servants, with scores of them having worked in Parliament for years—life peers? Given that they are dedicated public servants, if we hate the fact that they are called hereditary peers, why not have an evolutionary form and call them life peers? But we are not doing that.

Lords amendment 1, tabled by my party in the other place, is entirely sensible. Rather than kicking people out in a flash, the hereditary peers—which we could now call life peers, if it is the name that makes people unhappy—could simply fade away. There is a lot of merit in old people gradually fading away rather than dying. \p Jack Rankin: Declare an interest! \p Edward Leigh: I do not declare an interest.

In a sense, that is already the case, as the Lords have suspended hereditary peer by-elections by amending the Standing Orders of their Chamber. Evolution rather than revolution—bending instead of breaking—is the usual method of British constitutional change. It has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work now. It is far wiser than overnight change.

There is also the matter of optics and fairness. This, of course, is a partisan point by its very nature, but of the 86 remaining hereditary peers, 48 are members of Opposition parties—Conservative or Liberal—31 are independent Cross Benchers, and two are totally non-affiliated. Britons pride themselves on the spirit of fair play. It is not, frankly, cricket for a governing party to expel Opposition Members from the national legislature. As Lord Strathclyde pointed out, if any other country were doing this—expelling Members of Parliament primarily because they were from Opposition parties—we would be launching petitions against it. \p Mark Ferguson: I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He makes a compelling point about other countries. Would he care to name some other countries that have people sitting in their legislature, able to introduce and vote on legislation, entirely by dint of their parentage? For the life of me, I cannot think of many examples. \p Edward Leigh: Of course, nothing in our constitution is perfect. We would not be starting here—we accept that. We are just saying that this is a group of dedicated public servants who have done nothing wrong, and we are simply asking that they should be allowed to carry on their work, rather than be kicked out primarily because they are from Opposition parties. \p Gareth Snell: Will the Father of the House give way? \p Edward Leigh: No. The hon. Gentleman is a very good chap, but he has had a lot of turns.

We all know that the real reason behind all of this is that the Government want to make space for more of their donors and cronies to enter the House of Lords, and that is entirely understandable. By the way, I think that there are sensible reforms that could be made in the House of Lords and that there has been a lot of abuse. I think that too many people have been appointed to the House of Lords—this is where the SNP has a good point—who are donors and cronies.

We could have started by giving real power to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which should look not simply at people’s propriety, but at their suitability. We heard criticism of some newly appointed Members of the House of Lords who are very young. I think the Appointments Commission could consider the attributes of any aspiring candidate, and ensure that the new membership of the House of Lords was taken from the most distinguished parts of the nation. It may be a fair point for another reform that perhaps we should not have people appointed for life. We have heard of somebody who is 39 or younger. Perhaps we should say that if someone is appointed to the House of Lords, they should serve for only 15 years or retire in that Parliament.

There are always arguments about age, but I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and I am glad we got rid of the ageist principle—there is nothing wrong with people over the age of 80, or indeed in their 70s—they are just as useful. Indeed, a lot of people in their 80s and 90s do a brilliant job, and some people in their 30s or 40s are completely useless—not, of course, in this Chamber. I think I have made my point. \p Andrew Rosindell: I commend the Father of the House for everything he is saying; he sums everything up perfectly. This is constitutional vandalism, and it is destroying the continuity that has made this place so effective and so special for so many centuries. This is clearly being done with a political motivation, which I think is thoroughly wrong. If we make a constitutional reform, at very least the British people should have a say in a referendum. \p Edward Leigh: Well, the Whip is looking at me. He wants me to sit down. My hon. Friend has made the point brilliantly, and I shall now sit down. \p Mark Sewards: I rise to speak to all the Lords amendments, but I will go into more detail on Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 8. I am pleased that the Bill is making progress, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book as soon as possible. We are one step closer to fulfilling yet another manifesto pledge.

I welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for the reasons already set out. They will allow Members of the other place who lose capacity to retire with the dignity that they deserve. It is clearly a sensitive and complex problem, and I congratulate the Government on finding a solution that received unanimous cross-party support in the other place. I hope it will receive the same cross-party unanimous support in this place today.

We have already discussed Lords amendments 1 and 8, which propose to stop hereditary peer by-elections and stop any vacancies being filled, although they would still allow current hereditary peers to stay in the Lords, allowing their numbers to grow smaller and smaller as they gradually begin to leave. If passed, the amendments would leave the current crop of hereditary peers in the Second Chamber for years and years—indeed, in some cases, as we have heard, for decades—but the entire purpose of the Bill is to remove them immediately, because of the principle that underpins our decision to make this change. \p Rachel Gilmour: I count a great many hereditary peers among my friends, and I know that they do excellent jobs. However, Britain stands, alongside Lesotho, as a complete anomaly in the 21st century by preserving legislative roles based on lineage. Serving in this House, as in any other, is a privilege of the highest order. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our legislators should be there on the basis of merit rather than DNA? \p Mark Sewards: I congratulate the hon. Lady for having so many friends in the other place. I could not agree with her more—it is almost as if she has read my speech and hence made her timely intervention. \p Andrew Rosindell: If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hereditary principle is wrong and that no one should be in this Parliament by dint of DNA, surely he is saying that we should abolish the monarchy. The Crown is part of this Parliament and Royal Assent is part of the legislative process. If we go by his principle, the hon. Gentleman is basically saying that the monarchy itself is no longer relevant. Is that what he is saying? \p Mark Sewards: All I would say is, “Long live the King.” What we do with our hereditary peers today does not affect what we do with our monarchy. As I was saying, no one should serve in the other place and make our laws simply because of the family that they were born into. No one should—not them, not me, not my children and not theirs. That is a basic principle that I hope we can all get behind. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman’s case, in essence, is that the only form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic legitimacy, but that does not square with the exercise of power in all kinds of other ways, does it?  We do not elect our judges—some countries do, but we do not. We do not elect all kinds of people who exercise fundamental powers. Many kinds of legitimacy are not democratic legitimacy. Surely he acknowledges that, had the Government come forward with a proposal that allowed the hereditary peerage to wither on the vine, it would be hard for anyone in the House to disagree, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment. \p Mark Sewards: The principle I am talking about applies specifically to the two Chambers that make and scrutinise our laws, submit amendments and so on. The idea that some people should be allowed a say in that process because of the family they were born into is alien to me. The House of Lords should have been abolished years ago. I am glad that the Government are finally taking the steps to remove that principle.

I am certain that decent arguments can be made for the contributions of hereditary peers being good ones, often with the nuance and expertise that comes with dedicated service in the other place. I have no doubt that we will hear such arguments today, but the same is true of those who are appointed as life peers—at least when political parties fulfil their responsibilities and choose appropriate people for the roles. Life peers, too, will go on to make excellent contributions and scrutinise our laws carefully using their relevant expertise and knowledge—given that they are often selected because of their expertise and knowledge, and not in the cynical way that the shadow Front Bench and others were suggesting earlier. Even if they do not, it is a life appointment, not one based on blood that they can pass down to the next generation, so I think that the system of life peerages is the better way to go. If Opposition Members genuinely believe that the hereditary peers who will lose their places because of this legislation should still be in the other place, they can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that is, submits their names to make them a life peer. \p Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely well, and I think that people with a mind to compromise would like to go down that road, but does he recognise that the usual handful of allocations will not be enough on this one-off occasion to meet the requirement that he has so ably outlined? \p Mark Sewards: More than 20 positions are available already and, as time goes on, more will become available. It will be up to the Leader of the Opposition to make that decision. \p Peter Prinsley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party manifesto stated clearly that we will abolish hereditary peers? Were we not to do so, the people of this country would simply be bewildered. \p Mark Sewards: My hon. Friend made the point extremely well. I have had to deal with this on a number of issues, including introducing VAT on private schools, for example, where Members came to this place, argued the point and said that we had no right to do it—yet it was in our manifesto, so we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation. I hope that Opposition Members will join us  in the lobbies as we do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) chunters from a sedentary position, but I am more than happy to take an intervention, if he wishes to make one. \p Alex Burghart: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Labour party has a moral obligation to implement every part of its manifesto, how does he feel about the bits that it has already ditched? \p Mark Sewards: The Labour party has a moral obligation to fulfil our manifesto pledges, and I am confident that during our five-year term we will make great progress on everything that we set out in that document.

