What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I refer the shadow Minister to the Fonagy review. It details the causes, which started before covid, of the rise in mental distress for young people. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are already asking ICBs to reduce the longest wait, and we have seen some successes with that, but we have way more to do to address this challenge. We will have more to say in the mental health strategy that will be published soon.
It is no surprise to me, given my hon. Friend’s record of campaigning on this and many other issues, and the work that she did in opposition and in government, that she would be in such august company to discuss this matter. I pay tribute to her and all the campaigners, because osteoporosis can have a devastating impact on health. She knows we are committed to improving care, in particular by rolling out state-of-the-art scanners, and I am sure we will meet soon to discuss it.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her work with hospices and others on palliative and end-of-life care. I think everybody right across this House wants to see it improved. We have a modern service framework on its way, and as part of the national care service that we are working on, we will make sure that we care for the dying in a much better way in this country.
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. On such an important issue, I will of course meet him. We have had a number of very important debates on this issue, which shows how important Members across the House think this is.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his question and, through him, to pass on my concerns to the family he mentions. I will write to him on what the CQC is doing. Baroness Louise Casey has recommended some safeguarding steps that we should take urgently, which we are doing—we have a new national safeguarding board—and I will draw the chief social worker’s attention to the case he mentions.
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The research is good, and the crisis we are seeing in some hospitals as we turn the ship around is because we have not grappled with the issue of social care. We must make sure people are cared for in their own homes, and we must do that consistently to help our NHS.
Since being elected, I have campaigned for a new dental school in the east of England. I thank the Government for backing that at the University of East Anglia with 25 new funded places. However, Norfolk is still a dental desert where people struggle to get an appointment. I have just returned from maternity leave and I could not get one when I was pregnant, and I am not alone in that, pregnant or otherwise. Can the Minister set out what the Government will do to ensure that constituents can get a dental appointment, and give a timetable for the reform of the dentistry contract?
When I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago, we had people coming in and saying that new technology in aviation—electric planes, hydrogen planes and SAF—would significantly reduce emissions by 2025; I think that was the date given. None of that has happened. So all these assumptions are being made about new technology, which has not arrived and will not arrive. And we will break through our carbon budget just with increased aviation, particularly if we go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Does my hon. Friend agree?
One concerning point that my hon. Friend did not raise is the number of houses that will be demolished and the number of people who will be displaced. Heathrow’s own assumption is fewer than 1,000, but that is really only the direct curtilage of the runway. Even a quite casual look at a map would show that the uninhabitable zone around Heathrow could be north of 5,000 homes. Who would pay for those demolitions, and for the replacements and compensation for those homeowners? That is something, alongside ground transport, that nobody is willing to pay for. That is an exceedingly large amount of money, on top of the misery caused for all those people living there.
The Good Friday agreement and the peace that we enjoy today would never have been possible without the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. We in this House are united by the debt that we owe to the thousands of British Army personnel who served with honour in Operation Banner over four decades. Many of them trace their story back to my patch, the home of the British Army. We will never forget the Aldershot bombing of 1972, one of the IRA’s first attacks on mainland Britain, targeting the headquarters of the 16th Parachute Brigade. Seven innocent lives were lost. Their families, and all those who lost loved ones during the troubles, are in my thoughts today. These issues are woven into the very fabric of my community. That is why I have sat in this Chamber for all proceedings on the Bill over a year in this place, except for those on last week’s carry-over motion. It is why I wrote to the former Secretary of State in January, calling for stronger safeguards for our veterans; why I have spent many months pressing Ministers to ensure that our armed forces are protected from repeat investigations; and why I facilitated direct discussions between veterans’ groups, the Northern Ireland Secretary and No. 10, working with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). I thank all members of our armed forces community who have engaged with me during this process, particularly the Parachute Regimental Association and its Aldershot branch, the Royal British Legion, and those watching our debate in the Gallery today. I have been determined to ensure that their voices are heard in this legislation. Together, we have made the case for greater recognition of the challenging operational circumstances in which our armed forces served; we have made the case for veterans and their families to be given a voice in the new legacy arrangements; and we have successfully made the case that there can never be equivalence between those who served to protect lives and the terrorists who were focused only on taking lives. I welcome the progress that has been made, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Veterans and People; they have listened, engaged and acted. I wish only that we could have started from here. The Bill is much improved on the version that first came before this House, but I will not be voting for it tonight. To be clear, I will abstain on the vote on Third Reading. There are some in the House who would do away with the Bill altogether. I would not, as we would then lose safeguards for veterans who currently have no protection whatsoever, and too many families—including hundreds of armed forces families—deserve a process to help them find answers. There are others who have dismissed this legislation as a veteran’s charter, but I respectfully disagree with them. There must be accountability, but those who have dedicated their life to serving us should not have to spend the rest of their life fearing investigation over and over again. My test has always been that the legislation should give every veteran the clarity and confidence that they deserve, and it is clear to me that there is still more work to be done. We have heard in this debate about soldier B, the man who has been cleared three times but could still face yet another process. If this Bill cannot do anything for those who may face similar situations in the future, that should give us pause. As someone who is proud to represent a seat in which there are 5,000 serving personnel, I want those who serve today and in the future to know that we will always have their back.
