English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)
In case we do not get to it this afternoon, Donna Jones, one of the witnesses, is a personal friend of mine.
5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)
Q Good morning, everybody. I want to go back to something that was touched on by the previous panel. We are going through simultaneous restructuring of local government and setting up the strategic authorities, and in her questions the Minister has outlined that the 500,000-people target for LGR was never a hard target; it was a soft target. That is not my recollection of when local authorities were approached in quite a speedy way to make sure we went through the LGR. My question is for all three of you: has there been a change of emphasis on that target from the early conversations that you had with a Minister, albeit a previous one? Do you think there has been a change in Government emphasis on the size, and how has that added to the confusion and the challenges of setting up these strategic authorities as the Bill goes forward? Kevin Bentley: Yes, I certainly thought that was a hard target. Most colleagues thought it was a target to hit. It changed. It is important that we listen to people; lobbying was done around that and the Government listened to people. Those who do not change their mind never change anything, as Churchill would say, so it is important that the change took place, but it did cause confusion about what they meant. For me, evidence leads the way. When we went into this in Essex, I was very clear that the evidence would tell us the shape and size of unitary authorities, and we would not set the number of unitary authorities and then make the evidence fit. That is what we have done. We are certainly doing that in the business case, and I believe other colleagues have done the same thing. It did cause confusion, and there was a lot of head scratching in the system to see whether we could test whether it was below, on, or above 500,000. To me, rules are there for the guidance of wise people, and the evidence leads the way. Bev Craig: In my recollection, the Minister was always clear. Some of the questions arose with the conveying of that from colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At times, the sector felt desperate for a literal prescription, because until that point that was the kind of relationship we had had with Government. It had been quite some time since the Government had come to us and said, “Hey, come and be creative in terms of how these needs reflect your place.” The 500,000 figure has helped people to understand that the programme of reform does not work if what is created is even more local authorities, each with 180,000 people. So we have taken on the guidance but it has become more clear as we move through the programme that this is indicative rather than prescriptive. I think the reality is about having sensible footprints, where services can be delivered at an economy of scale that helps services to perform well, can work with the strategic authority, and still speak to a sensible place that people can identify with. That is complicated; if it were easy, we would have done this before 1974. Matthew Hicks: The size of the new unitary models really does matter; it is critical. Half of the members of the CCN are unitary authorities, and we see the benefits that this has brought, including large recurring savings, which is a big consideration. It also puts in place more sustainable structures. Back in February, the CCN supported the guidance in the invitation letters; we saw this as a means of reorganisation, with the numbers and the scale being about right for a sustainable long-term future. I do think that some elements have been undermined by inconsistent messaging over recent months. The stated ambition for new unitary councils was that they would cover a population of about half a million or more. We saw similar issues coming up around social care and using existing council boundaries. There have been mixed messages around the building blocks of the new unitaries. That inconsistent and slightly unhelpful messaging has led to a situation that will probably make life harder for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because we are now seeing a significant increase in the number of business cases coming forward, and that will make it more difficult for MHCLG to scrutinise. If we look at Suffolk now, we are going to have one application for three unitaries of 250,000 each, which is really very small, with new boundaries. So I think the mixed messaging will create more work for MHCLG, because it is important that it looks at the detail and the data, and that its decision is based on evidence, not just politically driven.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)
Q I have a quick follow-up question, particularly to Councillor Hicks: would it be fair to say that the policy on the local government reorganisation is a soft target, certainly, but it was portrayed as a hard target to local authority leaders at the time? Matthew Hicks: We certainly felt in the beginning that Suffolk, with a population of 750,000, was right in the middle of the range and would be an ideal candidate for one unitary.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)
Q I am pleased that you have mentioned the GLA, Ms Riddell, because it relates to a question that I want to ask you both. Mr Fletcher, you are absolutely right to say that this, as well as local government reorganisation, was not in the governing party’s manifesto. I therefore think that it is right that we try to make the policy work as best we can through scrutiny mechanisms such as this Committee. In London, there are structural and spatial planning powers and business powers that are currently operable and invested in the GLA and the London mayoralty. For example, the GLA has a scrutinising mechanism and a housing role, and the mayor has business retention powers and spatial planning powers. We have seen housing delivery fall under the current administration in London, and we have seen recent announcements that London is essentially a no-go investment area for many relevant organisations. Given the—I would argue—perceived failure in policy delivery in London, what lessons can we learn when the Government are attempting to replicate a structure in London that is not working elsewhere? Ion Fletcher: In general terms, it is helpful that London has its London plan and its spatial development strategy. The London plan was also the first to acknowledge the important role of build-to-rent housing—housing developed and managed specifically for rental purposes—and was a pioneer in protecting logistics in industrial space, so it does have those positives. The other side of the coin is that the London plan, in the view of our members, has become too long and too repetitive of policies that already exist either at a national level or at a local borough level. One of our members recently did some analysis and worked out that you could consolidate or eliminate roughly half the policies in the London plan in the latest iteration, so there is definitely scope for simplification. The lesson I would draw is that the new strategic authority should be focusing on the strategic stuff rather than getting too much into the development control side of things, which ultimately adds uncertainty and cost to the planning process. Catriona Riddell: I totally agree. The national decision-making policies that will soon come forward will help to strip out a lot of what is in the London plan. The idea behind spatial development strategies—this new model—is that they will be very high-level, they will not be very long, and they certainly will not be the London plan model. There is still a difference in terms of governance and decision making in London, and there still will be after the Bill. The decision making for the spatial development strategy in London—the London plan—sits with the mayor. I think a two-thirds majority of the GLA is needed to overturn that, whereas under the strategic authorities it would be a majority vote in most cases. There is a difference with the mayors under the Bill, and other places will have less power. One of the challenges for London and many other parts of the country is that the planning system has been overburdened with a lot of red tape and regulation that sits not within planning, but within building control or other regulatory systems. That has been one of the big blockages for the market in London. There is no doubt that that has had a knock-on impact right across the board. Stripping out some of the regulation that does not sit within planning, and making planning simpler, will help. I think the London plan has changed things significantly; in its 25 years, it has shown that it has actually been able to deliver. I do not think that it is the London plan that is the problem; it is the delivery end of things, which the mayor is facing at the moment. That is where the challenge is.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Order. We have a substantial speaking list and this debate is time-limited to three hours, so Back Benchers are on a six-minute speaking limit. I call John Slinger.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Order. Colleagues—there are children in the Gallery. Let us keep our language tempered and ensure that we are being moderate in everything we say.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Order. I assume that everyone who is bobbing wishes to contribute—there seems to be a lot of movement in the Chamber.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Order. I remind Members to temper their speeches. We do not, at any point, accuse other Members of dishonesty. I know that the next Member to speak will get that right.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have spoken should be making their way back to the Chamber.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.