I have argued that Lords amendment 1 undermines the core purpose of the Bill and is entirely inconsistent with our commitment to remove hereditary peers from the other place. Lords amendment 2 is an attempt to ensure that in future all Ministers who sit in the House of Lords are paid a salary. Having read Lords Hansard, I know that this is a well-intentioned amendment and I can see why the Lords have submitted it. However, ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, so any proposals to change them should be made through amendments to that Act rather than through this Bill. This Bill is specific, narrow and focused. If we want to have a conversation about those salaries, we need to allocate far more time to that and consider separate legislation, so I will not be supporting Lords amendment 2.

I had to do quite a bit of reading around the subject to understand Lords amendment 3. I understand that Lord True, the leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, wanted to clarify the power of the monarch to confer a life peerage that is granted without a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The creation of a new form of life peerage without any kind of parliamentary responsibility is unnecessary—I will take interventions, as I am happy to have this point clarified—because, quite simply, the King already has that power. He used it when he granted his brother, Prince Edward, the title of Duke of Edinburgh. Therefore, the power already exists and the need to clarify that power is unnecessary.

Lord True mentioned that the newly clarified power could be used to honour people without swelling the ranks of the House of Lords. However, as we have already heard, if we want to recognise special contributions to public life, there are already plenty of ways to do that, such as knighthoods, damehoods, OBEs, CBEs and so on. I maintain that life peerages should be reserved for those who actively participate in the work of the House of Lords, and I therefore urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 3.

Speaking about Lords reform more broadly, which has come up during the debate, I was pleased to read in Lords Hansard that Baroness Smith has suggested that a Select Committee, set up in the other place, could be used to examine a mandatory retirement age and minimum participation requirements, which I know many Members in this House support. The suggestion included a timeframe: set the Committee up within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and it will report back next year, so we can make real progress on the other commitments. I wholeheartedly endorse that approach and look forward to the outcome of this work. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers who do not sit. I do not know the view of Members on the Government Front Bench on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid argument. If people do not attend, it is sensible that they should not retain their right to do so. If people are appointed to the House of Lords and then never turn up, there is a good argument that there should be a point at which they should be told that they no longer have that title. However, on the matter of retirement on the grounds of age, this is a very dicey business, given that we have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. \p Mark Sewards: The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made and I will be following the work of the Select Committee closely. We have already heard names mentioned of people who are over the age of 80 and still making great contributions, so I will follow the Committee’s work closely before making a final judgment on the issue.

More broadly than the work that the Committee will undertake, once this Bill has become law, I will continue to advocate for a second Chamber that is more representative of our nations and regions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), who is no longer in his place, made a good point about expertise and not wanting to lose the expertise in the other place by increasing the proportion of people from other regions. Yorkshire and the Humber is home to 5.8 million people, and the suggestion that we cannot find experts within 5.8 million people is not necessarily a good one. I am not suggesting that he said that, but there is still space to increase representation from our nations and regions without diluting the expertise that we find in the other place.

It is not wrong to say that it is clearly easier for somebody to be a Lord and serve in the other place if they already have a base in London, and the figures bear that out. If we look at the Lords’ own surveys, we see that they show the breakdown of where each Lord comes from. About a quarter of them come from London, about 20% come from the south-east and only around 5% come from Yorkshire and the Humber, despite my region being home to 9% of the population—I am rounding up there, so forgive me for that. \p Jamie Stone: What about Scotland? \p Mark Sewards: The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. When it comes to Scotland, the figure is about 2% or 3%—I cannot recall the actual figures, but I will check.

The point remains that we have to make the House of Lords more representative of our nations and regions. We could address this issue in a piecemeal way, in the same way that we have addressed the hereditary issue over many decades. We could slowly introduce reform after reform on who gets appointed, where they come from, what proportion have to come from Yorkshire and so on, but I am not a fan of that approach. We should be as bold as possible and do the difficult work now, because we were elected to do the difficult work in this term and set out an ambitious plan for the wholesale  replacement of the other Chamber, ready to be made up of people from all our nations and regions. It should be a truly democratic body that draws on the same golden thread that should always exist between the people we serve in this place and those who should sit in a second elected Chamber. [Interruption.] Hon. Members chunter that this point is off topic; I probably agree, because the Bill does not cover that.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The Bill in front of us will remove the archaic right of somebody to sit in Parliament because of the family they were born into; I find that principle very hard to disagree with. The Bill shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative, and it should be just the start of our commitment to reform the other place and improve our ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public. \p Pete Wishart: I find this to be quite a curious debate thus far. There is not any great energy among Members on the Conservative Benches; I fully expected and anticipated that they would be down here in great numbers to defend their noble colleagues. I think there is only one Conservative speaker left—I look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). There was not the usual energy in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); I just do not know what was missing. There is a sense that they cannot be bothered defending this issue any more, which is a good thing. I am also beginning to detect a little bit of a drift between noble Lords in the Conservative party in the House of Lords and Conservative Members here. \p John Hayes: I want to inject some energy. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I am energetic about this matter. It is preposterous to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, on the basis that they give good service that, as I have already described, legitimately can be derived from a variety of sources. Many of them are disproportionately active in that Chamber. I accept that there is a manifesto commitment, but this could be done in a much more measured, sensible and moderate way. Is that enough energy for him? \p Pete Wishart: That is the way to do it. I hope the rest of the Members on the Conservative Benches are paying close attention, because that is how they defend the indefensible Conservative peers.

I have detected one other thing in this debate. There seems to be a concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber—I have not heard that properly yet, so perhaps the Minister can clarify in his summing up. That was implied and suggested, and I have not heard anything thus far that contradicts it. Perhaps we could hear the Minister say that that idea is now gone, because I do not think that there will be any more reform than this. I think this is it; I said in the earlier stages of the Bill that this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great, Gordon Brownian vision of a senate of the nations and regions is totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream; it is not going to happen. This Bill is all that this House will do about Lords reform.

I find the amendments to be a snivelling, contemptuous bunch of amendments. They demonstrate the Lords’ contempt for parliamentary democracy and for the  democratic will of this House—us, the Members of Parliament who are democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed the Bill with a large majority, and for all its faults, this Government said that they would pass it. It was a manifesto commitment, so they should be allowed to get on with it, but since then, the Lords have done everything possible to thwart the Bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their “save the aristocrat” campaign. For them, the principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected.

Since the Bill went down the corridor, those peers have tried to delay it through filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the Bill full of amendments. It only has two pages, but they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it; it only has four clauses, but 154 amendments were tabled to it. Defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy or global conflict. I paid real attention to its Hansard, and some of the contributions were truly bizarre. The oozing sense of entitlement from our upper and ruling classes was simply extraordinary.

The thing that got me was when those contributions started to get a little threatening—I think the Minister implied this. The noble Lord True warned that if the purge went ahead, we would face very aggressive procedural action, which could involve filibustering, wrecking amendments and, even worse, the parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said that this toff rebellion would only be stood down if a goodly number of the hereditaries were to remain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am positively quaking in my oiky boots. The prospect of a be-ermined banshee charging me with a vintage claret jug and snuff box practically terrifies me half to death.

The thing is, these peers really do believe that they were born to rule—that their role in our legislature through birthright is a gift that we should be eternally grateful for. They have now returned the Bill with these amendments, with the main one being to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement by rewarding them with a life peerage. That is not getting rid of the hereditaries; it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments, I just wish that we could introduce even more amendments ourselves. I would table an amendment that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. [Interruption.] I have got more—maybe a little bit of re-education, such as a couple of shifts in Aldi or Lidl, living on the living wage for a week or, even worse, having them speak in regional accents just for a day. Given that these peers have made this about public contribution—given that that is so important to them—how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? There is a suggestion for how they could be publicly useful.

I know that I am being a little bit comical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what this does is endorse the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing, bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of aristocrats, be-cassocked bishops, party donors, cronies and placemen feel that they can continue  with impunity, and they are probably right in that assumption. The aristocrats will soon be gone—I do not think there is any real desire to defend them any more—but the other members of that circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop, grow and thrive. The House of Lords is increasingly going to become a House of patronage—a plaything for Prime Ministers. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Mr Wishart, we are debating the amendments, not your vision for the future of the House of Lords. Perhaps you should stick to the amendments. \p Pete Wishart: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away.

The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms. \p Phil Brickell: I will start by setting out some context for why the Bill, though small, is so important and why I am delighted to be speaking in its support. I will then address Lords amendments 1, 3 and 8 directly. As has been mentioned in the debate, in 2024, Labour promised to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. In 2025, that is exactly what the Government are delivering, and not a moment too soon. The principle at stake here is simple, and it is about the principle, not the process. No one should make laws for the British people, claim a daily allowance or influence the future of this country purely on the basis of who their great-great-grandfather was. In my estimation, that idea belongs in the history books, not in a modern democracy. It is incompatible with the Labour party’s values and anathema to the values of the British people in 2025.