I thank the Secretary of State for that contribution. The progress we have made in recent weeks is to his credit, and the Bill is in a much better place for it. I return to the point about making sure that our serving personnel today know that we have their back. Whether in this Bill or the defence readiness Bill that I hope will come shortly to the House, we can do more to tighten up the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, so that we put our armed forces in the strongest position against future lawfare. Our veterans’ organisations have many ideas on how this Bill could be strengthened. I urge Ministers to give those the fullest consideration. Doing right by those who have served our country should be above party politics—it is our shared duty. I cannot support the Bill tonight. It is not a choice that I make lightly, but I am not giving up on the Bill, either. There is an incredible breadth of experience and expertise across the House, and I hope that we can work together with those in the other place. I also hope that we can still work together with our armed forces community to get this right. I will continue to play my part.
I have found the conduct of the debate, today and yesterday, deeply encouraging. It has been thoughtful and meaningful, and the passionate speeches that we have heard have informed my insight and understanding in respect of Northern Ireland veterans and of all the other issues. Indeed, my hope for democracy, candour and a progressive Parliament has generally been restored, following other debates that I have had the privilege of sitting in on. As you will know, Ms Ghani, I spoke to the Committee yesterday about some of the changes that the Government have made to the Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those changes: he has listened. The change on equivalence matters to me, as do protections against people being investigated again and again for some of the same events. However, I still think that we have got the architecture of the Bill wrong from the start. What happens to outstanding inquests is of concern, and balancing truth and reconciliation with justice is almost impossible. Let me explain why. We have 38 inquests that have stopped. They will restart under the Bill; some will go back to the coronial system, while others will go to the legacy commission. It would be useful if the Secretary of State could tell me whether the inquests that sat with the Solicitor General can go straight to the commission, or whether will they need to be opened, as inquests, before they move to the commission following a recommendation.
That is encouraging to know, but although these are deaths from the same conflict being considered decades later, we are deliberately providing two different routes for dealing with them. For more than 12 months I have recommended that we create a single centralised body to deal with the troubles-related issues. I know that there are some who would be uncomfortable with that, particularly those who represent families who have waited a very long time for an inquest, and I understand why that is. I am not suggesting for a moment that those families should lose the work that has already been done; the evidence gathered should go with the case. Nor am I seeking to prevent prosecutions. If the commission finds evidence that someone committed a criminal offence, whether that person wore a uniform or belonged to a terrorist organisation, that evidence should go to the prosecuting authorities. I am trying to get us to one process in which we can have some confidence. There is a reason why I feel strongly about this. We need to be very careful about the history that we are creating through the legacy process, and also to think about why it is impossible to balance truth and reconciliation with justice. The state kept a great many records during the troubles; of course it did. Operations were recorded and reports were written, and the people involved can often be identified. There is an enormous amount of material about what the British state did and did not do. The IRA and other terrorist groups did not keep operational records. There is no equivalent archive sitting somewhere with records of who gave an order, who carried it out, and what happened afterwards.