- Hansard source
Sentencing Bill
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Sentencing Bill
I see that we have a fresh Minister, whom I congratulate and welcome to the Dispatch Box. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
- Hansard source
Police: Professional Standards
Mr Shannon, I was beginning to get a little bit anxious, but finally you are on your feet.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important emergency debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing it. My right hon. Friend made a series of excellent points, as did the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I agree with all those points. It is extraordinary that, on the eve of the President’s state visit, we are talking about the US ambassador who has been sacked in scandal. There are many unanswered questions, and I will be asking many of them, but today the Prime Minister needs to do three things. The Prime Minister needs to come clean about what he knew and when he knew it—not send his junior Ministers to cover for him. The Prime Minister needs to publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. But the Prime Minister is not here, because he is hiding from Parliament and hiding from questions. I know that he is a busy man, but confidence in him and in his Government rests on him being able to account for what happened, and so far no one is taking any responsibility. We have had our ambassador in the US sacked over his relationship with a man convicted of child sex offences. What is more—this tells us everything we need to know—this was an appointment apparently forced through by the Prime Minister and/or his chief of staff. We have seen a political ally pushed ahead of qualified candidates because the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney admired his talent for mixing with the rich and powerful, despite his known links to a man who was publicly known as a convicted paedophile and a convicted sex trafficker. Given the speeches we have heard and everything that is in the public domain, it is now very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. It is now also clear that the Prime Minister knew that there were major concerns when he came to this House just last Wednesday. Instead of taking action, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in him. Why on earth did he do so? Was he poorly advised, or was it just his own poor judgment? In every single one of his Government’s scandals to date, far from being the decisive man of conscience he promised to be, the Prime Minister has shrivelled from leadership, he has dodged responsibility, and he has hidden behind others, just as he is doing today, and he has come to this House and hidden behind process and lawyerly phrases. The Prime Minister has shown no courage, no judgment, no backbone. If he cannot see it and Government Members cannot see it, I can assure them that the British public can. The Prime Minister has turned out to be everything he claimed to abhor. This is a Government of sleaze and scandal, and Labour MPs know it. I will be interested to see how many of them stand up to defend their Government. The British public and, especially, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve the Prime Minister, for once, to be straight and honest with us. He must immediately do three things. First, he must apologise to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for ever having appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador. How is it that this has still not happened? There has been no apology. Secondly, as I said, he must publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full—all the information he had at his disposal, both when he made the appointment and when he came to the House last week to express full confidence in Mandelson. Thirdly, he must make sure that someone takes responsibility. Everyone now agrees that Peter Mandelson should not have been appointed. We have heard so much from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington about endless scandal and conflicts of interest with China and Russia, so why was he appointed? Was it a failure of vetting? Was it that advisers hid information from the Prime Minister? Or was it that the Prime Minister knew and made the decision anyway? Someone needs to take responsibility.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The story is that of the frog and the scorpion, and it is one of my favourite childhood stories. Everyone knew what Lord Mandelson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for any Member on the Government Benches to hold the line on this one, burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it goes away, least of all the Prime Minister. We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, yet he came to the House and said that he had confidence in his ambassador. Many on the Labour Benches cheered, but now they are all looking at their phones, and most of them do not have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week, and now they are full of shame. [Interruption.] Sorry, are they proud? No, they are not. I will continue. Why on earth did the Prime Minister do that? At any point did he ask his staff what more information might surface? That morning Lord Mandelson was saying that more information would surface. Did the Prime Minister receive a briefing about that ahead of Prime Minister’s questions? It is inconceivable that he did not. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light—new information that they did not have. The story is all mixed and messed up, and they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We would like to hear that when the Minister responds. There are still more questions to answer. When did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff speak with Peter Mandelson last week, and what did they discuss? Do the Government have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan McSweeney spent hours on the phone to the ambassador at the same time that Lord Mandelson was dodging calls from the Foreign Office. What were they talking about? Those are questions about what happened just last week, but how did all this come to happen last year? The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked some excellent questions. But I ask the Minister this: what led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I hope the Minister can provide an answer, because all of us across the House want to know. We want to know how Lord Mandelson’s appointment happened in the first place. As I see it, there are only three possibilities. The first is that it was a failure of vetting, but are we really supposed to believe that this is the fault of the security services? I do not think so. Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week? The second possibility—a bit more likely—is that the Prime Minister’s advisers kept information from him. If that happened, it would be incredibly serious.