Of course, the Conservative party will resist. We have already heard diversionary tactics today, with talk about the Blair Government’s reforms in 1999, when we all know that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future ones. We have heard about next steps and whether a statutory Committee or a Select Committee is the right thing to do. Having asked the Opposition about their official policy, I am still unaware what it is. Indeed, we heard from the shadow Chancellor of the  Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about his concerns that this is all a numbers game. I remind him that UCL’s constitution unit has done the maths. In fact, were the changes to come into effect, the Conservative peers would still be the largest group of all the parties in the other place—larger even than the Cross Benchers. The Conservatives would see a minor reduction in composition from 34% to 32%.

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned that he is not supportive of an elected upper Chamber. I am still at a loss about exactly what a gradual change in the composition of the upper House means. \p James Asser: My hon. Friend mentions gradual change, which was apparently the policy of the Conservative party. Does he agree that a six-month temporary arrangement that takes a quarter of a century to overturn is the epitome of gradual? \p Phil Brickell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly the concern that I and many Members on the Government Benches have. Long-standing reform is well overdue. We also heard about the principle of monarchy, and mention was made of constitutional monarchies. \p Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too. \p Caroline Nokes: Just to be entirely clear, it was the property rights element of the hon. Member’s contribution that I thought was beyond scope. I think all Members—the House will be conscious that I have not been in the Chair very long—might like to stick to the scope of the amendments and what we are actually debating this afternoon. \p Phil Brickell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come to the amendments very shortly.

Mention was made of constitutional monarchies. A number of European countries have constitutional monarchies that have a hereditary principle, but none of them has hereditary Members in their Parliaments. Mention was also made of the hereditary principle for parliamentarians being somewhat unique, and of the principle of mandatory retirement at a certain age—indeed, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned it. Of course, that principle also exists in the judiciary, and I do not see any objection there from a human rights perspective.

UCL’s constitution unit found that a clear majority of the public—60%—want hereditary peers gone for good. Who can blame them? The record speaks for itself: not a single female hereditary peer has been elected in 66 years, over a third of hereditary peers are concentrated in London and the south-east, and by-elections are so farcical that they verge on satire. By-elections are in scope of Lords amendment 1, which I will come to shortly.

My electorate in Bolton West is about 76,000 electors. In July last year, 17,363 people voted to elect me as their MP in order to give them a voice in this Chamber. But in 2018 one hereditary peer was elected with a dozen votes—fewer than it takes to become a parish councillor. \p John Slinger: As my hon. Friend was giving his eloquent and excellent speech, I was reminded of a comedy series called “Blackadder”, in which such bizarre electoral practices happened on our television screens. It is a shame that they seem to be happening even today. \p Phil Brickell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point; indeed, he talks of one of my all-time favourite comedies. It speaks to the need for drastic reform of the other place, which is long overdue.

In a Tory by-election in the other place, another peer asserted that fellow Members should vote for him because he

“races on the Solent and gardens enthusiastically”.

The electorate for that vote were a grand total of 43. These are not truly democratic contests. They do not seek to promote those with the very best talent and expertise to serve this country. Such by-elections lack the fundamentals of what should be at the heart of this mother of Parliaments: transparency, accountability and scrutiny.

Since 1999, there have been over 30 of these bizarre contests, all with vanishingly small electorates—a process that is, frankly, long overdue reform. They have all produced lawmakers by accident of birth, and that is the principle to which I and many Members on the Labour Benches object. That is why I will be voting against the Lords amendments today. \p John Hayes: Just to refresh my memory, which Government instituted the arrangement whereby a certain number of hereditaries stayed and the kind of election that the hon. Gentleman describes was introduced? Was it a Tory Government, or was it a Labour Government? \p Phil Brickell: The right hon. Member will have heard me mention previously that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future Governments, and that this Bill was a manifesto commitment last year.

That leads me on to the amendments that have come back from the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson, propose ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. The amendments would hollow out the Bill and perpetuate the very problem that we are trying to fix. I urge colleagues in the other House to respect the Salisbury convention, which has already been mentioned today: this House has primacy on election-winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues have ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm that they respect that constitutional convention, and I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that, but we cannot scrap only the by-election process. As I say, it is the principle of hereditary peers that is so objectionable, which is why I will be voting to make sure that this Bill gets on to the statute book.

Many hereditary peers have made valuable contributions —I have worked alongside some already in the short amount of time I have spent in this place—but those  who want to continue serving can and should do so on merit. They can stand for elected office, they can be nominated for life peerages, and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong Cross-Bench candidates. This Bill is not an attack on individuals; it is an attack on the medieval principle of privilege by birth. No one should sit in our Parliament because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago. Lords amendments 1 and 8 are not about accountability and they are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament, and the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle.

Lords amendment 3, from the noble Lord True, is about so-called non-sitting peerages. Let us be clear: peerages should not be sinecures. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people’s contributions, we already have a system for that—the honours process, with knighthoods, CBEs and MBEs—as the Paymaster General stressed. This amendment looks less like reform, and more like a way of preserving influence. We have already seen the pattern with titles handed out as bargaining chips or rewards for party donations. This debate has been quite good-humoured, but I do have to flag the Conservative party’s tradition of ennobling its treasurers. I take no pleasure in quoting this, but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted in 2021:

“Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.”

That is not public service; it is politics for sale, and it is exactly what the public are fed up with.

In summary— \p Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Phil Brickell: I will give way on that final point. \p Pete Wishart: Yes, there are of course some appalling practices with the Conservatives rewarding their donors with peerages, but does the hon. Member not remember cash for honours? There was a police investigation, and Tony Blair was actually questioned by the police. This goes on in all parties, and each of them is a disgrace. \p Phil Brickell: In summary, this Bill is about rebuilding trust in politics. It is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century, not the 21st. It is about showing the British people that Parliament works for them, not the privileged few. Let me also say that this Bill is just the beginning, and I am committed to wider reform of the second Chamber: to improving its national and regional balance; to introducing, yes, a mandatory retirement age; to requiring meaningful participation; and, ultimately, to replacing it with a more modern second Chamber fit for the 21st century. That is the path to a fairer, more accountable and more democratic politics. It is what Labour promised, which is why I am proud to see the Government delivering on it. \p Jack Rankin: I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 and 8, and therefore against the motion, in two minds. I say in two minds because I find the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers without seeking consensus, which is what a rejection of Lords amendment 1 would mean, both regrettable and exciting. I would like to take each of these two polarising mindsets in turn.

My first emotion is regret. Britain has something of a Schrödinger’s cat constitution. We are simultaneously a modern, plural and open democracy, and a kind of autocratic theocracy. Our national motto, “Dieu and mon droit”—God and my right—points to the hereditary monarch being appointed by and accountable only to God. We have a state religion in England and Scotland, and in England the divinely appointed monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church. The bishops, whom the King appoints, sit in our legislature, as do hereditary peers, who are the focus of the amendment. The King appoints the judiciary and is the commander of the armed forces. On paper, as Labour Members have pointed out, the country with which we have most in common is the demonic Islamic Republic, but unlike Iran we have simultaneously free and fair elections, broad debate in a free press, and freedom of religious and belief, and we are an open member of the international order.

The point is that we would never design our tapestry of a constitution. In many ways it is absurd, but it is organic. It is rooted in the millennia of history. In two years’ time, we will celebrate the 1100th birthday of England, the most remarkable nation on earth, which a majority of us in this place are fortunate to have won the lottery of life to be born in. We should be respectful of that evolution, because that evolving constitutional order has empirically served us well. It is how it works in practice that matters, not how it looks on the ideological grand planner’s piece of paper. \p John Hayes: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is making the speech that he is, because he understands that, essentially, our system is an organic one. Constitutions are not written from a blueprint—they can be, but they are not in this country—and what he is describing is a blend of democratic legitimacy and the other forms of the exercise of power. What the Government are proposing is not a democratic House of Lords, but an appointed House. That in itself contradicts some of the speeches made by Labour Members. \p Jack Rankin: My right hon. Friend is right. Our national story has brought us to a place where this House is rightfully dominant among the three parts of Parliament in exercising the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, but we should be careful of the wholesale execution of one of those arms. Let us be clear: that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do. The other place without them is no more a House of Lords than my terraced house in Sunninghill is. A Cromwellian purge, it would leave that place the preserve of political cronies and failed advisers. Is that what we want? Is that progress?

The House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. This place has the attention span of a TikTok-addled teenager, as we jump to half-hourly news cycles driven by Twitter and rolling news. \p Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend is making the correct argument. The hereditary peerage in the House of Lords represents continuity in our country and wisdom throughout the ages. Most of the House of Lords is appointed, but that hereditary element is vital as part of the mix of our very successful parliamentary constitution. \p Jack Rankin: My hon. Friend’s point is right, and I thank him for it.