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention, but when the records exposed threaten either national security or individual security, we must take that into account. Yesterday, I think we all agreed that families deserve justice and answers, and indeed that many want closure, but with the majority of the murders during the troubles and conducted by terrorist organisations remaining unsolved, there just is not the evidence to get to the truth or to justice. I would like to ask: how is the Bill going to change that? Let us think about that. How is this Bill going to change the amount of evidence, and where is the new evidence to come from? I think we need to be honest with the families: do we genuinely believe that ex-IRA or Unionist terrorists are going to come and give information to this process? If by coming forward to offer information to provide answers that would at the same time self-incriminate the witness or individual providing the information, how many will participate? I hear people talk about Ireland and about new biometric and forensic evidence-gathering capabilities, but there just is not the evidence to get to the truth. The reality—I could be wrong, and if I am proven wrong, I will hold my hand up—is that very few terrorists, if any, will come forward. The quest for the truth will rely on slivers of new evidence—and I mean slivers, although that does not mean we should not investigate them—that are found or indeed that arise from Ireland opening and giving the UK access to its extensive archives. Do we believe Ireland will do that? It would be politically very difficult and legally painful, and indeed it would lead to questioning the reputation and moral compass of successive Irish Governments. We need to be honest with families: this Bill will not magically produce new evidence, and that creates a very real problem when, 30 or 40 years later, we try to establish the truth through legal proceedings. Material available to investigators is inevitably much richer on one side than it is on the other. If we put the cases through different processes as well, we will make the problem even worse. I have described this before as creating a hierarchy of truth. I do not mean that as a slogan, but something quite specific. What can be investigated most easily becomes what gets investigated most thoroughly, and what gets investigated most thoroughly produces the most findings. After enough years have passed, those findings start to become the history of the conflict. I do not believe anybody in this Chamber intends that to happen—I genuinely do not think that is the case—but intention is not really the point. We need to look at where the system we are building eventually takes us. The Bill is trying to prevent repeat investigations, and I welcome the work to do so. I will, however, give a small example. Soldier B from Coagh has not been charged, but has had eight years of legal process, and three court cases have ruled that his actions were justified and there was appropriate use of force, yet the family have received legal aid to take the case again to the Supreme Court. Soldier B is unlikely ever to be charged, but he has undergone eight years of legal uncertainty and will endure many more. This is not about prosecutions; this is about the process being wielded as the punishment. I come at this as a Labour MP. The Good Friday agreement asked an enormous number of people to do very difficult things. There were decisions made as part of that settlement that many people found very hard to accept, and still do. Prisoners walked out of jail, and people who had been enemies were expected to sit in government together. Blair and Mo Mowlam understood that there was no settlement available that could somehow settle every account from the previous 30 years, but they were trying to stop another generation having to live the same argument. I worry that we are in danger of doing the opposite with legacy. In 10 or 15 years’ time, the Northern Ireland people’s understanding of what happened will come in large part from what is being established now. If over those years one part of the conflict has been examined again and again, because that is where records and people are available, while much of the activity of terrorist organisations remains beyond reach, we should not be surprised if people begin to draw conclusions from that. That would be a poor legacy for a Labour Government to leave them. None of this diminishes what families have been through. There are people—hundreds of people—who have spent decades trying to find out what happened to someone they loved. They are entitled to pursue the truth, and I would never vote for a system designed to deny it to them. However, I also know veterans who have lived for years with the possibility that somebody will reopen an event that has already been examined, sometimes more than once—in many cases more than once. Many of those people are now very old men, and we cannot keep pretending that endless process is the same thing as justice. The Government have chosen to strengthen the legacy commission, and I think that is the right thing to do. If we believe the commission can do this work, let it do the work. We should give it these outstanding cases and the material already collected and let the families take part, and if it finds evidence that belongs before a court, that is where it should go. Even the Joint Committee on Human Rights has questioned the justification for having two approaches to these revived inquests. I think that is a fair question, and I have yet to hear a convincing answer, other than that it will stress-test the framework agreement with the Irish.
rose—
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. The reality is that, across the conventional force, we have seen an uptick in recruitment and a reduction in people leaving due to retention issues. It is the first time in 10 to 14 years that we have seen an increase—it is a huge success. We have to be careful of conflating two things that are going on within a more specialist community. One is a Northern Ireland Bill, which, whether we like it or not, does not resonate with the rank and file of the individuals in our community, and one is other inquests and inquiries that in some cases do. We need to keep a very close eye on that in the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure the Secretary of State will work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure we are monitoring it and putting remedial action in place, should that be the case.