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is a Prime Minister who hides behind everybody else; whether his advisers, his junior Ministers or his Back Benchers, that is what he does. If he wants to blame advisers, which one was it? Who kept it from him? Why have they not apologised and resigned? No one is taking responsibility. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington alluded to, the most likely but most worrying reason of all is that the Prime Minister had plenty of information to suggest that Lord Mandelson should not be appointed but chose to appoint him anyway. Even at the time, eyebrows were raised about this appointment and there were many critics; I remember it from the time. Now we read in the papers that the Prime Minister overruled security advice not to appoint Lord Mandelson. Is that true? The Minister should tell us. It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean. He needs to come out of hiding. This issue will not go away. The Government cannot play for time as we will be back here again and again until all these documents are published. We will be back until someone takes responsibility. This is a political crisis on top of an economic crisis all of the Government’s own making. They are distracted now, but they came into office with no plan for the country, no idea what they stood for and no vision for what they wanted to achieve. Because of that, they have been lurching from disaster to disaster, with winter fuel, tax rises, welfare chaos, scandal, and the Prime Minister’s failing leadership rebooted after just one year. The only plan they came into office with was a promise they made again and again to the British public: that they would restore honesty and integrity to Government. That was their defining mission, that was their grand plan, and it is in tatters. So far, in one year, we have had an anti-corruption Minister sacked for corruption, a homelessness Minister sacked for evicting tenants, a Housing Secretary sacked for dodging housing tax, a Transport Secretary sacked for fraud and a director of strategy—apparently the speechwriter—lost only yesterday in scandal.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
The Minister shakes his head—he should be shaking it in shame. I have not said anything that is not true. Now, finally, we have a US ambassador sacked for his links with a known child sex offender. The Government claim to care about violence against women and girls, until they actually have to do something about it. Where is the apology to those victims? I know the Prime Minister does not like difficult questions, but it is his judgment that is being called into question. He owes it to the country to come clean.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
We did not need any new information to know that it was an unsuitable appointment. The Minister is making a doughty defence of Lord Mandelson, but the truth is that this debate has been about the Prime Minister’s judgment. When I was a Secretary of State and questions were asked about judgment, I did not send junior Ministers to answer my questions; I faced the House and I explained what had happened. The Prime Minister is not doing so. Will the Minister commit now to answering all the questions that I asked in writing? Will he also take this opportunity to apologise to the victims? He has not done so and the Government have not done so. The debate is nearly over. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the victims for the appointment of Lord Mandelson?
- Hansard source
Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit)
Before I begin, I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for introducing the ten-minute rule Bill today. While we may not agree on the Bill, I believe that this House is at its best when Members argue for what they believe in, and I am glad we have the opportunity to do so today. My Conservative colleagues and I cannot support this Bill. We oppose it because we fundamentally believe in two core principles: fairness and personal responsibility. I believe that this Bill undermines both. Let us be clear: this debate is not about the principle of child benefit. As the eldest of three children from a single-parent family, I know from my own lived experience the challenges faced by those in genuine poverty—having to scrabble around at the end of the week to find enough money to keep the electricity meter running, having to go next door to borrow a cup of sugar to make it to the end of the week, and having to go without the basics at school that most of my friends had. Every child deserves the best start in life, and we should support that, but what is being proposed is something entirely different. The Bill seeks to remove the two-child benefit cap—a cap introduced by the previous Government to address a spiralling bill in a welfare system that was, at times, being abused. Such a cap is fair to the hard-pressed taxpayer. Why should individuals already in receipt of state support gain additional benefit for having yet more children, while working families who get up early, pay their taxes and take full responsibility for their lives do not? Removing the cap would not foster fairness. Instead, it would penalise the people we should be championing: working families who play by the rules. It is only the Conservative party that is standing up for those families, promoting individual responsibility and protecting the country’s fragile finances. Meanwhile, Members on the Government Benches—not content with the chaos they have recently inflicted on the nation—are now competing to be the most socialist, declaring their support for scrapping the cap despite knowing full well it will cost the country an eye-watering £4.5 billion a year. We must be honest with the British people: removing the two-child cap is a massive unfunded commitment that does not reward people for doing the right thing. Simply put, I ask the House: why should a small business owner in Mid Leicestershire, who is already burdened with additional taxes, be asked to pay even more to support someone else’s children, especially when they are struggling to support their own? At the heart of this matter is a philosophical debate. As Conservatives, we believe in incentivising work, not penalising those who seek it. We do not consign people to a life of state dependency; we encourage them to strive, to achieve and to be the best they can be. Unfortunately, it is not just those on the Government Benches who are promoting this recklessness. The Green party wants to spend £40 billion on its radical net zero agenda while still backing the two-child cap’s removal, and the SNP wants to add billions to their welfare bill by pursuing an open borders immigration policy paid for by hard-working Scots. Most surprisingly of all, though, is Reform UK’s position. Many of their hon. Members are proud Thatcherites—or so I thought. They appear to have undergone a damascene conversion and are now, I believe, backing scrapping the cap—a policy that would hammer hard-working ordinary white van men across the country. As we approach