We walk through the Division lobbies, directed by the Whips, often having had no time, because of the impossible juggling act, to develop real knowledge of the topic in question or to think through properly the implications. Some of the stuff that leaves this place with a massive majority might have well been written in crayon. Thank God for the other place. Do not remove long-serving public servants and outstanding legislators. Do not pick at the threads of our constitution. The other place is one of the parts of our constitution which works best. We should retain Lords amendment 1 and 8.

I talked of a tension, a conflict in my thinking. I have tried to articulate a deeply conservative instinct, but I also feel excitement, as I will explain. My view is that the British state is way off course, dangerously off course. It needs deep and radical change. To take one issue, immigration, almost nothing is now too radical to consider. Whether we look at the asylum system or legal migration, the radical change that the country needs will be of significant scale. None of that will be possible in the Blairite constitutional straitjacket that is at direct odds with our historic constitution. \p Mark Ferguson: That is a fascinating argument. The hon. Gentleman has argued in favour of the Lords for their restraint, and now he is arguing in favour of the Lords because they allow radicalism. That does not make any sense. \p Jack Rankin: That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds— \p Caroline Nokes: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have plenty of respect for it. \p Jack Rankin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make to those on the Government Benches is that if a Government can expel their political opponents from the other place because the majority in this place says they are not elected, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister’s patronage, so can a new Government—so take the compromise. Be careful what you wish for. \p Kevin Bonavia: Our constitution is indeed a very curious beast. Nobody starting from scratch would come anywhere near designing what we have for this country—perhaps apart from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and some of those on the Benches behind him. It has evolved over the centuries in response to the political pressures that arise from time to time, and today is part of that evolution. As the constitution has changed, our traditions have remained. I for one love a bit of tradition in this place, especially when it tells the story of how we have come to be where we are; whether it is Royal Assent being signified in  Norman French or the doors of this Chamber being shut on the entry of Black Rod, it all tells a story. However, when tradition holds us back from the work we are sent here to do, it becomes a barrier.

That is why this Bill was introduced within the first 100 days of this Labour Government. We were elected on a clear manifesto commitment: to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place—a principle that is both simple and long overdue, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). In the 21st century, we should have no places in our legislature reserved for those who are born into certain families. It is an outdated and indefensible feature of our constitution, and last year the British people gave us the mandate to change it.

Yet the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claims this Bill is a Cromwellian measure. Was it not Oliver Cromwell who came into the Chamber of our predecessors and shut it down? That is not what is happening here today. Today, we are following through on a democratic process, consulting the people, and bringing through a full Act of Parliament in both this and the other place. I will tell the hon. Gentleman something that is far more Cromwellian: only a few years ago, a Conservative Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, forced our late Queen to prorogue Parliament. That was much more Cromwellian than anything we are doing today.

The retention of hereditary peers after 1999 was meant to be a temporary compromise; a quarter of a century later, it is time to finish the job. Today we are nearly there but for some amendments from the other place, which I want to address—in particular Lords amendments 1 and 3. \p John Hayes: Just to get Cromwell right: it was Cromwell, rather like Boris Johnson, who ended the Long Parliament by walking into this Chamber, so the parallel is probably closer than the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest.

Cromwell was a tyrant, really, in all kinds of other ways, who wanted his son to succeed him, so he believed in the hereditary principle.

On the point of substance, the point about the House of Lords is that it is a check on the power of this place, and that is a helpful thing for Governments, actually, as sometimes Governments benefit from having to think again. The continuity that is being argued for from the Conservative Benches is part of a healthy constitutional settlement. If we sacrifice that settlement, I think we will get less good, rather than better, government. \p Kevin Bonavia: I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of a check on this place. However, that check must come with due wisdom and expertise. We have heard from the Conservative Benches about those centuries of wisdom, but wisdom cannot simply be passed down genetically to people in the other place today. Surely we need people in the other place who have expertise and are there on merit, not because of who their ancestors were.

Lords amendment 1 seeks to amend the 1999 compromise of by-elections to replace vacant hereditary peers by allowing the cohort of hereditary seats to gradually reduce by natural departure. As my right hon.  Friend the Paymaster General has said, that amendment would effectively delay our manifesto commitment to end the hereditary element in the other place for many years to come.

As I said earlier, this is about not individuals or personalities but ensuring that our institutions reflect the values of our modern democracy. I have seen at first hand the important role of the second Chamber in scrutinising legislation and improving the quality of lawmaking, but that role must be based on merit and public service, not on birthright. If anyone watching today’s debate is a hereditary peer—I see none up in the Gallery—and is dismayed at the prospect of no longer being able to contribute to the work of the other place, I say to them: do not be downhearted. Anyone in principle, including ex-hereditary peers, should have the ability to serve as a parliamentarian if they are willing and able to do the necessary work—and work is the point here.

Doing the necessary work brings me to Lords amendment 3, which would effectively bring about a new tradition of creating life peerages as honours in name only, with no work involved. What on earth is the use of that? There are plenty of other honours, as we have heard, that His Majesty can bestow that would show due public recognition for services rendered to this country. The other place is not and should not be used as an honours board. It should be a working and effective part of our legislature—our Parliament.

I believe that any parliamentarian comes to this building to do the work, to hold or be held to account, to raise issues that matter to the wider country and to pass good and workable laws. When I was elected on that expectation by my constituents in Stevenage, that was the pledge I promised to uphold. Although Members of the other place do not have expectations from constituents, I believe there is an expectation from the public as a whole that they are there to do the work of good parliamentarians. An empty life peerage title would only take away from that public expectation.

These amendments complicate what is and should be a simple task before us: to deliver—finally—on ending the principle of hereditary peerages and ensure that the other place is a working place in a Parliament that works for all the people. \p Mark Ferguson: This has been a suitably fascinating debate. I do not plan to speak for too long, because the points have already been well made. We have had 10 hours here and 52 flippin’ hours in the House of Lords on this concise, four-clause Bill, and now we have a number of amendments. I will address Lords amendments 1 and 2.

Lords amendment 1 is fairly straightforward up and down. We know what it is. It is a wrecking amendment, pure and simple. It is nothing more than an amendment designed to preserve the hereditary principle in the House of Lords—a principle that is an outdated anachronism that has no place in 2025 or any modern democracy. The only other comparable democracy is Lesotho. I do not know much about Lesotho, but I would quite like not to share this unenviable record with the good people of Lesotho for any longer.

The point has been made that if we do not want the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, perhaps that means that we no longer want the monarchy.  Nothing could be further from the truth. As all Members in this place did, I swore an oath of allegiance to the King. I have not always been ardent monarchist, but I support a constitutional monarchy, and one of the many reasons I do is because the monarch has absolutely no role in introducing laws, in amending laws or in voting on laws. The monarch’s role is quite clear and simple: Royal Assent. They do not obstruct the work of this place—rightly so—and yet we have heard so many times today about the guerilla warfare that is being led in the other place against numerous pieces of legislation in retribution against this simple removal of an anachronism.

That is not what the King does. Frankly, it is when monarchs have sought to obstruct this House that references to Cromwell are relevant. That is not what the Bill does; it is about removing the hereditary principle from the legislature that develops, scrutinises and delivers legislation. The King may sign it—that is his role. \p John Hayes: The point has been repeatedly made from the Government Benches that this is a matter of principle and that hereditary power is unacceptable. Now, the hon. Member is right that the King has no role in introducing legislation, and so on and so forth, but the King does have immense political influence. Which Labour Back Bencher meets the Prime Minister weekly to discuss the affairs of state? \p Gareth Snell: rose— \p John Hayes: Madam Deputy Speaker, the king of Stoke!

Which Labour Back Bencher receives a regular report from the Whips on the proceedings of this House? That is what the King has. The King rightly has powers, and he derives his power by birth. \p Mark Ferguson: I delighted to inform the right hon. Member about the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench committee, which meets the Prime Minister weekly when Parliament is sitting. I see at least one of my hon. Friends from the committee here—[Interruption.] In fact, there are two here. Staffordshire is well represented at the moment on the committee, and that is quite right—oatcakes all round for them, and of course for the Prime Minister. \p Adam Jogee: rose— \p Mark Ferguson: I will happily take a point in a second from my hon. Friend, which I presume will be on the Lords amendment and not on oatcakes, but I wish to respond fully to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) before I got so distracted. I apologise for that self-distraction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The role of the Lords in our legislature is quite clear, as is the role of the monarch. In fact, I spoke this morning to students from Emmanuel college in my constituency about the three distinct parts of our Parliament: this place, the other place and, of course, the monarch. But the principle under discussion is the ability to introduce, amend or vote on legislation. The King does none of those, so I see no contradiction on that important point of principle.