I am grateful for the first opportunity I have had to speak on this most important of Bills, not just as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain and as a very proud member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I do not want to cause the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), any discomfort in saying—probably for the first time—that I agree with him. He was right that many excellent speeches were made in Committee of the whole House yesterday. I further agree with the tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his diligence and commitment to these issues. Our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), has considered the painful and brutal legacy of the troubles in great and, at times, difficult detail. I will be speaking to amendment 277 and new clause 54, tabled in my hon. Friend’s name. I would like to acknowledge all those who lost their lives and those brave officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the forces who served and were tasked with securing the peace, including extended members of my own family. I speak from a place of personal connection. My late grandmother’s family are of good County Down stock. As Members will know if they have listened to any of the speeches I have given since the election in 2024, my wife was born in Northern Ireland, before the Good Friday agreement was signed and before peace on the island of Ireland—in a very different place to the Northern Ireland of today. Our family’s experiences, and those of many friends and people across the community, inform my understanding of the hurt, trauma and, yes, hope that lie at the heart of this debate. This Bill is very important and so are the amendments before us—amendments that are designed to make sure that we get it right. Before I speak to the substance of the amendments, I hope that since this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, Ms Ghani, you will not mind my making a couple of general points which have shaped my view of the amendments. The decades of conflict in Northern Ireland saw profound suffering. More than 3,500 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured or traumatised. Entire communities were scarred by violence, suspicion and fear because of who they were, how they prayed, and their actual and perceived identity. It is in recognition of that hurt that we must approach this Bill and all the amendments before us with care, compassion and responsibility. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a path forward: a sensible way forward that is not shaped by inflammatory language and does not sow any further discord or disunity—we have had more than enough of that over the years. Members of this House and political leaders across Northern Ireland must match the maturity and decency of the people of Northern Ireland, which these amendments seek to ensure are respected.
We will save that one for later, I think—I will buy him a cup of tea. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that there are new and effective protections for our veterans—protections that were not included in the previous Government’s legacy Act. I join the Royal British Legion in welcoming amendment 240, which gives our veterans the peace of mind that they will not be targeted with cold calls. That is, of course, hugely important for all the ageing veterans who served our country, some of whom are in the Gallery today. The Bill will also ensure that nobody who carried out terrorist atrocities in towns and cities across the United Kingdom will be given immunity from prosecution. For example, new clause 51 stops on-the-run letters—which have never been legally binding—preventing prosecutions. I thank the Secretary of State for the words he put to that earlier. The protection from repeated investigations, protection from cold calling, protection in old age, a right to stay at home, a right to anonymity and a right for veterans’ voices to be heard are all important changes that will go a long way to protecting those who served. Those are all so important, and I am grateful to Members across the House who helped us get to this place today. A commitment to reconciliation, a belief in political partnership and an understanding that peace is not a single event but an ongoing process is reflected in the amendments we are discussing this afternoon. It is also important to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: no legacy Bill will ever satisfy everyone, because the pain of the troubles sits differently with every individual, every family and every community, as we have seen in our debates. This Bill is no exception, whatever amendments are tabled and approved. For some, it may not go far enough in the pursuit of truth and accountability. For others, it may reopen wounds they wish they could finally close. That tension reflects not the shortcomings of any single piece of legislation but the enormity of the suffering endured during the conflict. We must also recognise that the Bill cannot, and was never intended to, repair every harm or resolve every grievance. Legislation cannot rewrite the past, nor can it undo the loss that thousands of families still feel so deeply. What it can do, however, is help create a structured, principled framework to address legacy issues in a way that is fair, transparent and capable of earning people’s trust. Most importantly, this Bill must be understood as not only a measure aimed at the past but a step toward the future—a step that has been made more likely with this Bill and many of the amendments that have been tabled by Members across the House, by colleagues of mine on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and by His Majesty’s Government. Northern Ireland deserves a pathway that allows future generations to live without inheriting the full weight of division and trauma that shaped the decades that went before them. For this Bill to succeed, it must do much more than catalogue history; it must help us build the conditions in which communities can live together, heal together and move forward together. We must also recognise that some of the proposals remain deeply challenging and controversial, and we have to ensure we find a way through that. In addressing legacy, we are dealing with raw and painful memories, contested narratives and a future that, if we are to reach it, still requires courage and patience. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—both victims and survivors—to those who served, and to future generations to make sure that we get this right and that this Bill is sent to the other place in as strong and robust a form as possible.