what would have been Mrs Thatcher’s centenary, I can only imagine what she would have to say about such an anti-aspirational and profligate approach to the public finances. Politicians simply cannot claim to want to reduce the welfare bill while pursuing policies that would push that bill up by billions. Let me speak directly to the British public, who are inherently conservative-minded: if your political beliefs are rooted in economic freedom and low taxation, can you really support parties that want to take your hard-earned money and hand it to those unwilling to take responsibility? Only the Conservative party stands with you. We believe in letting people keep more of the money they have earned. We believe in addressing poverty at its roots, not just by writing cheques but by reforming the system that traps people in dependency. Our approach is clear. A future Conservative Government will stop sickness benefits for foreign nationals, fix the UK’s sick note culture and reintroduce face-to-face assessments to stop people gaming the system, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), has said. We need to bring about a cultural shift where work, personal responsibility and self-reliance are once again core to our national ethos. As I said at the Work and Pensions Committee last week, we should not blindly throw money at the welfare system. We must instead highlight the importance of getting a job, promote better financial management and uphold a meritocratic system where hard work always triumphs over idleness. The Conservatives will vote against this Bill. We are the only party telling the uncomfortable truth about our out-of-control welfare system and the serious financial realities facing our country. We owe it to our constituents to protect the public purse, we owe it to hard-working families to uphold fairness, and we owe it to future generations to build a society built not on entitlement but on effort, enterprise and aspiration. Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
- Hansard source
London Fashion Week: Cultural Contribution
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) on securing this important debate and all hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the Minister to his new role and I wish him well in government. London Fashion Week has been a regular part of Britain’s cultural calendar since it was first held in 1984. In four decades, it has grown to become one of the world’s leading fashion events, standing alongside Paris, Milan and New York as one of the big four fashion weeks. It is now firmly established as an international institution, but one that is rooted in Britain’s traditions of creativity, design and craftsmanship. We can look at London Fashion Week’s contribution through several different lenses. There is the economic impact that we have heard about already today, which is unsurprisingly substantial. There is its international reach and the way it helps to shape Britain’s reputation abroad. As we heard from the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), there is its role in supporting education, training and careers for young designers. There is its influence on sustainability, innovation and regional economies. Perhaps most importantly, there is the less tangible but equally vital contribution it makes to Britain’s cultural life and identity. It is important to begin with the economic dimension. The fashion industry, as a whole, directly contributes close to £30 billion annually to the UK’s economy and supports nearly 900,000 jobs across the country. London Fashion Week plays a central role in that wider success. Each season, it brings together hundreds of designers, buyers, journalists and photographers from around the world. The event is not only about catwalk shows; it is also about deals and contracts that sustain designers and businesses throughout the year. Many small and medium-sized companies rely on the exposure that London Fashion Week provides. It gives them the opportunity to secure international orders, attract investors and build long-term relationships with global retailers. The economic impact also extends into the hospitality and tourism sectors. International visitors attending London Fashion Week stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, use our transport system—when it is working—and support our local shops. The event generates millions of pounds of spending, providing a much-needed boost of inward investment for the wider London economy. Importantly, as the title of this debate makes clear, London Fashion Week is not simply an economic generator; its cultural importance is equally significant. Fashion, at its heart, is a form of cultural expression. It reflects the values, identities and moods of a society. What people wear and how designers present clothing speaks to wider cultural trends, although I must admit that I am not that up on fashion. My sister got all the fashion genes in our house, so she tries to steer me in the right direction when I am looking particularly scruffy. British fashion has long been known for its creativity and originality. From the craftsmanship of Savile Row tailoring to the rebellious punk energy of the 1970s and the dramatic visions of designers such as Alexander McQueen, British fashion has always had a distinctive voice. London Fashion Week provides the stage on which that voice is heard. At each event, designers bring together traditional materials and skills with new ideas. Tweed, tartan and wool, for example, are reinterpreted for new generations. Alongside them, we see collections that make use of digital technologies, sustainable fabrics and innovative production methods. London Fashion Week is therefore both a guardian of tradition and a hub for creative experimentation. I have had the pleasure of seeing that when I am out and about in Old Bexley and Sidcup—I will not name all the boutiques that operate in my constituency, as I am bound to forget one and get myself in a lot of trouble. We also have arts students at the likes of Bird college and Rose Bruford college, a big part of whose work involves costume design that feeds the west end and a lot of the talent we enjoy in London. One of the most striking aspects of London Fashion Week is its global reach. It is reported in newspapers, magazines and online platforms across the world, as we have already heard. Images from the catwalks are shared instantly on social media, reaching audiences far beyond those who have the privilege of attending in person. That means that London Fashion Week plays an important role in shaping how Britain is seen internationally. It presents Britain as creative, innovative and outward-looking. It demonstrates that our country still has something distinctive to contribute to global culture, and it acts as one of the best forms of cultural diplomacy. Just as our music, theatre and sport project Britain’s identity abroad, so too does London Fashion Week. A vital part of London Fashion Week’s contribution lies in its links to education and