I will now happily accept an intervention. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although the moment has passed slightly. I wanted to thank him for acknowledging the work of the PLP Back-Bench committee. I will happily bring him some oatcakes from home on Monday morning. \p Mark Ferguson: I thank my hon. Friend, although I do not think that will help me with my diet. However, I am doing the great north run on Sunday so I will probably need the calories.

I am happy that we are having the debate, but I am somewhat surprised by its tenor, which runs contrary to the Salisbury convention—its correct name, of course, is the Salisbury-Addison convention; we too often neglect the Labour Member of that important duopoly. It has been surprising—particularly so on Second Reading, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), led for the Opposition—that there has not been a more straightforward argument from the Opposition in favour of the hereditary principle, because it seems fairly clear that that is what they are arguing for.

I dare say there is a—probably dwindling—proportion of the electorate who wish to see the hereditary principle enshrined within those crucial aspects of our legislature in the scope of our discussions, but no Opposition Members appear willing to make that argument. I am afraid it is an act of constitutional contortion for them to say they merely wish to allow some people to serve out their time. If that is the case, why do we have elections? Many wonderful public servants on both sides of the House lost their seats at the last election; but in this place we believe that, at the will of the people, any of us could be gone—and that is quite right. \p Stephen Gethins: The hon. Member is making the point that any of us should be able to go, and I agree. Should that not be the case for all parliamentarians and not just those in this House? \p Mark Ferguson: My long-standing views on reform of our Parliament can be looked up by any Member if they so wish. I very much welcomed, both on Second Reading and from the Front Bench today, the comments on the future reform of the Lords and what that might look like. However, I dare say to the hon. Gentleman that we might agree on some specific aspects more than he imagines.

There has not been much discussion of Lords amendment 2, on Ministers’ pay. I welcome the Conservative party’s stout defence of working people and of ensuring that people are paid what they are owed. We have also heard references to equalities law from the Opposition Benches, and I welcome that. I just think it is such as a shame that it is only being applied specifically and uniquely to hereditary peers.

As Conservative Members well know, there is a limit on the number of Ministers who can be paid. I think that is right and I do not believe that now is the right time to expand the cost of our politics with more paid Ministers. However, if the Conservative party believes, genuinely and deep down in its soul, that it needed to have more paid Ministers, it had 14 years of Government in which it could have done that, rather than tacking it on as a distraction from the issue at hand here, which is incrementally but crucially reforming our constitution.

I support the Government’s position on all the amendments. Let us get on with this. We have had 62 hours of debate—and counting. Let us crack on. It has been 1,100 years; I think it is time to cut it short. \p Gareth Snell: I draw attention to my interest on two fronts, in that my wife is a life peer in the House of Lords and a salaried Minister. \p Jacob Collier: And a very good one at that. \p Gareth Snell: Yes, she is very good. I thank my hon. Friend for that.

I want to start by addressing some of the points that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) made—he has left. His characterisation of the House of Lords is grossly unfair. He characterised everybody who is a Member as being some sort of pocket-stuffing hanger-on. I think that exposes more about his particular brand of petty grievance politics than it does about the actual calibre of the individuals down at the end of the corridor. Regardless of party affiliation or whether they are independent or bishops, the Members I have come across—in Committee or Joint Committee work, or in delegations when I was previously in the House are—good people who want to see the nation benefit and our country thrive and see good politics and good governance. The characterisation is often unfair and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire belittles his own position as a Member of this House. \p Stephen Gethins: I intervene merely because my hon. Friend is not here to defend himself, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. There are a number of fine people in the House of Lords and I have worked with them in a number of ways. However, democratic accountability should be at the heart. Labour promised to scrap the House of Lords in the first ever manifesto it produced over a century ago, so although his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) might have been waiting 1,100 years, we have been waiting 110 years for Labour to fulfil its commitment to electing and giving them that democratic mandate. \p Gareth Snell: Without getting drawn into the debate on the rights and wrongs, I will say that if the Scottish National party had wanted an elected second Chamber, it could have had one in the Scottish Parliament but chose not to. There are things about the way in which our democracy works that mean the SNP Members come down here simply to have a pop at this place for their grievance politics in Scotland. Frankly, if the SNP spent more time thinking about how it could help the nation rather than its petty nationalism, we might be in a better place as a country and things would be better in Scotland.

In a point relating to amendment 1, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) rightly pointed out, Lord Grocott has proposed this Bill in the House of Lords numerous times over the past 20 years. He has tried to get to the point when there could have been an opportunity over the past two decades for Members who are here by virtue of the hereditary  principle to be phased out over time. At every opportunity, it was blocked by the Conservative party; at every opportunity, it was talked out.

When the Bill was introduced in this place, first by David Hanson and then by John Spellar, the Conservative party opposed it, saying that the principle was wrong and there was not enough reform. I therefore feel that it is slightly disingenuous now to propose something that the Conservatives have opposed for the past two decades as their solution to the problem that they themselves created by not accepting it in the first place. It is slightly unfair, and it is a categorisation of their own politics that they seek to find ways to frustrate the Bill because they have no option for themselves.

On the somewhat spuriously suggestion that this is a way of neutering opposition in the other place, the number of Conservative peers, even after the expulsion of the hereditaries, will still make them the largest party in the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) pointed out. The Labour party is currently the third largest party in the House of Lords, after the Cross Benchers. Even after the removal of some of the Cross Benchers who sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage, they will still only be slightly behind the Labour party. The idea that this will remove any form of opposition in the upper House is simply incorrect—it does not hold water.

The other idea that good scrutiny of legislation in the House of Lords can somehow happen only by virtue of the application of the minds of the hereditary peers is equally incorrect. Some of the best challenges to Government in this Parliament have come from Members of the House of Lords who have been appointed. It does not necessarily mean they are less likely to be independent because they are not there by virtue of a hereditary peerage. I genuinely do not see that for myself. The times when I have sat and watched the House of Lords, because their sitting hours are later, I have seen that the challenges that come from the bishops, the Cross Benchers and the members of the Conservative and Liberal parties, regardless of how they reached there, have been thoughtful and well considered, and long may that continue. I do not think that is diminished by virtue of the fact that we say to a small group of those who have a right in the House of Lords, “Your route into this place was an irregularity, and we are seeking to sort that.”

The shadow Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), disputed my figure. There have been 21 appointments to the House of Lords who have had the Conservative Whip. I appreciate that some of those have been resignation honours from previous Prime Ministers—and there were a few to get through because of the way their party operated—but there have been 21. At any point, the former Prime Ministers could have said, “We would like to consider giving those to members of the hereditary group who are not able to continue.” There have been a number of appointees who were not part of a resignation honours list, and again, the Conservative party did not take the opportunity to say to Earl Howe, “We are going to make sure that you can continue.” \p Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. Does he think that, given the policy they have embarked on, the Government should have a duty  to protect Cross Benchers who have no party representation in this House? The hereditary peers who are Cross Benchers will otherwise go by the wayside. Would he at least support his Government doing that? \p Gareth Snell: It is hard to overestimate the valuable contribution that the Cross-Bench peers make to the House of Lords, not least the number of retired members of the judiciary who come in to fulfil certain judicial or pseudo-judicial responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman probably has an element of a point that I would almost agree with: there is a conversation to be had about how we ensure that the Cross Benchers continue to have representation that reflects the breadth of the country and the skills that Parliament needs. Obviously, there is a role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which can make recommendations for new Cross-Bench peers. How that works going forward I am sure is something that will be considered.

Again, there will still be 151 Cross-Bench peers even after the number of hereditary peers have been expelled from the House. That is a large number of peers, all of whom bring an expertise to the House that should be looked at. If there are new Cross-Bench peers to come in, I am sure that the commission will make that recommendation.