The Department has thus far refused to publish the impact assessment associated with the US-UK pharma deal. May I ask what the Government are trying to hide?
The hon. Member mentioned Lochan na h-Earba, which is in my constituency. The number of projects included in the Ofgem list at the moment, which he mentioned, and the number of projects that we could build and get benefit from differ quite significantly. And in addition to the possible projects in the highlands, there are some in the lowlands as well, in Dumfriesshire and other areas, which could benefit from Government investment, time and effort to get them onstream. Does he agree that we absolutely need to maximise the use of the extremely reliable and extremely well-tested technology of hydro?
There are also huge opportunities for geothermal energy, particularly in Aberdeenshire, but also in other parts of Scotland. The Government could focus more attention on geothermal and tidal stream. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that sentiment?
Very briefly, I am raising these issues with colleagues in the Scottish Government as well, but while DESNZ and Ofgem have a role in this, I think it is helpful for every organisation to be pushing the developers and saying, “What are you doing about the roads infrastructure? What are you doing about how you get people to and from the sites?” Projects represent big influxes of people into areas, while the local infrastructure can be just lane-and-a-half roads, with passing places and all that. Will the Minister commit to putting some pressure on those companies to invest in that?
We are debating the parts of the Bill relating to the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, inquests, and relaxations of the restrictions on police investigations. There is only one word to describe the measures in those parts of the Bill, and indeed the totality of the Bill, and I am afraid that is betrayal. The Government demand much of their soldiers. They ask brave men and women to put their life in danger, and to sacrifice huge amounts. What do they get in return? We ostensibly have a military covenant, but the truth is that it is honoured more in the breach than the observance. The question really is: what do our troops get in return, at a time when the Government propose cutting the defence budget for military equipment by billions of pounds, will not promise to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030, and are asking men and women to step up and serve as reservists? The truth is that this country treats our enemies better than our heroes. [Interruption.] I am afraid the truth is that our bravest people get treated worse than those who terrorise us. That is what the litigation shows and what the Bill reflects. The reality is that these measures will build more architecture and more process, and the process becomes punishment. The measures perpetuate the retrospective prosecution—and persecution, if you will—of our brave troops, many decades after their national service. This extension of litigation and lawfare wholly fails to comprehend and appreciate the complexities of battle and military action. When terrorists are planning to attack us, they have the cards stacked in their favour. They can decide what to do, who to target, when to do it and how to do it. Our military, on the other hand, often have zero notice, and they have to make life-or-death decisions in split seconds to defend themselves and others. Now, many decades after those acts of bravery, lawyers, officials and Government Ministers are applying harsh rules to people who put their life at risk for our security. The decisions they made at the time were lawful; they were following orders and adhering to rules of engagement often set by their superiors, by officials at the Ministry of Defence or by Ministers, none of whom is being held to account decades after the act. Let us remember: our armed forces are known around the world for upholding the highest standards of engagement in battle. They uphold the rules of the Geneva convention and the law of armed conflict, and they are known for engaging appropriately and proportionately with lethal force. This legislation and, indeed, the minefield of human rights legislation have operated to build a labyrinthine level of complexity when it comes to military action. We are tying our brave soldiers up in knots and, as a result, dragging them through the courts.