training. Britain has some of the world’s most highly regarded fashion schools, including Central Saint Martins, London College of Fashion and the Royal College of Art. These institutions attract students from across the globe, and many of the designers who now show collections at London Fashion Week began their career in their classrooms and studios. The pipeline from education to the catwalk is clear. Students are trained in technical skills, encouraged in creativity and given the chance to develop their own design identity. London Fashion Week then provides a platform where they can present their work to international audiences. The pathway is vital to sustaining Britain’s long-term success in fashion and those vital careers that we all want to see flourish. Linked to that is the emphasis that London Fashion Week places on supporting emerging talent. As we have already heard, the British Fashion Council’s excellent NEWGEN programme provides opportunities for new designers to show their work, gain visibility and build their careers. Many of today’s established names first appeared through such initiatives. That commitment to new talent ensures that London Fashion Week remains dynamic and forward-looking. It prevents the event from becoming static or predictable and keeps Britain at the forefront of global design patterns. Young designers tend to be even more eco-conscious than their predecessors, and London Fashion Week has made an important contribution to sustainability. Globally, the fashion industry has faced growing questions about its environmental footprint, from the use of resources in production to the disposal of clothing. Many British designers and retailers lead the way in exploring sustainable practices, including the use of recycled fabrics, investment in traceable and transparent supply chains, and the development of circular economy models in which garments are reused and repurposed. London Fashion Week has become a stage on which such ideas are shared around the world. On that point, I wish to give a shout-out—which I do not always do—to my local council, which works with an organisation called Traid to recycle textiles in the London borough of Bexley. I would like to see other boroughs roll out that important initiative for recycling fashion, alongside the work of charity shops and others. By promoting sustainable practices, London Fashion Week not only addresses environmental concerns but shapes the cultural conversation about fashion. It shows that creativity and responsibility can go hand in hand. As that makes clear, fashion does not exist in isolation. It intersects with many other areas of the creative economy. Film, television and music all rely on fashion for costumes, styling and identity. Sports stars and musicians frequently collaborate with fashion designers, and their influence shapes trends in turn. As much as I would like footballers to be more focused on football, a lot of them are budding fashionistas on their social media profiles. London Fashion Week strengthens such connections, contributing to a wider ecosystem of cultural activity. London Fashion Week has been held for almost 40 years, and its longevity is a sign of its importance. Over time, it has adapted to new technologies, consumer habits and cultural movements, yet it has retained its identity as a showcase for British creativity. The balance of continuity and change is a great part of its success. London Fashion Week makes a significant contribution to the United Kingdom. Economically, it generates income, supports jobs and boosts tourism. Culturally, it showcases creativity, reflects our traditions and helps define our new identities. Internationally, it strengthens Britain’s reputation and influence. It supports education, encourages new talent, promotes sustainability and even sustains regional industries. It is not simply a series of shows; it is a major cultural event that brings together tradition, innovation, creativity, commerce, national identity and international reach. In conclusion, I again thank the hon. Member for Kettering for securing this important debate, and thank hon. Members for their contributions.
- Hansard source
Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 April, with the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, I tabled a question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office about updating guidance for Ministers on declaring hospitality and meetings with social media platforms. As this is the last sitting day before the six-month anniversary of tabling that question, may I ask you whether there has been any indication from the Government that they intend either to answer that question on the Floor of this House or to write to me in the near future?
- Hansard source
Court Backlogs
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is mentioned on the face of the Order Paper, who was killed in 1940. The Justice Secretary keeps referring to the previous Government, and I sort of get that, but I remind him that the new Government have been in post for some 14 or 15 months—over a year—and at some point, that particular argument is going to wear very thin. Is he aware of the extraordinary length of time that victims of serious sexual assault and crimes must wait in the Shropshire courts, particularly Shrewsbury Crown court? It is double the 363 days that we have just heard from the Lib Dem Benches. What will the Justice Secretary do to help those victims, as well as the defendants who may, on occasion, be innocent?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament are subject to extremely deep vetting. There is also a double check, which is that Parliament has to give its agreement to the appointments to the Committee, once nominated by the Prime Minister. Does the Mandelson case not strengthen the argument for pre-confirmation hearings by the relevant parliamentary Committees of this House in order that candidates can be cross-questioned? At the moment, the Cabinet Office advises on only about 1,000 regulated public appointments for this House, ahead of appointment. None of them is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office appointment. Is it not now time to make that change, whether they are political appointments or senior civil servants?
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. I made my own comments earlier about pre-confirmation hearings. Adding on to that, does the right hon. Lady agree that when senior civil servants—whether from the Foreign Office or elsewhere—are asked to come to Select Committees on important matters and they find some excuse not to attend, the Select Committee should at least have the power of summons in order that somebody gives an account? In addition to that, if security or classification is used either truthfully or—shall we say—exaggeratingly as an excuse not to give evidence to a Committee, does the right hon. Lady agree that when Select Committees have Privy Counsellors, as in her case, a briefing could at least be heard on Privy Council terms?