The idea that the House of Lords will somehow cease to function by virtue of the immediate abolition of hereditary peers does not hold water or make sense. We should simply say, “We are going to have a clean break. Thank you very much for your service—we appreciate it. If you wish to come back to politics or to Parliament, you can be nominated to the House of Lords for a life peerage, or you can seek election to this House.” If the Conservative party really wanted to ensure that some of those hereditary peers were able to come back to this place, they could say, “We’re going to make sure you are our candidates” for the 25 safest Conservative seats—if there are 25 safe seats for any party these days. It could say, “You can make a valuable contribution to politics in a way that gives you a seat in one of the two legislatures.” There are ways of doing it that simply do not allow for the withering of the situation that we have. \p Andrew Rosindell: What I am puzzled about is this: how does the abolition of these great people who have come to this place with a duty of service that they have inherited and served the country benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent? How will our constituents benefit by this change to our constitution? Does the hon. Member really think that this country will be so much better for having got rid of our hereditary peers, who have such a great duty of service to our country? \p Gareth Snell: The hon. Gentleman poses a fair question. I would argue that having a ringfenced number of seats reserved almost exclusively for white men sends the wrong message to my constituents. I fully accept that there are Members of the House of Lords at whom my constituents can look and think, “They have done something spectacular with their lives.” [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire jumps up, there are Members who have come in through the by-election process after making good contributions in their careers, and their being there does bring something, but I do not believe that my constituents would be  diminished or harmed by their expulsion. I cannot see any justification for keeping 92 people in this legislature by virtue of appointments made many decades ago. \p Andrew Rosindell: It is a small element. \p Gareth Snell: It is a small element, as the hon. Gentleman says, but by that same logic, the removal of that small element will not have a big impact. We are grasping at straws.

Let me address the suggestion that this is an attack on the hereditary principle. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is probably one Member of the House who understands quite well the role of the Earl Marshal. He will continue to be an officer of the House of Lords, and the role will still be intrinsically linked to the families of the Duke of Norfolk, but he will simply not be able to vote in Divisions or participate in debates. I do not believe therefore that this is necessarily an attack on the hereditary principle per se; it is simply about saying that there is no place for the hereditary principle in a modern-day democracy.

I will move on the point about giving out titles as rewards. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve the Conservative party’s aims, not least because the monarch, as the font of all honour, can create whatever titles and styles he likes, with whatever caveats he likes, through letters patent. It does not immediately mean that one has to become a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of having a life peerage if the letters patent say something different. I am sure that the shadow Paymaster General is well read up on the Wensleydale decision of 1856, when a life peerage was created for Sir James Parke but it was specified that he could not be a Member of the House of Lords. The principle of establishing titles and styles for reward and recognition without tying them to seats in the Lords already exists, so the amendment is entirely unnecessary.

My final point, which has not been the subject of much discussion—as it is not a party knockabout issue—relates to Lords amendment 4, on the capacity of colleagues in the House of Lords. It is clear that many Members of the House of Lords have served our country and their communities well, but some find themselves in old age and declining health. They deserve the dignity of being allowed to retire from that place without it becoming a story of capacity. The amendment, which was accepted by the Government and the Opposition in the Lords, is an important way of recognising that we can make small changes every day to the House of Lords, as the previous Government did on the ability to retire and take a leave of absence. This Government are ensuring that resignation can be granted for Members subject to power of attorney—that is an important change and I hope that it gets cross-party support.

To summarise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said, this legislation has been a long time coming and is part of the evolution of the House of Lords. The Opposition amendments do nothing to improve the Bill; they would simply slow the pace of reform and add bits that do nothing more than frustrate the passage of the Bill when it goes back to the other place. I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the Government in bringing dignity to those who need to retire with capacity issues, so that we can progress with building a more modern and successful democracy. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: With the leave of the House, I will close the debate, and it is a privilege to close this wide-ranging and well-natured debate. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has been treated somewhat unfairly in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) accused him of a lack of energy, but he was completely wrong. The contribution from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may have been ill-judged, but it was certainly energetic; we can give him that. His contribution was, in some ways, brave—some would even say it had a chutzpah about it—when he accused me of trashing precedent while simultaneously trashing precedent himself.

The Labour manifesto of last year said:

“The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords”—

not over time, as Lords amendment 1 proposes, which is about half a century if we look at the age of the youngest hereditary peer, but immediately. Lords amendment 1, which the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster supports, is therefore an absolute breach of the Salisbury-Addison convention, under which this measure should be allowed on to the statute book. \p Alex Burghart: We are under no obligation to support Government legislation in the Commons. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Let me just repeat that point to the hon. Gentleman, because it is important. He claims to respect precedent and the rights of Parliament, but the position he takes in supporting Lords amendment 1 runs a coach and horses through that. \p Alex Burghart: This is the Commons—we are not obliged to support you. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Fine, let me put it this way: the hon. Gentleman is supporting the position that his peers are taking, which is in breach of that convention.

I will give the hon. Gentleman another chance, because he is trying to put a defence up on that particular precedent. He supported the closing down of Parliament in 2019, and now he sits here lecturing me on precedent. I think it is best not to take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on that.

There was an opportunity for the Opposition this afternoon. They did not have to join in with the filibustering tactics that have been used, with tens of hours of debate on this very narrow Bill. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could today have not joined in, but he will lead his troops through the Lobby to continue to try to block these reforms. That is what this is all about. It is not, as he pretended, about trying to improve the Bill. It is not that those on the Tory Front Bench are secretly in favour of radical reform, and this is not radical enough for them. They are trying to wreck this Bill, and that is exactly what he will do as he goes through the Lobby with his troops later. \p Paul Holmes: The Minister may remember that at the beginning of the debate, I asked him to bear in mind the circumstances of some of the people who have given  their life to this place over the last 25 or 30 years and are not in the best financial health. We are not in “Downton Abbey”—the film had its premiere last night. If he makes the decision to get rid of hereditary peers immediately, what support will be put in place by the House authorities, which I know he would want to work with, and the Government to ensure that those people are looked after? May I push him to consider the more practical proposal of waiting until the end of the Session, rather than immediately getting rid of the hereditary peers? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is not my decision; it was the decision of the British people at the last general election in supporting our manifesto. If the Bill gets on to the statute book, hereditary peers will leave at the end of this parliamentary Session. I repeat the point we have heard throughout the debate: there is no barrier to them becoming life peers. Indeed, there is no barrier to them standing to become Members of this House if they wish to continue their public service. \p Oliver Dowden: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will give way, then I need to make some progress. \p Oliver Dowden: I thank the Minister for his generosity. He frequently cites the Labour party manifesto, which did include this provision in relation to the abolition of hereditary peers. However, it also included a provision in relation to a mandatory retirement age. Why has he chosen to bring forward the abolition of hereditary peers but not wait until he has resolved the position in relation to the retirement age? Surely there is only one reason for that, which is that it benefits the Labour party politically to remove Conservative hereditary peers immediately, and it is of less political benefit to the Labour party to have a mandatory 80-year-old retirement age. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The manifesto was clear that the reform would be staged, and that this would be the immediate first step. The Government remain in favour of a House of Lords that is more representative of the nations and regions, and this is the first step. As the Leader of the House of Lords announced, a Select Committee will then look at retirement age, and indeed at participation.

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

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

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

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

This has been a perfectly reasonable debate— \p Alex Burghart: rose— \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Before I conclude my remarks I will certainly give way. \p Alex Burghart: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way, as I feel that he is drawing to the end of his comments. One thing he has not discussed in his round-up of the debate is ministerial pay. I appreciate the remarks that he made at the start, and that he does not believe this is the right way or place to do that, but does he accept in principle that in future the Government should find a legal mechanism for ensuring that all Ministers of the Crown, regardless of the House in which they sit, are paid? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will just come to the other points that we are raising. I have made clear that Lords amendment 1 guts the purpose of the Bill, which is why the Government oppose it.

On the other amendments, first I am pleased with and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on amendment 4, on the introduction of the power of attorney. I think that the whole House accepts that there are people who wish to retire, and that is a dignity that we should give them. We all appreciate that. On the other two points, I do not regard the creation of a new, separate honour as necessary or worthwhile—I had this exchange earlier with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). We already have an honours system that recognises outstanding contributions to our society. I think that we should maintain that link between the title and doing work in our legislature.

I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has made a couple of times about ministerial pay and Ministers carrying out roles. The point that I would make to him, however, is that that requires an amendment. If he wants to make that argument and have a debate, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but the mechanism in the Bill will not have the impact that I think he is seeking to have in that respect.

To conclude—I am concluding not just this afternoon’s debate, but tens of hours of debate in the other place—we are moving towards a House of Lords that is fair, open and truly representative of the nation it serves, a House where expertise is recognised and not inherited, where policy is shaped by merit and not by bloodlines. I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 77.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Nick Thomas-Symonds.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 73.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.—(Nick Thomas-Symonds). \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 74.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 8 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 4 to 7 and 9 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1 to 3 and 8;

That Nick Thomas-Symonds, Martin McCluskey, Josh MacAlister, Douglas McAllister, Tracy Gilbert, Alex Burghart and Sarah Olney be members of the Committee;

That Nick Thomas-Symonds be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Martin McCluskey.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Kate Dearden.) \p Julian Lewis: Just over four decades ago, I first became aware of the BBC Monitoring service, or BBCM. The year was 1982, and a very different Labour party, led by veteran unilateralist Michael Foot, was committed to abandoning the British strategic nuclear deterrent unconditionally. I was involved in a campaign against that, together with the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and a brilliant colleague of ours, Councillor—as he then was—Tony Kerpel.