It is in response to discussions by various colleagues. The point is that the contents of the measures that I have talked about are wholly unacceptable. They do not answer the fundamental question about this Government continuing the prosecutions and allowing inquests, investigations and inquiries to continue many years after the act. The Government cannot guarantee that our brave veterans will not be hauled again in front of the courts after they have been exonerated or allowed to proceed. I am afraid that because the Government cannot provide that guarantee, the Bill and the clauses are not fit for purpose. As Attorney General, I worked to build some of the measures contained in the legacy Act. It was challenging to make it compliant with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 2, and it was working on that legislation that convinced me that the UK needed to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. The legacy Act was not perfect, but it was progress because it brought finality to a lot of the investigations and prosecutions. The reality is that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, such as the cases of McCann, McKerr and Finucane, has meant that the interpretation of article 2, on the right to life, has been expanded, extended and, frankly, distorted beyond all recognition, which has given grounds to these endless and repetitive claims 30 years later.
The hon. and learned Member puts it incredibly powerfully. The European Court of Human Rights has wholly distorted the application of article 2. Article 2 protects the right to life. No one here would disagree with that. It is an absolute right, and it was designed to protect individuals from state-sanctioned and arbitrary killing. That was the right intention behind the article’s drafting. But, because of decisions such as the one he refers to and many more, article 2 has now come to mean that people are entitled to an unlimited level of investigation and inquiry, that terrorists are entitled to compensation and that families of the IRA are entitled to be paid out because, as he says, their human rights have become more important than the human rights of law-abiding citizens and the victims of terrorism. It is an absurdity, and that is why my position remains that we must leave the European convention on—[Interruption.]
This Bill is, I am afraid, a retrograde step. It takes us backwards, not forwards from the legacy Act. It is really tragic, because the Government are asking for many young people to join up and serve their country, but why on earth would a young person take up that offer today? Traditionally, our soldiers have gone into battle to fight for our country. They have shown incredible heroism, courage and bravery, on levels that many of us can never imagine, and they have always felt confident that the Government would have their back and that they would be supported by those whose orders they were taking. Today, however, many people serving in the armed forces tell me that they seriously question whether the Government would indeed back them. When they take the decision to pull that trigger today, will they have the confidence that the Government will stand up for them, many years down the line? Will their bravery today be twisted against them in years to come? Today, frankly, they cannot be sure that the Government will support them in their acts of courage. I am here speaking on behalf of veterans in my constituency of Fareham and Waterlooville, who tell me—[Interruption.] Opponents may be shaking their heads and chuntering, but I am here representing what has been told to me by those serving on our frontline. The first duty of a Government is to defend the realm. Surely for that to mean anything, it must mean that the Government will stand by those men and women who put their lives in danger to defend our security. This Bill has failed in that duty, and it should not proceed.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years, probably longer than anyone else in this debate, and I believe that the House of Lords, for all its faults over the years, provides a balance to an elected Chamber. I am afraid to say that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) misses the point of the House of Lords. We do not want another elected Chamber to rival the House of Commons. We need a house of experts—or elders, if you like, Sir John—people with knowledge, expertise and experience who have served this country over many decades in different walks of life.
In a moment. We need also those who represent continuity. Sir John, you will know better than most that continuity is the foundation of the success of this nation. To ignore what has gone on in the past and to lose all that continuous wisdom from the ages is pure vandalism. We do not want another elected set of politicians who we know will be, effectively, appointed by party headquarters—the leader’s favourites will be put on some list and put into the House of Lords, even though many of them would prefer to be in the House of Commons—as a second set of politicians. I want a House of Lords that is depoliticised in many ways, so I am not keen on the fact that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have put so many people into the Lords who were friends of the leader at the time, or special advisers to Ministers and suchlike. What I want to see is more people who are truly representative of the whole country but can provide knowledge, expertise and experience to make our parliamentary democracy stronger and better. It cannot be right that a political party that came third at the last general election has zero representation in the House of Lords. There are 80 Lib Dem peers, yet their party received 600,000 fewer votes than Reform UK. The Greens, I believe, have three representatives—
Two? Okay. Plaid Cymru also has representatives. The Democratic Unionist party has six, but only five MPs. The thing is disproportionate. There should at least be representation of all political parties. Based on the votes at the last election, there certainly need to be a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords.
The hon. Member will know that the way it works in the House of Lords is that it is based on party appointments. The Prime Minister will make nominations; so will the Leader of the Opposition; so will the leader of the Liberal Democrats; so will the leader of the Greens. They will nominate a sprinkling of new peers every so often, usually once a year. Well, where was the invitation for the leader of Reform UK to nominate a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords? The hon. Member must surely accept that that is very wrong when we consider that Reform UK was the third largest party in terms of votes at the last election.