- Hansard source
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Members across the House will know that I have the distinct honour of being the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, which is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames. There are 4,500 small businesses in my constituency. They are its lifeblood. There are also huge employers: BP’s global headquarters is in Spelthorne, as is the world’s second biggest film studios, at Shepperton. I visit as many small businesses as I can, and it is always fascinating to get their insight. Indeed, I am very much looking forward to next Wednesday, when the Spelthorne Business Forum riverboat trip will see a number of small and medium-sized enterprises come together to go two hours along our beautiful stretch of the River Thames, networking and comparing stories and views. I have to be frank and say that our consideration of the Employment Rights Bill comes in the context of these businesses already smarting, struggling and, in some cases, closing as a result of this Government’s Budget—in particular, the triple whammy of the rise in employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage and business rates. I should explain that I have a fair experience of life in business. After my 25 years in the Army, I spent 10 years in venture capital and private equity, running, investing in and, we hope, improving small businesses, and growing them into mid-sized businesses and publicly listed bodies. They were mostly in the financial sector, and all had a tech underpinning. Latterly, I spent four years attempting to get Britain’s first ever defined-benefit pension consolidator, the Pension SuperFund, past the Pensions Regulator—an experience from which I still bear the scars. Yesterday, the House had the opportunity to discuss the measures in the Employment Rights Bill in some detail and to vote on a number of proposed improvements thereto, but I want to concentrate today on the cost of the Bill for businesses. In my view, the cost has been significantly underestimated, and I fear it will come as a shock when the Government see the extent to which it acts as a further sea anchor on growth and employment. Sadly, we have already seen unemployment rise by, I think, 300,000 since this Government took office. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that the measures in the Bill could cost businesses up to £5 billion annually. According to the Institute of Economic Affairs, “the £5bn figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate. It almost entirely relates to increased administrative burdens, failing to calculate the significant impacts on business costs and hiring from making it more expensive to employ people. There is no attempt, for example, to calculate how many fewer people will be hired due to limiting zero hour contracts and day-one rights to unfair dismissal protection” or “the costs of more strike action as a result of repealing the measures that made it harder to strike in the Trade Union Act 2016.” I have been in businesses where people are making very hard decisions. They want to generate growth, they know there is considerable work to be done, and they want to take the next step and make the next investment, but that is a very big decision point, as we will see as I develop this theme. I have seen with my own eyes, talking to Spelthorne businesses, that even today people are curtailing their growth and investment plans. My huge fear is that the new measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which will eventually become an Act, will further dent business confidence, meaning that these businesses will not grow and natural leavers will not be replaced. Economic studies and business surveys suggest that that will largely be passed on to consumers through higher prices, workers earning lower wages or job losses. I am sure that the Government Members never wanted that to be the outcome of this legislation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that around 80% of the extra costs are passed on in the form of lower wages than would otherwise have been paid. According to the Government’s impact assessment: “Costs will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses due to the fixed costs of admin and compliance burdens”. There is, of course, an irreducible minimum: if a business needs a menopause management plan and it has only three employees, someone still has to write and manage that plan. The legislation does not seem to derogate, whereby certain sizes of business can just take a knee and have a bye. The Regulatory Policy Committee, which assesses the quality of Government impact assessments, says that the Government’s impact assessment for the Employment Rights Bill was “not fit for purpose” and that the Bill could lead to lower wages and fewer jobs. It assessed eight of the 23 individual impact assessments as not fit for purpose, and six were at the highest impact measure category of the original assessment. The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the Government need to provide more evidence to support an “imbalance of power between employers and workers in certain sectors of the economy” as its rationale for introducing the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will have seen that the Bill is, to a certain extent, riven with trade union speak—they will have seen trade union interests being played out in the legislation. Of course, hon. Members in certain parts of the House benefit hugely from being the recipients of donations, as does the Labour party as a whole.
- Hansard source
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. When these measures kick in, we could see the law of unintended consequences playing out, with a series of compound impacts. The RPC said that the fundamental basis for the creation of the Bill in the first place had not been made, and that there had been insufficient “considerations of alternative options” and an “inadequate assessment” of how the Bill would impact small businesses. Some of the individual impact assessments had “missing business impacts, lack of proportionate monetisation and insufficient assessment of key risks.” The areas in the impact assessment with the weakest scrutiny included day one unfair dismissal rights, reforms of trade union legislation, flexible working and third party harassment. Looking at the overall cost of the reforms, the Regulatory Policy Committee said: “The direct impact on business estimate does not account for the likelihood employers may offset the costs of regulation and mandated benefits through wage adjustments, benefit reductions or other compensatory mechanisms which would eventually be borne by the employee.” Let us see what other people think of the impact assessment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development published a report in April 2025 entitled “The (Unintended) Consequences of the Employment Rights Bill”. Its survey of 2,000 employers showed that about eight in 10 believed that the measures in the Employment Rights Bill will increase their employment costs. About half of the employers surveyed believed that, overall, the ERB measures will negatively affect employment at their organisation. When we look at how employers plan to respond to the seven measures, one by one, we can see that between 5% and 20% of employers indicate that each of the measures will lead them to reduce staff through redundancies and/or recruiting fewer workers to their organisations. So much for the No. 1 mission of growth. Out of the measures proposed, the planned changes to the rules on unfair dismissal are expected to have the largest negative impact on employers’ recruitment and redundancy intentions. The conclusions from the report were that eight out of 10 employers believed that certain measures in the Bill, such as changes to unfair dismissal rules and the introduction of the new statutory probation period, will have the effect of increasing their workforce costs. Of those organisations, four in 10 expected to have to raise prices as a result, and a quarter said that they will cancel or scale down plans to invest or expand their business. Of the organisations that said that employment costs will rise, almost a third anticipated cutting headcount due to reduced hiring or redundancies, and a further fifth reported that they will reduce overtime and/or bonuses, and cut spending on staff training. Of the organisations that expected the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, nearly a fifth reported that they are more likely to rely on temporary workers, while 10% reported that they will increase their use of what they call “a typical workers and self-employed contractors”. The legislation is not improving the lot of employees; it is reducing the number of employees, as employers find alternative solutions. That potential shift to more temporary forms of employment is much higher in certain sectors. In addition, some employers anticipate recruiting fewer workers who may need more support, such as young workers or those with health conditions. A fifth of employers reported that the removal of the unfair dismissal qualifying period and the introduction of the new statutory probation period will make them less likely to recruit from those groups. I want to make one last point. It is obviously a big thing to take on new employees and assimilate them into teams. Culture eats strategy for breakfast in business, and those crucial hires are some of the biggest decisions that any employer will make. I have taken part in hundreds of interview boards, and often, there is what is identified as the “risk candidate”. They are the different person, who thinks differently from the employer. They are the person the employer does not fully understand. More often than not, they are the person the employer should employ. My great fear is that, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, fewer diverse candidates will be employed, because people “won’t want to take the risk”. I believe that, ironically, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, far fewer women are going to be employed.