A fellow researcher handed me the transcript of a Radio Moscow interview with the national organiser of Britain’s leading disarmament campaign group, who was visiting the USSR, as one does. When asked why the official Soviet Peace Committee supported the Soviet Government—unlike her organisation, which opposed the UK Government—she revealingly replied:

“Well, obviously, because the Soviet Government is in favour of peace, and this makes a big difference.”

That was on Radio Moscow on 7 June 1982, for the historians among us.

The source of such telling material was a publication called Summary of World Broadcasts, which was produced by BBCM and packed with invaluable insights into the propaganda campaigns of our adversaries and those who consorted with them. Founded in 1939 to give speedy access to foreign media and propaganda output, the monitoring service was funded for its first 70 years by an annual Government grant. This was as it should be: the Government were paying for a service for which they were the main customer and consumer.

Certainly, there were periods of famine and feast. Reductions in the grant after the end of the second world war limited the frequency of the Summary of World Broadcasts, which resumed daily publication only in 1959, but the principle of the annual grant held firm and there was further Government investment in computerisation and new buildings at the Caversham Park headquarters of BBCM in the second half of the 1980s. For a time, the grant was split between the Foreign Office, the Defence Ministry, the Cabinet Office and the World Service budgets, but a 2005 report reinstated the single Government revenue stream. Cuts and redundancies nevertheless took place in 2006-07 under Tony Blair, with worse to follow under Cameron and Clegg in 2010.

That was the year when the coalition Government decreed that the BBC World Service, and the Monitoring service too, would be funded in future from the corporation’s licence fee income. Eventually, direct Government funding for the World Service had to be restored, amounting to about one third of its annual income. BBCM, however, remains disproportionately dependent on the licence fee, plus a certain amount of income from its commercial contracts. Given that the BBC claims to have seen a 30% reduction of its overall income in real terms since that fateful year of 2010, it is hardly surprising that both the World Service and BBCM have suffered financially. \p Peter Prinsley: Would the right hon. Member agree that in a world where autocracies are in the ascendency and false news spreads like the speed of light, Government funding for services that bring truth to the world has never been more important? \p Julian Lewis: I could not agree more. May I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman again for the excellent debate on the BBC World Service, which he led on 26 June, if I remember correctly, and which gave me the idea to bring forward the subject of BBC Monitoring separately?

Over very many years, BBC Monitoring had built up the closest conceivable relationship with its United States counterpart, known as Open Source Enterprise, or OSE. Indeed, the two organisations were based on alternate floors of the Caversham Park headquarters, dividing between them the coverage of global broadcasting to the enormous benefit of both countries in the transatlantic alliance. This was the nerve centre of world-beating open source intelligence, yet the BBC decided to evict OSE and sell the Caversham estate. \p Matt Rodda: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making such an excellent speech. Caversham Park sits in my constituency, and it was a wonderful facility. I pay tribute to those who worked there over many years, breaking vital news stories and providing information to the Foreign Office, such as the initial news reports of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and many other similar events that were only able to be recorded because of the amazing talents of the linguists and journalists based at the facility, which has sadly now been mothballed and is due to be sold to a developer. Would the right hon. Member like to comment on the role of those staff? \p Julian Lewis: I am extremely grateful for that intervention. I am sure that the staff of BBC Monitoring, both present and past, will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he has rightly expressed for them. \p Al Pinkerton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. I conducted my PhD research at the BBC national archives centre, which was within Caversham Park, and every lunch time I would have lunch with the extraordinary linguists who occupied the building that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) has just described. The loss of BBC Monitoring—if that were indeed to come about—would be a considerable national loss. It represents an incredibly important part of not only our security past but our security future—for the reasons that have been mentioned previously, such as the rise of disinformation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to preserve these institutions, because so often we do not know what we have got until it is gone? \p Julian Lewis: Yes, indeed. If ever something encapsulated the concept of soft power, and indeed buttressed and underpinned some of the agencies that have to delve from more secret sources for information, this is an example of that. \p Christopher Vince: rose— \p Julian Lewis: I must say it is gratifying in an end-of-day Adjournment debate on a Thursday early evening to have so many people so keen to intervene, including the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). \p Christopher Vince: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene and for his wonderful introduction to my intervention. He mentioned the importance of soft power, which we spoke a great deal about in the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Does he agree that it is not only a case of not knowing what we have got until it is gone, but that, if we were to lose the BBC Monitoring service as well as the BBC World Service—not that we are suggesting that, of course—it would be very difficult to get it back, having realised the error we had made? On the BBC World Service, I will mention the conversation that he and I had in that debate about how, when the service was pulled out of particular countries, it was sometimes replaced with the propaganda that we are trying to avoid. \p Julian Lewis: Absolutely. The only good thing to be said about the propaganda of one’s adversaries is that sometimes, unwittingly, it gives us an insight into their plans and a forewarning of their evil intent. Let us ensure that we preserve the crown jewels and that we do not rely simply on fluctuations in licence fee income for that necessary task.

I have said that the Caversham estate was to be sold off, despite the amazing integration that existed there with the American counterpart of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which is now known more regularly as the OSE. It was therefore no wonder that the Defence Committee decided to entitle its December 2016 report “Open Source Stupidity: The Threat to the BBC Monitoring Service”. That was a pun on open source intelligence—and for those interested, it is HC 748, and it is still in print.

The then Defence Committee Chairman, whom modesty prevents me from identifying, pointed out—this is a long quote, but it is worthwhile—that:

“The Coalition Government was warned, in the strongest possible terms, not to leave the BBC Monitoring service unprotected by ending its ring–fenced annual grant and transferring this minor financial burden to the licence–fee payer. By doing so, it gave the BBC a free hand to inflict successive rounds of cuts, now culminating in the loss of the specialised and dedicated Caversham headquarters.

The vast increase in open source information in the recent past makes it one of the few tools still left in the Government’s arsenal which can provide almost real time information and analysis on global developments. To allow the BBC to change and shape it in a different direction is in contravention of UK national interest. It is especially bewildering when you consider the annual cost of BBC Monitoring is around £25 million.

The decision to evict BBC Monitoring’s US counterpart—Open Source Enterprise—from its UK base at Caversham Park and break the physical link between the two is short–sighted. The BBC’s strategy for BBC Monitoring will downgrade our contribution to open source intelligence sharing between the UK and the US at a time when European nations must demonstrate to President–elect Trump”—

as he then was, for the first time—

“that we are committed to paying our way in the fields of defence and security. As one of our witnesses said, ‘this is the height of folly’.”

That was a long quote, but it was true then and it is true today. \p Alex Ballinger: rose— \p Adam Jogee: rose— \p Julian Lewis: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). \p Alex Ballinger: The right hon. Member is delivering an excellent speech. As the Defence Committee did in 2016, the Foreign Affairs Committee is now conducting an inquiry into disinformation, which covers many of the same areas that he discusses. Does he agree that the increasing spread of disinformation, increasingly in countries that are non-English-speaking but have a real geopolitical significance for the UK, makes the BBC Monitoring service even more important today than it was in 2016? \p Julian Lewis: I agree entirely, and before I give way for the next intervention, I will read what I had just been about to say.

The report’s main conclusion was that the Government should reinstate their previous model of funding BBC Monitoring through a ringfenced grant in aid, rather than allowing the funding to come from the licence fee. As a non-partisan, cross-party body, I doubt if today’s Defence Committee would take a radically different view. Indeed, we have just heard from the Foreign Affairs Committee representative that that view still has a great deal of validity. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, even if he chose my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) before me. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the report, which I have in front of me. I note that only three colleagues who were on the Committee in 2016 are still in this House. The fact that he makes these points now, as he did almost 10 years ago, speaks to the challenge we face, as well as to the threats to our ability to tackle the geopolitical challenges to which he has referred and how we will be found wanting in that effort if we do not get this right, and get it right soon. \p Julian Lewis: It is very gratifying to an old timer like me to see a fresh generation of serious-minded hon. and right hon. Members from all parties so united on this common theme in the national interest. I will have to race on a bit now so as not to cut into the Minister’s time too much.