I will in a moment. I go back to my original argument: we are getting this wrong. We will regret the day that we become just one of two elected Chambers. We will regret that day. It will create a rivalry between two sets of elected politicians, who will both claim to be truly representative of the people who have put them there, instead of having the primacy of the elected House of Commons—ultimately, we are elected by the people of this country and we can make the final decision through the Parliament Acts. At the end of the day, we do not actually have to be obedient to the House of Lords. What I do know is that, within the House of Lords, there is an opportunity to have people with enormous knowledge and expertise, whether they are former Cabinet Ministers, former ambassadors or high commissioners, heads of industry, heads of trade unions or representatives of the different faith groups. It is good to have people like that. It is right that we still have the established Church of England represented through the bishops; although, these days, they are rather more to the left than I would like, they still represent the established Church of this country.
Well, I did not stand on that manifesto. I joined Reform UK after that manifesto. I can tell the hon. Member now that that is not our policy today. We are not going to abolish the House of Lords. We are not going to engage in constitutional vandalism. Throughout the ages, we have evolved our constitutional and parliamentary democracy in a way that has given us strength and continuity, and has allowed us to change not in some radical direction, whereby minorities and people with vested interests can finish up controlling the institutions of this country, but in a way that is evolution rather than revolution. There is no requirement to abolish the House of Lords. There should not be an elected second Chamber. New Zealand got rid of its second Chamber, so it has only one elected Chamber. I would prefer that, frankly, to a second load of politicians in the House of Lords who wish that they were MPs, but could not get there, so they were put in place by their friends in party headquarters. We do not want that. If we eventually do abolish the upper House, frankly it would be better just to have one Chamber than to have a second elected Chamber, because there would be rivalry between the two. Look at it like this: if we choose carefully, change the system and make it more meritocratic in terms of experience, knowledge and the kind of people who we really want in the House of Lords, we will be buying in expertise at low cost. Otherwise, we will be paying consultants and experts that work for companies to do an effective job of scrutinising legislation. What is the point of that when we can give someone a peerage? That could be someone with vast knowledge, perhaps someone who has been an ambassador to another country, headed up an important institution or contributed to the establishment of an amazing charity, and who has vast knowledge from that. It could be someone like Sebastian Coe, the Olympic gold medallist who went on to run the London Olympics in 2012. Those people have value, but they will not stand for election, so we would lose all of them—[Interruption.] Well, they would not stand for election to the Lords. As I say, we would lose good people. The great and the good would go and we would finish up, as I said earlier, with people who want to be politicians but would have to settle for being second-best. That is not good enough. We should do what we have always done in this country and allow our constitution and our parliamentary democracy to change—yes, change by all means—in a gentle and evolutionary way, so that we do not get rid of a tried and tested system that has lasted for generations and, with all its faults, done this country rather well over the centuries.
Is the hon. Lady also calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England? Is she asking that the cross be taken off the Crown so that the Christian foundations of this country are no longer part of our constitutional arrangements?
On that basis, would the hon. Lady abolish Royal Assent for Bills? Does she accept that our constitution is the King in Parliament—the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons? Is she actually arguing for the abolition of the monarchy?
On the question of appointments, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is only right that the third largest party in this country should have some representation in the House of Lords today?
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that such a consultative process might well come about from a Bill that my noble Friend, Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, has introduced to the second Chamber? It should indeed be for the experts to provide some ideas, and for us and members of the public to consult on the best way forward for the second Chamber.
Will the financial independence test be individualised, will it be evidence-based in its assessment, and will it recognise barriers such as credit history, references and guarantors? Furthermore, will a survivor’s use of refuge or public funds to escape abuse count against them?
Will the Minister give way?
The Minister talks about not wanting to include specific definitions in the Bill, but some stakeholder groups are concerned that the Bill does not rule out British children being subject to the child test. Would she not consider including such a provision in the Bill to ensure that it does not end up forcing a British child out of the country?
Can I press the Minister a little further on that point? To give a direct quote, can the Minister guarantee that no British child will be expected to leave the country of which they are a citizen as a result of this clause?