- Hansard source
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
Was the hon. Member affected by the tube strikes the other day?
- Hansard source
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
A few months ago, The Times invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address its CEO summit. Just before the Chancellor was called up to the stage, the host reminded the audience that the Chancellor had promised that this would be the most pro-business Government ever. The host then invited the chief executive officers—I think there were 200 of them—to say how many of them, having seen the Labour Government at work, think that it is pro-business. Not a single hand went up. Is the hon. Member aware of that?
- Hansard source
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
I think I am right in saying that the impact assessment’s estimate of a cost of £5 billion was at the higher end, but I read out quite an extensive set of quotations from the RPC saying that it was an inadequate impact assessment and that it completely under-gunned the financial impact of the measures. Does she just think that the RPC is wrong?
- Hansard source
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I fear that it has been a bit of a conversation of the deaf, but we will see whether the number of women employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether the number of disabled people employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether these new regulations contribute to growth in the economy, or to further shrinkage and further increases in unemployment. I fear for the British economy; I think we are heading in a really bad direction, and this Employment Rights Bill is going to turbocharge our getting there. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.
- Hansard source
Ambassador to the United States
I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this emergency debate. The focus of the debate thus far has been primarily on three areas: the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s appalling crimes, the conduct of Lord Mandelson prior to his being appointed and the judgment of the Prime Minister in both appointing and firing Lord Mandelson as the British ambassador to Washington. Quite rightly, in this debate the House has focused on those three areas, but I will add a fourth area that I find as chilling as the other three. Since December last year, our ambassador in Washington has been potentially subject to leverage and blackmail, because someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on Lord Mandelson throughout his whole time in office. I am amazed that the Foreign Office has not gone into full lockdown and damage limitation mode, having found out that potentially Lord Mandelson could have been blackmailed this entire time. If it had turned out that he had been an agent of a foreign state, the Foreign Office would have done that. All it knows now is that someone—we do not know who—had politically fatal kompromat on him that whole time. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about some of the behaviours of Lord Mandelson in office, and that is the bit I am concerned about. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that Sir Ben Wallace gave an interview to Times Radio recently in which he said that Lord Mandelson had been lobbying No. 10 Downing Street on behalf of a single defence manufacturer for Britain to buy an unmanned military set of equipment—a major buy—without a competition, bypassing UK small and medium-sized enterprises and expertise. I will not put two and two together, but it seems extraordinary that someone who was meant to be promoting British interests overseas was instead promoting US defence capability to No. 10. We buy a lot of good kit from America, of course, but the absence of a competition skews the pitch and is odd behaviour. I hope that when the Minister gets an opportunity to speak, he will talk about what measures No. 10 and the Foreign Office are taking to examine every single thing that Lord Mandelson did when he was our ambassador, in order to establish the extent to which the politically fatal kompromat had skewed his judgment and driven his behaviour.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
Q I want talk about district councils. Lots of councils have gone through unitarisation, and when they come out the other side, lots of them set up area planning committees and delivery teams based on the old district boundaries. What is your view on the savings that might come through that process? I think there are hardly any. On the democratic deficit, we are talking about getting rid of elected authorities. The response from you, Zoë, was, “Well, we can do some more consultation. We can have online meetings and votes at 16,” but how can any of that replicate a free and fair democratic election to a local council? Professor Denham: I made my position clear: I think you might have needed to reorganise in future; I did not think it was the priority. But we are where we are. Personally, I am sceptical about savings materialising at the scale that has been said, because costs are always higher. If you followed what I suggested about having some flexibility in the size of the new unitaries, that undermines what was in the original proposal, but I think it is necessary for democratic reasons. I would say, though, that we have never really taken a strategic approach to what happens below unitary and strategic authorities, even in areas that have only unitaries and strategic authorities. Everything I said about community empowerment plans, I would apply to met boroughs and to Greater Manchester and all the rest of it. It probably sounds particularly relevant because we have this process of local government reorganisation, but it should apply equally strongly to the duties that exist on current unitary authorities and strategic authorities. It is a national policy, rather than purely a local one. Zoë Billingham: I would only add that, as John said, I am not sure there were many external voices calling for the abolition of district councils. It was seen as a quid pro quo, as I understand it, for the mayoral tier. As I stated previously, I am sceptical about the backroom savings that are considered to come with reducing headcount, office space and so on, but I will leave others to speak to that. As John said, unitarisation is not new, so there are examples of places that have tackled it well. We should look to those before thinking it is a foregone conclusion that it is not the right thing to do. On democratic innovations, although the Bill challenges the current model, I think we should use this moment to consider what they are. Looking at voting levels at the last election, we just about got 50% of the country voting for MPs. At some of the local and regional elections, we mostly have less than the majority of the population coming out to vote. We can improve on the current system, and I hope this is a real opportunity to do that. That is why thinking about how people engage with democracy, why they come out to vote, and who comes out to vote is really important at this stage—especially with such a difficult political atmosphere in this country.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