So far I have focused in large part on the negatives, as the House has heard, but all is not a picture of doom and gloom. Despite the substantial redundancies of 2016-17 after the reduction in licence fee funding and the closure of Caversham Park, an 11-year customer service agreement was signed with the Government, covering the period 2017 to 2027 inclusive. A business development team also succeeded in widening the commercial customer base and lessening, to some extent, the dependence on the licence fee.

Those in charge at BBC Monitoring are in no doubt of the importance of their mission. They point out in a most helpful briefing document that they provided to me that in today’s environment of intensifying information warfare, weaponised narratives and global instability, the value of BBC Monitoring’s work is more crucial than ever. They note:

“The global media landscape has undergone a profound transformation, driven by the rapid expansion of social media, the democratisation of content creation, and the accelerating  capabilities of generative AI. These shifts have dramatically increased the volume and velocity of disinformation… In response, BBC Monitoring has evolved its editorial strategy, moving beyond translation and summarisation to deliver expert, evidence-based analysis. The introduction of data specialists has enabled the production of interactive maps, graphics, and other tools that help users navigate complex information environments.”

BBCM has expanded its coverage of Chinese, Russian and Iranian media influence operations, of jihadism, of climate change, of water and energy security, and of migration—all issues that are central to our national interests and foreign policy. Its products underpin the work of BBC journalism, particularly when reporting on countries where direct access is restricted or prohibited.

There is, in short, no question about the irreplaceable value inherent in the BBC Monitoring service. By securing this debate and sharing the contents of this speech in advance with the Minister, as I have, I aim to give the Government an opportunity to endorse its vital work tonight and perhaps shine a little light on some relevant aspects of that.

First, on its budget, at the time of the December 2016 Defence Committee report, the annual costs of BBCM were known, as I said earlier, to be a modest £25 million. What is its budget today, and what percentages of its income derive from the licence fee and from each of its other main funding sources? If the Minister cannot be too specific this evening, I would be grateful if he might write to me in more detail.

Secondly, now that the US Open Source Enterprise organisation is—most regrettably—no longer co-located with BBC Monitoring in the United Kingdom, what is the nature of the residual relationship between the two organisations? Do they no longer together cover the globe, freely exchanging their respective products, as in the days of Caversham Park? Does BBCM even see the OSE product? Does it have to pay for it and, if so, how much income does BBC Monitoring receive for supplying its output to the United States?

Thirdly, I understand that BBCM has taken some strides in introducing artificial intelligence into its modus operandi. How far does it expect that process to go, and will human expertise and judgment remain integral to its monitoring work?

Fourthly, while the restoration of an annual Government grant would be by far the most secure funding model, in the absence of that, is there any danger of BBC Monitoring being cut loose from the World Service organisation and farmed out insecurely to BBC Sounds, as has previously been mooted?

Finally, with a new agreement having to be negotiated with the Government before the expiry of the existing one in two years’ time, will the Minister please undertake to set out specific details of the target quantities of actual monitoring outputs—not to be conflated with analysis—specified under the existing agreement, and the extent to which those targets have, or have not, been achieved? Only in that way shall we know if our vital open source intelligence operation truly has the resources it needs. \p Stephen Doughty: I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East  (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this important debate and sharing his remarks with me in advance. I can assure him that things have changed a lot since Michael Foot. This Labour Government are proud to support our nuclear deterrent and invest in our defence. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s extensive and long-standing expertise on this issue and many other related issues, and I am grateful for all the contributions.

I can confirm that the Government share the right hon. Member’s view that BBC Monitoring is a vital national asset, as many colleagues across the House have expressed. Indeed, I declare an interest personally because I have been a substantial user of its services in the past and am an avid listener of the BBC World Service, so I can truly attest to its incredible services and the work of its staff. For over 80 years, it has provided indispensable insight into world events, shaping our understanding of the global landscape, and high-quality and independent analysis, supporting that integrity of information worldwide, which lots of Members touched upon. Of course, those contribute to the Government’s wider efforts to combat misinformation, disinformation and harmful narratives produced by malign actors, hostile states and others around the world. It also provides a crucial insight into the international media landscape, and that informs our national security work, our foreign policy and our ability to take action on the world stage.

We must be clear about BBC Monitoring’s present value. As has been referred to, it has unique linguistic skills and deep regional expertise to fulfil the task of analysing media from across the globe. Whether that is state broadcast, social media, local news sites or official statements, it provides that texture, nuance and ground truth that enrich the quality of the evidence underpinning policy making for us and many others. It also helps us understand the deeper messages that Governments and others, but also their own people and audiences, are saying around the world. The value of that work should not be underestimated and, indeed, it is valued by colleagues in not only the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office, as well as many others.

Of course, BBC Monitoring’s value is not confined to Whitehall; it is also an internal radar for the BBC itself. It identifies emerging narratives, spots developing stories, provides BBC News and the World Service with early warning, and helps them get ahead of the curve with their reporting and deeper conceptual analysis, so this is a symbiotic relationship. Of course, it also supports commercial partners and others with their insight and analysis. We fully endorse that service.

Although the BBC is responsible for the staffing, administration and editorial direction of the service, it is provided under a specific agreement—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—between the BBC and the Government, enabling collaborative discussions about the Government’s priorities for BBC Monitoring to consider in its wider prioritisation. That provides us with the assurance that the service continues to evolve in line with the changing media environment and the need to understand it, and ensures that it continues to provide value for the licence fee payer and the nation.

The Cabinet Office is the lead Department, managing the relationship, while the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides ministerial oversight. Of  course, as the right hon. Gentleman noted, the service is funded through the licence fee as part of the BBC’s public service remit. I am happy to write to him further on some of the details of the current funding arrangements. As I have mentioned, it derives some revenue from commercial customers and partnerships as well. It has many customers, including non-governmental organisations, intergovernmental and research bodies, media organisations, think-tanks and businesses. He asked how much the monitoring service costs the BBC. It has a range of funding streams, as I have set out, and ultimately it is for the BBC to approve the budget.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship with Open Source Enterprise. I can confirm that the service maintains a strong and highly effective information-sharing partnership with OSE under an annually reviewed memorandum. The two organisations continue to work together to cover the globe and fill in their respective gaps. They share expertise and collaborate on technological innovation.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the future. We want to see BBC Monitoring thrive. A key part of that is ensuring that the organisation is not standing still. It is embracing new technology to enhance its capabilities, including by integrating AI into its workflows, in accordance of course with BBC permitted usage and protocols. That will see staff using cutting-edge tools to sift through vast quantities of data at speed, allowing analysts to focus on providing the high-level insight and nuanced judgment that human expertise alone can supply. That will mean a combination of human insight and AI. This is a rapidly changing field, and BBC Monitoring is testing AI tools to help journalists keep track of what is being said in different outlets—that follows BBC rules and is designed to give a broad overview of the landscape that they are reporting on—but I should reiterate that decisions will still be made by people, not by machines. Indeed, BBC staff undertake mandatory AI training courses.

At the same time, BBC Monitoring has chosen to focus on providing deeper insights and context in its work. It now produces fewer reports but each carries greater analytical value. In 2024, it produced 78,832 reports; that is a reduction on the original target but reflects a deliberate and sensible shift away from basic translation and summarising, and towards analysis that delivers real impact. Having used that service before, I can say that it really does provide critical insight. Reports do not always draw a clear line between monitoring and analysis, recognising that both are part of the same effort to understand narratives. I am pleased to see those advancements and I am sure that they will continue in the years ahead.

The existing charter is due to expire at the end of 2027, and that will be an opportunity, as has been discussed elsewhere, to consider a wide range of issues. That will ensure that the BBC has a sustainable funding model for all its important work, including BBC Monitoring. My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have made it clear that they are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee and will think creatively about all the options to future-proof our national broadcaster. \p Adam Jogee: Will the Minister give way? \p Stephen Doughty: I will give way briefly before I conclude. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and congratulate him and his husband on their recent marriage.

I am just reading “The UK’s new approach to Africa: summary of consultation”. Point 47 states:

“We also heard that parts of the UK’s soft power appeal can be intangible.”

May I invite the Minister to confirm that both the World Service and the Monitoring service are, in his view, key parts of UK soft power? \p Stephen Doughty: I absolutely agree that they are. As I said, I am an admirer of them, and they are admired around the globe—I hear that repeatedly on my travels, as do ministerial colleagues. And I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks on my marriage.

I want to be clear. Of course I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the licence fee process—that is for other colleagues—or make specific comments about future funding arrangements today, but I can give the House and the right hon. Member for New Forest East this assurance: he should be in no doubt about our high regard for BBC Monitoring. Its value and readiness for the future is understood at the highest levels, and we will continue to work with the BBC, DCMS and others across Government to ensure that its work continues and that we are all able to benefit from its unique expertise and analysis.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.