Q Minister, we have heard a lot of evidence today about how metro mayors work in urban areas—we have heard some successful examples. However, we have hardly heard any evidence at all about metro mayors in the shires or in rural communities. How do you see the positives of metro mayors working in rural communities? Miatta Fahnbulleh: There are two things that I would say. Even in our urban areas, or what are defined as urban areas—for example, North of Tyne—there are big rural constituencies within them. Actually, many of our metro mayors straddle urban areas—in some instances, there are core cities—and rural areas. The benefits are the same for both. If your starting position is, “How do we drive economic growth?”—that is one of the big issues—the evidence of the last decade and a half, as well as that from other countries, is that such a strategic level creates a massive opportunity to unlock growth. That is as true for our urban areas as it is for our rural areas. However, I would also say that, yes, there is a model that we are trying to drive forward, but it has to be specific to particular places. There will be different constellations, if you like, of strategic authorities. That is okay, because what matters is that we create governance structures that can fundamentally drive outcomes that are tailored and specific to those areas.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
Q How does that work in places such as Hertfordshire? In Hertfordshire we have about 15 towns, all of similar size, and hardly anyone moves between the towns. It is not like Manchester, where all the services are based in one centre and people cohabit around that. The shires are very different to the areas that you have just described. Miatta Fahnbulleh: Ultimately, the approach that we are taking is to say to places, “What makes sense?”, and there is a journey for places to go on. Some places will choose to be foundational authorities, because that makes sense for them. Actually, we are being overwhelmed. It is not just urban areas that are coming forward to us with an appetite to move to—
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
Q You have forced areas to come forward. Miatta Fahnbulleh: Well, no. We said, “This is the suite—
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
You have. Miatta Fahnbulleh: We said, “This is the suite of powers that you can get.” Places have seen the opportunity and are looking to other areas that have gone through this journey. Look at Greater Manchester, with some of the highest productivity growth that we have had. I was there at the start, when we began this journey. People are seeing that there is something here that is working and there is an appetite for that. The Government have done their bit by saying, “Look, we understand you need the powers; this is the suite of powers. We’re not going to ask you to do lots of deals and jump through hoops,” and places are lining up. I think that every place needs to figure out what makes sense for it. However, the evidence so far is that places see that there is a strategic opportunity, because they care about growth and outcomes for their communities.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)
I am a former councillor and I know lots of the witnesses from my previous role leader of Broxbourne council.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)
Q I want to continue down the planning route. You mentioned utility companies earlier; I completely agree that we need to get them around the table. What about the NHS and health services? How well are they are getting around the table at the moment, and what do you think the Bill will do to strengthen that? Lots of people are not necessarily anti-development, but they are anti-development when it does not come with any services that the community needs. Catriona Riddell: I am a very strong supporter of the Bill’s “health in all policies” approach. Mayors and strategic authorities will have to demonstrate how they will improve health inequalities and others through everything they do. Many will know that the planning system is embedded in health; that is how it came about. We have been trying very hard to make sure that local plans and the new spatial development strategies address health. That is not just about infrastructure, but about healthy places generally. As you know, it is a real challenge at the local level to plan for health infrastructure up front. Most of that will still be done at the local plan level, not the SDS level, but the SDS level will have to look at strategic infrastructure around health. If any major new health infrastructure is needed, that will have to be embedded into the SDS. As with all the work of strategic authorities, it is not just about a planning responsibility; the strategic authority will be working with the health authorities, and they will need to have a role in how the SDSs deal with health. The Liverpool city region is a great example of working with health authorities and others to embed health into the spatial development strategy that it is preparing at the moment, so it can be done. It is much more difficult to find the answer for local infrastructure such as doctors’ surgeries and GPs. I know there are examples where land has been left aside for doctors’ surgeries, but GPs and others have not moved forward to make it happen. I guess there are more challenges in health infrastructure outside the planning system, but getting them at the table up front, in terms of in spatial development strategies and the flow-through to local plans, is absolutely the right thing.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting)
Q You mentioned earlier that you want to see some powers removed from councils and placed at a strategic level. I am completely against taking powers away from local councils, particularly in planning. Which powers do you think need to be removed from local councils and placed at the strategic mayoral level? Catriona Riddell: I was not talking about powers; I was talking about resources. I was talking about creating shared teams at the strategic level to support the local authorities individually. It is about sharing skills and having teams at the strategic level with the specialist skills that individual local planning authorities cannot access easily; it is not about taking powers away from local authorities.